Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Welcome to the 06/11/2025 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We will start with a roll call. Commissioner Aparna? Present. Commissioner Coleman? Commissioner Copely?

Present.

Commissioner Gagne?

Present.

Commissioner Van Nyman?

Present.

And I am chair Weston. Vice chair Woodyer is excused tonight. I'd like to thank the following staff for being present, Jeff Churchill, Lauren Alpert, Glenn Coyle, Francesca Liberty, Michael Hintz, Nick Roach, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Great. And then I look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from 05/28/2025.

So moved. Second.

Any changes or all in favor? All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Great.

Thank you. Alright. So at this point, it's time to hear public comment and items from the audience. This is for items that aren't addressed at our public hearing at the zoning code amendments later tonight. I'd like to remind everyone that RCW forty two seventeen a five five five prohibits any public comment in support of our opposition to ballot measures, propositions, or candidates, and we'll keep our comments to three minutes or less.

Our first speaker is Rachel M. If you just remind her to say your full name and address.

Can I ask a quick process question before the break Is the verbal public comment open for the comprehensive plan amendments? I know it was closed, but then I talked to Glenn before the meeting. He said maybe it would be open or not.

Okay. Got it. We are we have been receiving written comment Yep. At quite a clip today. Yes. But verbal is closed.

Got it. Understood. Okay. Mine will just be general comments then.

Great. You have three minutes. Thank And if you

could start

with your name and address.

Sure. I'm Rachel Mazer. Hillis Clark, Martin, and Peterson, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600, Seattle, Washington. I am land use counsel for Columbia Pacific Advisors, speaking generally, not a comment related to the upcoming docket request, but just wanted to reiterate that we submitted comments on Friday. We are happy to answer any questions that you might have that come up and that I'll be in the audience. Thank you.

Alright. Anyone else?

Our next speaker is David M.

Good evening, planning commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'd like to comment on the Redmond Flex Urban Development Project located in Southeast Redmond. This project, with its proposed manufacturing and wholesale trade space alongside a small retail component, represents a truly significant development for the Southeast Redmond community.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. This sounds like a public hearing comment for a verbal portion that we just discussed as being closed.

I'm talking about the Redmond Flex urban development project, not about whether or not the application should be included in the

No. I think that's too close to the line. It's we're, public comment. We are going to discuss when we get to that item on the docket. There has been requests to open the public hearing because there was not time for the community to speak, but I don't think this time is appropriate for it.

Okay. So

We did receive your written comment.

Mhmm.

Today, and that has been read by commissioners, and we took it quite seriously. Mhmm. As we take all written comment, but this is not the time for further verbal comment on the public hearing that's already closed.

Well, I guess my although I still have some time, I will relinquish my time.

I do appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else?

The next the next person on the list is Ben V.

And I would actually like to clarify also that this is not about the public hearing from last week that has already been closed.

I was just gonna say I'm with the Avenue 55 to Columbia Pacific and

Alright. I think that, I should be more clear. The verbal portion of last week's public hearing is closed. We have received a raft of written comment on this issue today, but we are not talking about the verbal portion of the public hearing from last week because that is closed.

Available.

You. Anyone else? Nope. Alright. In that case, we will move on to a different public hearing. This is the public hearing on the 2025 annual cleanup package for the Redmond zoning code. I'd like to introduce Jeff Churchill.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Good to be with you. The PowerPoint slides are coming up. This is the public hearing for the twenty twenty five annual code cleanup. The purpose of the agenda item tonight is to hold the hearing, follow with a study session, and it may be the case that you are ready to make a recommendation. I'm just gonna recap this for people who may wish to testify and for commissioners, but I'm not gonna go through all of the amendments individually again as we did to the previous meeting. There are three kinds of code amendments that we deal with. There there's you can kind of bracket them three ways. These are minor amendments. These are typos.

They're wrong references. There may have been ambiguities that were addressed in the interim with an administrative interpretation. So those are the kinds of things that are in this package. We we talked about all all three of them that are before the planning commission last week. There are also three items that were part of an a Redmond zoning code appendix.

The technical committee has the authority to change those. I've listed those again just for transparency so that people know what those are. But it's only the three at the top of the list that are before the commission at this time. The next steps are if there's not a recommendation tonight, it's pretty likely that there'd be a recommendation two weeks from tonight on the twenty fifth with a report approval. And then this is actually I was looking back at the schedule. It is scheduled to come before council for a first review in a committee meeting on August 4. So that's the the date is planned to come to council. And that closes the kind of recap, and I'll turn it back to the chair.

Alright. So with that, I will open the public hearing. Do we have anyone to speak?

No.

Alright, well with that I will close the verbal and written portions of the public hearing. Alright, so we're gonna go to our study session. We had a very small issues matrix for this from last week.

Yes. I'm gonna pull that up here in just a minute. Okay. The issue on the issues matrix dealt with the terms FEMA and floodplain and floodway. And so an explanation is provided in response about, you know, what is the flood plain and what is the floodway and how are they different.

And actually in in looking at the comment and asking the public works department and the experts there about getting getting a refresh of my own memory about all of this. They actually suggested some further refinements to that language that's in the appendix that we'll take back to the technical committee to be more clear about what the what the requirements are. And in summary, the requirements are that site plans in a in a flood area need to show where the flood plain is and where the floodway is. And there is a FEMA 100 flood plain. There is a FEMA there's a FEMA floodway.

There's also a zero rise floodway and those are two different things. And they all of those things need to be shown on the plans that get submitted in areas that prone to flooding, which is the purpose of that requirement.

So I hope that that I

hope that this response clarifies that and it was a good question to raise because it's gonna result in some additional clarification to the appendix.

Great. So going forward, because this was not actually this was for our information, not for our review. Do we have any I'm happy to close this. It was a great, thorough explanation, but is there any additional work that we would need to do here? No. For review? Nope. Nope. Okay, thank you so much. Do any commissioners have additional input or questions for the matrix? No. Okay, well in that case, I would look for a motion to recommend approval to City Council of the 2025 annual cleanup package for the Redmond zoning code.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Alright, that passes, thank you.

Thank you.

Our next up is going to be the study session on the Transportation Master Plan. I'd like to ask up Francesca Liberty and Michael Hintz.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Glad to be here. Michael Hintz, transportation planning manager at the City of Redmond. I'm joined by

Getting set up. Hi. I'm Francesca Liberti, senior transportation planner here at the City of Redmond.

So today, we're here to give you an update on the transportation master plan work and our anticipated adoption schedule. And then also review what components of the Transportation Master Plan fall under the Planning Commission's purview. And go over a schedule for subsequent meetings with the Planning Commission to review those GMA required components. We'll also review four key chapters that contain the GMA required that do contain GMA required components and those are the streets plan chapter transit chapter bicycle and pedestrian chapters This is a updated schedule. We are on track for TMP adoption by 2026.

This is a slightly different timeline than we presented to you last fall. We've decided to push it push the time frame out a little bit just to review or allow more time for detailed content review. So originally we were targeting 2025 and just pushed it out slightly into Q1. And this schedule shows our anticipated planning commission review timeline. So we are in actually, I should say June tonight with you to review the bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and street plan chapters, as well as give you a little overview and review of community engagement that's been done to date.

And then in September, we'll come to you with the transportation demand management chapter, as well as transportation,

some of

the appendices that were included in the comprehensive plan. And, and then in November 2025, we will be reviewing the transportation facilities plan. And hopefully at that point, we will have addressed your comments, concerns, questions, and, anticipate bringing this to a public hearing on, December 3. And then ultimately, we're hoping for counsel adoption in 2026. This is a big table.

Lots of words. Hard to read, But you've got this in your materials. And it really summarizes the GMA requirements pertaining to transportation and where those are going to ultimately live. Currently, are all addressed in the comprehensive plan and the transportation and the in the transportation element and its appendices. The transportation master plan will become the document where these transportation related GMA requirements are addressed.

With the proposed docket amendment, the appendix material and the transportation element will be moved to the transportation master plan to allow for ease of future updates and consistency. Today, as I said, we'll review the streets, transit, bicycle, pedestrian chapters which meet several of the requirements shown in this table. And this slide shows the structure of the Transportation Master Plan. Each of these will be chapters. And the yellow highlighted components are the chapters that contain GMA required areas in need of Planning Commission review and approval.

So again, we're addressing or presenting you four of those this evening. And then we'll be back in September with the Transportation Demand Management. And also just kind of a recap of the appendix materials. And yeah, so we'll jump right to the Streets Plan chapter. This is really a chapter that organizes a lot of the network principles in the Transportation Master Plan.

And its goals are, obviously, to support mobility and access needs of all modes, And apply an integrated complete streets approach. This takes the shape of modal corridors that prioritize connectivity for one or more modes. And again, this kinda takes a layered complete streets network. Not every street is gonna do everything for all modes. Our analysis for the the plan focused on identifying what investments are needed to accommodate the priority modes in each corridor.

And the chapter includes a list of these modal corridors and the improvements that are needed to achieve this layered Complete Streets network. Chapter reinforces the concepts developed in the Safer Streets action plan, including using the safe systems approach, setting appropriate speeds for the roadway environment, and evaluating roundabouts. And these concepts and goals contribute to identifying transportation improvements needed to achieve the model corridors outlined in the plan. This map shows the modal corridors. So there's shows the the bike network, the transit network, freight network.

So in addition, the streets plan includes an inventory of Redmond's transportation assets and the city's functional classification of roadways, which are specific GMA requirements. So the chapter is really focused on optimizing the city's public right of way spaces to achieve this layered modal network. And what really shows how the city needs to be strategic and how it prioritizes and accommodates multiple modes along these key overlapping corridors. And I guess we'll just pause there. And any questions that you have on the streets plan chapter before we move into the transit chapter?

Commissioner Varna.

Thank you. I I think we are headed in the right direction. It's looking great. I just had a question about the, strategy two, which is on the safety related aspects of it. Two things come to mind.

One is I really like, for instance, if you take one fifty six and the delineation of the walkway, the pedestrian walkway, the bicycles, and micro mobility as you call it, and then the roads. But one thing would be nice is from a both a safety perspective and a psychological perspective in terms of encouraging those uses. We have the bike lane very looking very like a road. I don't know if it's something that can be done, but it's it's like a mini road. So we are saying that let's treat it like a mini road.

And one would like to think that that is not always the case and that it is an alternative pathway as opposed to a roadway. I don't know. So either the paint strips are different or the asphalt colors are different. I don't know. It's maybe it's cosmetic, but it is a way of indicating speeds visually also, because people are zipping all over, and, that comes to my second point.

I don't know if this is part of the transportation master plan purview, but, speed limits on that one for the micro mobility, helmets, and how crosswalks and things and red lights apply when the intersections happen. I noticed a lot of, scooters and stuff. They seem to think those lights don't apply to them. So they're jaywalking at very high speeds. So that's something that those intersections, I think, need a little bit of thought.

Or I don't know. Maybe it's just education, but it's something that we need to kind of deal with because I'm seeing a lot of it. And I'm like, I'm watching especially on one fifty six, they they are j like, it's literally jaywalking and it's fast, really fast. So those are my points on the safety things. I don't know if they're issue matrix.

Like, it's questions like what can we do about them? And also, can we delineate better with some kind of safety built in for the bicycle because everything's powered now. And so you've got the e bikes, the e scooters, and those weird one wheel things which are really cool, but they're really fast. They they cross 50. I've seen them on one fifty six. Like, I've seen them cross the 40 mile per hour cars. So yeah.

Those are great comments, great observations. You know, one fifty six is kind of the first of its kind in Redmond. So no doubt that there's some design refinements that could be made on that type of facility. As it pertains to the TMP, there is one aspect we've gotten a comment from the public on this. And that pertains to maybe something you were alluding to is the signals and the signal progression for the users of that facility, which could be contributing to noncompliance. So that is an action that we have in the bike chapter to look at signal timing for those two way bicycle facilities.

So just for commission hold on a second. So what I'd like to do is make sure that we are capturing things in the issues matrix. If you could also capture the commissioner who says it, that gives us a chance to actually close the comments when we come around again. And for commissioners if you can hold it to one topic at a time and then we'll go round robin the way we normally do. And it gives everything a chance to breathe. Commissioner Coleman.

I wasn't sure if we were putting things on the issues matrix right now. Have thoughts here, but I want to kind of wait until we've gone through the full

We'll have time to capture that.

Okay, I'm going hold my comments then.

Okay, great. Anyone else? Alright, we will carry on.

Alright, I'll be talking about our transit chapter. So our, the transit chapter identifies Redmond's future vision for the city's transit network and establishes a foundation for future advocacy opportunities with King County Metro and Sound Transit. It's a bit unique in that way and that we can set our future vision and then be able to advocate with the transit agencies that actually own those transit facilities. Speed and reliability improvements, as well as flexible transit strategies, establish transit connections throughout Redmond that will provide connectivity locally and regionally. I'll talk a little bit about flexible transit next.

Redmond's existing van pool and community van programs currently provide flexible transit options as well as an upcoming Metro Flex area in the Overlake or and Crossroads neighborhoods. That's been indicated by Metro to us that that would be operational approximately when the light rail crosses across across I 90. And then Redmond has applied for a regional mobility grant program, and that application, if awarded, provides a flexible transit pilot program opportunity. If successful, the city can point to the ridership data when advocating to Metro for expanded Metro Flex areas and use that pilot program as a data point of success. The regional mobility grant provides flexible transit in the Education Hill neighborhood, an area that we'd like to continue to advocate for with Metro for flexible transit.

And as I mentioned, Metro looks favorably on pilot programs such as the regional mobility grant and can then implement Metroflex in areas where successful pilots exist. In addition, King County Metro will begin updating their strategic plan called MetroConnex in 2026, and we'll continue to track this effort and advocate for the city's transit policies that we've outlined in this chapter. This chapter again provides an opportunity for us to really advocate for our goals with transit agencies. So the transit chapter also identifies two different types of mobility hubs, is a new concept that we're including in our transportation master plan, both neighborhood and regional mobility hubs. Neighborhood hubs, which would be located outside of our urban centers, provide a variety of mobility options to connect to destinations within that neighborhood and connect to Redmond's urban centers.

On the flip side, regional hubs, which would be located within the urban centers at our existing light rail stations, provide connections within Redmond and beyond into neighboring cities and regions, and they also provide the opportunity to be really proactive with economic development and bring retail or other services to our transit stations. So mobility hubs can include bike storage, micro mobility parking, car share, electric vehicle charging, as I mentioned, facilities, as well as way finding signage and different opportunities for place making. And they really bring all of these elements together into one central location. Then implementing mobility hubs in Redmond would require first formalizing site locations, could include confirming design elements if those are needed and establishing partnerships with other agencies or businesses that would be involved we'd also need to then identify and secure funding determine roles for operations and maintenance of these facilities, and then once they're implemented we would want to monitor their success and see how they're really being used and if they're achieving the goals that we have set out for. I guess we'll maybe pause here for any transit related comments or questions.

Commissioners.

I'd actually like to jump in on here. One thing that seemed like it was missing to me in this particular section was a discussion of school buses. So Lake Washington School District is a transit partner in this area. So when you look at Redmond, about 15% of the population is school aged between five and 18 according to our most recent census. And that's just for like sheer numbers, that's about 12,300 Redmond resident children getting to and from school each school day.

There's also more than that because many kids in Lake Washington are in either Kirkland or Sammamish attending Redmond schools. So that is thousands of people worth of traffic. And the school district, and I know the city like don't always partner very tightly on this, but it's a huge part of the transit puzzle. Like we're talking just an enormous percentage of the Redmond population is involved in getting children to and from school. It drives a ton of traffic, it drives a ton of complaints, it drives safety concerns.

So I really Even if the first step is just getting this into the report, I would really like to see like Washington School District's statistics information and roots and percentage of the population served the same way that we quantify what's happening with sound transit and others. I would also say that there's a potential here to do major employers. As someone who used to work at Microsoft and was aware of the connector program as an example in this area of something where huge number of single person, single vehicle occupancy trips are reduced by that, I really think that should be counted too. I don't know how many other employers have large scale programs like that, but maybe set a minimum bar if more than 5,000 people in a daily average are involved in a private or alternate public. It really should be in this report because it really helps create a picture of who's being served by some sort of transit option that's not a single driver vehicle, probably with no one else in it or like only minors in it.

And that's been feedback that we've gotten consistently as we're working on the transportation element in particular, and I just didn't see it surface in this plan. Commissioner Van Nyman.

Okay, so I'm gonna piggyback on that, and I think it kind of ties into one of the other chapters as well, but I'm just gonna use this opportunity. A couple different things. With regard to, like, say, bus options as and the partnership with the schools, I would love to see more written about how those two things tie together in in in your plan. The school district I I realize some of this is is their purview, but it impacts what happens in the city, and so we should be noting it. You know, they've moved to some more choice programs that are driving people to drive their kids to school instead of take they they don't have the option of taking the bus anymore.

There is no school bus available to them. And this has come up I've had a conversation with a former school board member about it where she said, oh, I'd love to see the school that I live right next to become a 100% choice for Spanish immersion. Like, well that's great, I live there. What are you gonna do about all the kids who, you know, the roads around there, right? Like, when you have a 100% choice school, there's no buses anymore unless they happen to be in that local school area. So that's one thing that's kind of related. And again, this is a separate subject where it's going to be related to the bikes, but I'm just going to use my time. Or should I wait?

Let's just go around once and then we'll come right back to you. Does anyone else have additional comments on this section? I see commissioner Gagne online.

Yes. The question I had was, if you could speak more, we can put this in the the issues matrix about how these transit hubs will help improve mobility for some of our, like, underserved communities. I assume that was part of the conversation, and we'd just love to hear more about that.

Great. Thank you. Others? Oh good, Commissioner Coleman.

I just want to make a comment on the school bus, Metrobus question. So during the pandemic, I was I went to the Lake Washington School District to try and get them to change the start times for schools. And they eventually did it a year after my son left, but that's a different topic. The reason I bring it up is as part of that conversation, we were talking to them about the mix of Metro and school buses. Because at the end of the day, school start times are all about the busing schedule.

And they were talking about how in, I've forgotten which of the local schools, it was like Washington School, where they actually had an agreement with Metro bus system and they paid them a certain percentage, a certain fee to access so kids could use that bus to come to school as well as having their school bus network. So I just bring that up as part of this because it feels like there's an opportunity to create that mix of usage. I think that's what Tara, I don't know if that's what you're getting to in terms of some degree of choice for kids to reduce the traffic and ability for kids to use public transportation rather than just the bus system, school bus system.

Yeah. Think it's a different version of choice school versus choice of public transit options, but also a valid point. Commissioner Copely. Commissioner Pardon?

Regarding the mobility hubs in the land use, I was just curious, are we even considering so we want to have this neighborhood commercial spot, like a diner or store or something. If that is the local watering hole or a local place which is already zoned differently, is there something that we can tap into there? Because the idea of the fifteen minute neighborhood means that we are identifying these parcels already. Right? And I don't know if the vision would tie in and all the parcels would work, but it might be worth looking into to see if those are the potential areas where a small a sidebar, like a I don't know what it would be, but it could be for at least micro mobility, maybe a small parking, and then people walk from there to their homes.

Just something that we're trying anyway so we can try to piggyback on it. So thank you. Commissioner Van Emen? I'll hold my comment now

for Wonderful. Thank you. Anyone else? Alright. We'll keep going.

Alright. I'll let Michael take it away on bikes then.

Great. Thanks, Francesca. So we reviewed some of the initial thinking of the bike chapter with you back in 2024. So probably a lot of this may seem familiar to you. But since that time, we've definitely made some refinements to this chapter.

So the bike strategy in the Translation Master Plan is really based on these outcome goals. And that is trying to achieve a mode share of bicycles and micro mobility within our urban centers of 15% of all trips and 5% citywide by by 02/1935. This is contributing, a big contributor to the city's strategies to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips by 30, and VMT by 50% by 02/1950, which is laid out in the East, the Environmental Sustainability Action Plan. As well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, the transportation sector by 71%. So the bike strategy is a critical component of that.

And really is focused on trying to connect all destinations with low stress bicycle facilities that really encourage and attract people to use bicycles. These are the bicycle network principles that we are focused on. Connected, direct, cohesive, safe, comfortable, and multimodal. I think these are pretty straightforward. I'm not going to go into definitions of these.

But really, we need to implement a bike network that is fully connected and intuitive for the user and really connects to the places people want to go, including transit, really serving as a first last mile solution. The draft, the map on the screen shows the spine network, which is a key component of the bicycle strategy. The spine network is largely carrying forward the spine network from the 2013 transportation master plan with a few modifications. These are really the most direct routes that connect people to major destinations, both within Redmond and its neighboring jurisdictions. The spine network, we aspire it to be level of traffic stress one.

I think we reviewed level of traffic stress back in the fall. But just as a refresher, there's kind of four levels of traffic stress, one through four. One being the most comfortable and really appropriate for all ages and abilities. These are shared use paths. Most of these are level traffic stress one.

Separated bike lanes can be level traffic stress one, bicycle boulevards. LTS two is comfortable for most people. But you may not feel comfortable, for example, having your kids bike alone on that. But you might feel comfortable biking with your kids. And these are, yeah.

So our local network, our neighborhood network, is also shown on this map, the goal is to have that also be LTS one or two. LTS three and four, really, those are conventional bike lanes on higher speed arterials, 30 miles per hour or more, or shared lane markings. So you're expected to share the lane with traffic. So we have a few of those facilities in Redmond. And this plan is really looking to upgrade those over time to LTS one and two.

So these are the key policies and strategies laid out in the bike chapter, really focused on converting short trips. We conducted a short trip analysis, which is shown on the map on the screen. Over 50% of trips within Redmond are three miles or less. Those are vehicle trips, which is an easy bike ride for most people, particularly when considering e bikes. Given Redmond's relatively small size, most destinations within Redmond are less than three miles.

So there really is a lot of potential to convert these short trips to bike trips. Secondly, the first the first last mile connection, we really recognize that biking and walking are is how most people get to transit and really improving those connections to our our fixed routes and especially to our light rail stations. E bikes and e scooters are a very important part of the bike strategy given Redmond's topography. Strategies in the in the plan include a e bike rebate program, possibly a e bike lending library, and e bike charging and secure bike parking, where people would feel comfortable storing their expensive e bike. Implementing the spine network.

As I mentioned, this is really the core of network in Redmond. And, you know, to date, Redmond's taken a fairly opportunistic approach to building out the existing BiTE network. And it's taken some years to accomplish that and left some key network gaps. So really trying to link up that spine network. And I think a lot of progress is being made in recent years.

And we have a lot of great projects coming to really build out that network. Balancing modes. So this kind of goes back to the Street plan and that layered Complete Streets network. It's it's really gonna implementing the bike strategy is gonna require reallocation of space away from vehicles in many, but not all cases. And it's really an equity issue.

How much of the limited public right of way is allocated to each mode? I think that's a question that we're asking in all of our transportation planning. And how do we right size the transportation network to best meet the city's equity, safety, and climate goals? So that really is embedded in that, the street plan network and the bike strategy. And then lastly, secure parking.

Just a recognition that bike parking is a hugely important end of trip necessity that could really be the determining factor whether or not a person decides to to bike for more utilitarian purposes. And so, there needs to be more bike parking at the destinations people want to go. And, we need more secure bike parking. And by secure bike parking, I mean bike parking in which somebody puts their bike into a closed container of sorts. And it's access controlled. So those are some of the key strategies in the bike strategy chapter. And happy to take your questions.

I can see all the enthusiasm already. So Commissioner Van Nyman, we'll start with you. So

all of these are quite long, so I apologize if I overlooked it. But to me, one of the most important components of this chapter in particular is what I would consider to be like a marketing strategy, the outreach. And I've I've mentioned this multiple times in the past, but you you would have partners within that strategy, would be the schools, circling back to that, but also other corporations. Right? That you know, the big employers in town.

And how are we communicating to our people who live and work here that these improvements have been made? Because to me, when I saw this, it looked more like if you build it, they will come sort of model as opposed to we're gonna go out and hammer this and show people, like really bring people. Maybe some of whom just need some coercion or maybe that's not the right word. They just need to be shown the benefits. And and then and back to the schools, like I really think that's an important partnership because you keep talking about like what's the low hanging fruit, what are the shortest commutes that people have.

The shortest commutes are our kids on their, you know, getting to school for sure. Like we know that they live within a certain mile radius. Whereas I have to travel quite far to work, not quite far, but far enough that I wouldn't want to get on a bike. And so I would like to know for my own purposes, and I would like to see documented, like what is it that we're doing to work with the schools to increase bike biking to school and walking to school as opposed to having their parents drive them?

And if I can piggyback on that really quickly, that includes safe places for bike lockup. I know the middle school and high schoolers are completely fighting for spot, like getting there early to fight for e bike lockup spots is a thing. And that's at Lake Washington High School, I'm not sure about Redmond High School but I've heard similar. And I would just Yeah, there's really a piece here where the schools have moral authority over what's accepted for entering their campus and leaving their campus. And so really increasing the partnership there would be so beneficial.

Commissioner Aparna.

I'll piggyback on the partnership piece, but not with the schools, but with the employers. So we know that a lot of the big employers do offer showers and secure bicycle spots. But having like, basically, you're bringing them to the doorstep. So they're having a conversation with the employers that, hey, you know what? These buildings have showers, and these are the pathways that are coming into these buildings, like across the campus.

I don't know if every building has showers and bicycle lockers. But if it does, great, then we can just point to that. But if it doesn't, at least you would know the spots and you're you're drawing the straight line between an employee's home and the workplace. I know that a lot of these buildings are green building certified, and they get a lot of points for having accessible bicycle lockers and showers and all of the paraffinia attached to it. So that's something we should kind of partner with bigger employers.

Or anybody who's certified lead might actually have it, frankly.

Other comments? I'm gonna jump in with another one. I had a lot of trouble with the concept of the micro mobility bucket because it seems overly broad to me. So this is the first time I've seen that term used by City of Redmond, so I was really looking at it. And a lot of the examples of what's listed there make a lot of sense I think to people who were working on the transportation element.

So that would be like your bikes, your e bikes, your scooters, hover amazing things. I've seen roller blades in some of the older drawings. So there was that sense, some of the And there was a definition there that said they were often under 15 miles per hour. But I think that when we actually look what's on the road and being sold to residents in Redmond right now, e bikes do not get capped at 15 miles per hour. Any enclosed e bike like creature, like it has pedals, but it has two, three or four wheels, it may have cargo space, it may have passenger space.

That is in a really murky valley of like is this a bike that can go in the bike lane and on pedestrian paths and grass on and zipping through corners where pedestrians are walking, or is that a car that needs to follow street lights? A lot of these vehicles are being marketed to people, the benefit is you don't need a licence. No driver's licence required to drive these. And so people are giving them to young kids or to people who are not paying attention, that's just the marketing pitch from these companies. They cost under 20,000, it's a really good solution for some families in the city that have disposable income for things like that.

But it's a really murky and extremely dangerous situation because then you have a lot of different modes competing for a space that also includes pedestrians, non motorized bikers, and people who frankly aren't necessarily aware of road rules. So I just I I really think that there's so much promise here because it really solves the last mile problem, it really solves a lot of our concerns about sustainability, but it's not putting like, overcrowding that bucket isn't going to be safe. And I think we're the place that I'm seeing this the most vividly right now is Rosehill Middle School because I have a child there. I'm intimately aware of all the new things arriving over the course of the last two years that families are purchasing for their children to get themselves to school. And it's just it's a very unsafe situation when you have people going upwards of 20 miles per hour, often without helmets, often with no interest in what a traffic signal is or awareness of cars or that sort of thing.

So I just this really feels like there's so much potential here, and there is so much danger in terms of I don't want kids getting hurt and I don't want pedestrians getting hurt. So I just think that section in particular, that definition needs a real review with twenty twenty five options and some of the things that are coming down the road and onto the market. Commissioner Coleman.

I'll comment, but Commissioner had a hand up first.

Well sorry. Commissioner Gagne would you like to go?

No problem, thank you. I think I wanna piggyback a little bit on what commissioner Van Nyman said about, I think you were talking about some folks might need to be coerced. I think maybe they just need incentives. And I'm wondering I'm super curious about whether there's been a study to see the escooters, what the initial goals were for that program when it launched. Have those goals been met?

How were those metrics measured? Is it amount of time and traffic that was cut down, trips back and forth to school for kids, and how I just wanna I'm curious to know about those tangible measurements and if and how they're being will be communicated to the public as part of amping up for these new policy changes.

Commissioner Oparna. Oops. I'm terrible at this. Commissioner Coleman, then commissioner Oparna.

Thank you. So I want make a comment about scooters. Going back to the is it a scooter? Is it a bike? Is it a motorbike? Is it what is it? I do think we need clarity. The other thing I'd add, I wanna come back to this with EVs later, is the difference in performance. So if you've got a bicycle, it takes you a while to get up to speed. If you've got an assist bike, it takes you a little bit longer to get up to speed.

If you've got a bike that you basically just crank as if you're accelerating from a as a as a as a like a motorbike, it's actually faster. And I saw a kid just yesterday coming around the corner. I was turning left somewhere, very busy. Came around the corner leaning like he was evil Knievel. And I don't know what speed he was doing, looked like about 50 around the corner on what was an electric motorcycle. So I do think the safety aspect due to acceleration and all the things you just talked earlier is something that we really need to seriously look at and decide how we approach it before we start mixing up people in lanes saying they've got an electric foo.

Commissioner Mparna.

On a very separate note, I I actually wanted to kind of ask about when we are we considering any zones which could be, say, let's say, for periods of time be completely pedestrian or open to micro mobility, like in the centers, for instance, and what what the traffic management plan would say about that. Because we talked about having the international center and perhaps having, I don't know, a bazaar or something which closes off the streets. And so I'm just curious whether the TMP would address what happens in that scenario, because, yeah, we would need to know what the workarounds would be and how that works. So yeah. So but it's a fun celebration thing, not not about safety.

So yeah.

One other question that I had. Separated bike lane was mentioned in this specifically on the map, and I couldn't find a definition of what that means today in Redmond in 2025. There have been a lot of different definitions of that regionally, so just adding that definition would be helpful for people who aren't in the meetings. And then one other similar item, in the map on page 36, I noticed there were a lot of dangling segments, I don't know the right word for it, but it was short little pieces, like a short little bit of orange and grass on, but doesn't connect to anything. Or there was a high priority green line going down Old Redmond Road into downtown, but then it stops before it gets to the bridge that actually gets you the rest of the way in.

So I would request that that map was reviewed to make sure that if we're spending the money to prioritize the improvements, that it actually gets people all the way to the next part of their ride.

I'm sorry, are you referring to the prioritization map?

For the spine.

Oh like the network map?

Yep.

Yeah, there were a lot of trail segments that we've cleaned up since, so I appreciate you pointing that out. But yeah, we'll take a look, take another look of that. And

I know that's feedback that's come through PBAC also. I just want to make sure that that one's registered. Other comments on this section before we go to our next chapter? Alright. I'm hearing clamoring for the next chapter, we can keep going.

Alright. I will talk about our pedestrian chapter next. So the pedestrian chapter outlines our strategies for promoting connectivity and safe pedestrian access throughout Redmond. And I'll mention here at the top that it should be noted that for accessibility and inclusivity, this chapter acknowledges right at the front that any the term walking will refer to any people walking or rolling with a wheelchair, stroller, any type of mobility device, and the term pedestrian will refer to any individual rock walking or rolling. We want to be just very clear about that.

We're being inclusive to all mobility devices in Redmond. The chapter identifies some existing and planned locations for low stress pedestrian crossings. While Redmond's pedestrian network includes many pedestrian crossings, not all of these are considered low stress. And I'll note that all intersections on Redmond's arterials and local streets are considered legal pedestrian crossings, even if not marked, unless the pedestrian crossing is explicitly prohibited with signage. Now, low stress pedestrian crossings are marked and signed, and those provide pedestrians with added safety protection and comfort while crossing the roadway.

So on this slide we mentioned some of those can be at signalized intersections, roundabouts with RFB, those are rapid flashing beacons as in this photo, and hawk crossings as well. So we also include a map of what we're calling neighborhood connections in Redmond. These consist of pedestrian walkways that are outside of the arterial sidewalk network. These connections provide more direct pedestrian connectivity through primarily residential areas. You'll see on this map quite a few of them are in our Education Hill neighborhood, other areas outside of our urban centers.

With this chapter, the city is establishing strategies for continuing to maintain these connections with improved wayfinding, lighting, and other measures that provide added safety and comfort to these pathways. And this photo shows an example of one that's in Education Hill. This chapter also discusses sidewalk alternatives. So the city's sidewalk alternative strategy is proposing alternative methods to filling the gaps in Redmond's sidewalk network. These could include barrier separated walkways, shared streets, or other options that may connect those sidewalk gaps outside of the traditional sidewalk itself.

These may be easier, faster, or less expensive to install than the traditional sidewalk and still are able to fill that gap in the network. Additionally, Redmond has three pedestrian priority zones that are currently labeled. Only the downtown zone is currently signed, and you'll see, for example, a sign for this zone on Northeast 80 Fifth Street, just west of City Hall along that bridge, it'll say you're entering a pedestrian friendly area.

So what we would like

to do within the transportation master plan is better define what these pedestrian priority zones really mean for the individual and how they're actualized here in Redmond. So wayfinding, as shown in this photo, there's two different wayfinding signs in this photo on either side of the trail. These are a bit inconsistent in their design and purpose. So the transportation master plan establishes a strategy for the city to clarify its wayfinding signage and maintain consistency across various departments. We're aware that the Parks Department is embarking on a wayfinding strategy and analysis, and so we want to make sure that any work that we're doing is consistent with what work is already happening across the city.

With that, I think before we move on, we have a bit more to discuss about around our community engagement as well. I think right here, we'll pause for any questions or comments on the pedestrian chapter.

Commissioners? Commissioner Her partner?

Oops. Your mic, please. Sorry. I really like the wayfinding piece, and I think it's key. Like, in my head, I know Redmond is walkable right now for a good amount, but I don't know it.

You know what I mean? So it's a it's a question of having, like, if I use Google Walk, like the Google Walk sign and walk around, I'll probably get everywhere. Right? We need that level of navigation capability to say, hey, you can walk anywhere to anywhere within Redmond. And that that is what is missing because in in the sense that there's a half knowledge.

It's not full. It's not complete. And so I think it probably comes down to outreach, which you're dealing with next. Yeah, that's something that I I face a lot because you've got bike trails. Like, that's got a good amount of publicity on the trails. But if I just wanna walk within the neighborhood, where are the pavements at, and where does it suddenly abruptly close? No clue. So

So can I just clarify what you're asking? Are you asking for better communication of where it's like walking becomes interrupted or Right. Becomes unsafe?

So okay. So this is something that I where I come from, like, from India. We walked everywhere. We didn't walk for exercise. We walked because it was a way of life. I would walk to the grocery store. I would walk for all the errands. If we wanna move to that model, we have to show connectivity, and it cannot be recreational walking that is mapped. It has to be beyond the trails. It has to be utilitarian, if you will.

Right? And that's, I think, where I struggle with it. Like, I know where within my neighborhood and get but it's you know, I've been here a long time. But I if had to go somewhere else, I wouldn't know. So yeah.

Commissioner Coleman.

My comment is just really quick, which is how do you how do you think about this sort of system for those that are visually impaired? Is that in, I didn't see that was in here, particular around setting up what Commissioner O'Panna was talking about too for those folks who need more assistance?

Yeah. There is a strategy around developing an ADA, American with Disabilities Act transition plan, is a requirement. And that work is budgeted and will commence later this year, early twenty twenty six. So that will address, I mean, built into sidewalk design and crossing design, everything has to be ADA compliant, and that really does address the visually impaired.

Commissioner Van Nyman.

Fun point. I read in the paper the other day that there is a person at CEATEC whose entire job is wayfinding. Okay. You were talking oh, there was the point about, like, the cut throughs, the picture. Is it a thing that if, say, there was some redevelopment going on, that the developer would be forced to put a cut through, even if it's private property? Because that would be cool. Because some of these cul de sacs, like, you can't get between them, and if you could cut out onto a street, could save a lot of time on foot. Right? But So that would just be an interesting consideration. I don't know legally how that would even work.

And then also, a lot of these chapters tie together, but when you're talking about walking and some of these micro mobility things like scooters and stuff, I don't know that I saw in there like a way to ensure that the foot pathways are kept clear of the micro mobility devices, the shared ones. The scooters that get left behind and block sidewalks and stuff? I know this has come up before, but it would be nice to see it documented like what we think we might be able to attempt to do.

Other commissioners? I had one clarification that I'd like, just around the low stress pedestrian crossings. So I read this a few times and I was having a hard time figuring out how this interplays with jaywalking. And I ask because it's So I used to live on the East Coast, has The Boston area definitely has a jaywalking culture. And then moving here twenty plus years ago, there was a very strict not jaywalking culture.

And then I was reading this portion of it and it sounded sort of like rolling back jaywalking piece, and I wasn't sure if that was actually the intent with the low stress pedestrian crossings mid block or if it if there would somehow be more formal indications that it was an acceptable place to cross so that it's not people just crossing the street randomly. And maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Yeah. The intention of providing more mid block crossings is to create safe and comfortable places for people to cross the street. People want to cross the street. And in Redmond, there's quite long blocks in some cases. And so they're going to cross the street mid block regardless. Right? So we wanna create safe, predictable places for people to cross.

But the goal would still be to route people to these crossings, not necessarily Or is it?

Guess

The idea is if you provide the crossing, people will use the crossing. That's the hope. Right? Right design equals right use, largely. But people are gonna do what people are gonna do.

Okay, so I think that answers the question where you're actually building infrastructure to meet people, meet pedestrians where they're at and where they're trying to get, not necessarily say like downtown or a center or somewhere is a crossing mid block.

Absolutely, no we are planning for new crossings, like designated crossings.

Okay that clarification might, if you could just kind of tighten up the language on that because that was not entirely obvious to me. Other commissioners? Are there any comments just backing up now that we've had all the chapters? Usually what we would do is go through the issues matrix. However, at this point, I don't think we necessarily can just because it wasn't divided out by commissioner.

So usually what we would do is we would have the commissioners review the answer and close the comments that they opened. But this was just a list of all of ours, so I kind of don't wanna wade into the weeds on that. I think we're we're gonna have a hard time actually closing items. But maybe what we can do is if anyone has additional broad topics that haven't already been discussed, this would be a good time to get them into the issues matrix for when we see you in September? September, yes. And we do have

a couple slides left just on our community engagement piece.

Let's do those. Okay, Thank you. Yeah,

so just to give a quick overview, our community engagement efforts for the TMP build on the strong foundation of community outreach done by the Redmond two thousand fifty team. We're taking the feedback that was gained from Redmond two thousand fifty and applying it to our work. And building upon the work that was done for Redmond two and fifty, we've attended community events to collect feedback, gained insights from questionnaires, and received continued feedback and discussion, as mentioned, from our Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee, a PBAC, from our members of PBAC at our monthly meetings. In addition, we've had this spring, we've partnered with Eastside For All to conduct four focus groups that involve members from Eastside For All and other community based organizations. The focus groups provided thoughtful and helpful discussions that continue to shape the way that we frame the TMP.

And in September, we'll host an open house here at City Hall or at the senior center perhaps for our CBOs and the communities that they support. And then just, yeah, quick overview of some next steps. So we will be coming back in September. We'll discuss our transportation demand management chapter, as well as any appendix material that was included in our GMA requirements that falls under the Planning Commission's recommendation. And then, we'll be back again in November. And with that will be a focus on the transportation facilities plan.

Great, thank you. Alright, so either questions about the final slides, which thank you for reminding me, and then or questions about the broad overview. Commissioner Coleman?

I am, as a clarification, I have a question on EVs. Can I do that now? Okay. So when we met previously, I sent an email related specifically to this topic about the challenges with EVs in pedestrian, particularly in pedestrian areas. You have two now, which we're planning to have in Redmond.

And some concerns around the fact that, a, they're heavier than gas cars, they accelerate faster than gas cars, they're quiet, and therefore, you can legally get from zero to 25, but within a much faster zone. So the there is some there are some articles out there talking about the accident rate of EVs with pedestrians and pedestrian areas from Europe is higher than it is for gas cars. My I'm not going go through my email. I'll reference it again because I didn't get a response on it. I'd like to get one as part of this.

But effectively, how are we thinking about, particularly in this area? This, by the way, I want to be clear, this is not a negative thing about EVs. This is more about how do we make sure that people are aware of the difference in driving something like that versus a normal gas car in these areas because there's a significant I think I think Washington State has the second highest number per capita of any state in the nation. And this area in particular is very high. I mean, you can't turn around without seeing one, which is great in many respects, but in terms of safety in pedestrian areas, want to just understand what we can do there to either educate people who are driving them or some other ways of communicating the potential danger.

Or mitigating it through environment changes.

Yes, exactly that. That's what I'm trying to get to.

I

had a question and I don't know, please let me know if this doesn't belong to the TMP. Is the question of resilience of pavement materials and road materials as as from a safety perspective, if you have an asphalt mix which kind of collapses after a year and you got these big potholes, and it is a safety issue, especially if you've got micromobility all over the place, that's that's an issue. So I'm just wondering if resilience of choice of materials is part of this deal. And if it is, where would it be?

We will have a maintenance chapter in the transportation master plan, that will address kind of maintaining our transportation network, including pavement, as you've mentioned. That chapter is not within the GMA requirements that fall underneath, kind of as we talked about at the top, that fall within Planning Commission's recommendation. So we're not planning to bring that chapter here. But but, yeah, thank you for your comment. Great.

Oh, a follow-up to that would be that in all of this, we like, I want to be able to see resilience peep through somehow in all the chapters, because we're trying to build this to last. And resilience can mean from materials to, hey, you know what? We've got trees everywhere, so it's a resilient pedestrian network. Right? Like, I don't know. But the word resilience doesn't pop up enough, and that's just a general comment. But it is part of our 2050 charter to kind of think about this. So that's a very broad, I don't know how you wanna address it, but just a broad comment. So thank you.

Other comments? Commissioner Coleman.

I do have one other. When we reviewed previously, when we reviewed targets for access to mass transit, I believe and I'm trying to remember the exact data, but I think one of the goals in previous discussion was 50% of people can get to within the mass transit point with ten minutes by via ten minutes of walking. That was in some I know it was in previous conversation we had. I'm pretty certain that was the stat. I'm curious to understand, A, is that actually something we're going to consider changing?

Is there an understanding of where we are with that? And how does that map to this sort of last mile getting to light rail? I'm just curious about I apologize for not being able give you the specific document, but we did talk about it in a previous meeting.

Alright. Thank you so much for coming in.

Thank you for your time and We your great appreciate it.

Alright commissioners, think we're going to take a ten minute break and then we'll resume with our next item. We're back. So, at this point, we are going to bring out our study session on the twenty twenty five annual docket. Introducing Glenn Coyle.

Good evening commissioners. Glen Coyle, senior planner in the long range planning team, discussing the twenty five-twenty six annual docket. Just for the agenda for tonight's thing, just looking to see if the public hearing could be closed for written comments. And just to note, in the interim, since the last meeting, we have received three written comments. Two from Rachel Mazar representing the Columbia Pacific Advisors regarding the property proposed amendment.

And we also received an additional comment from Doctor. Martin. From that, we'll go over the issues matrix that was brought up at the last meeting. And from there, we'll just request if the commission can consider making a recommendation on annual docket for council. Alright. So with that, I will

And actually, I'm gonna just jump in and provide a little bit of framing, just in the interest of transparency, because this has been a non standard process up to this point, and I just want to make sure that we're being extremely clear and fair what is happening here. So although there is an option in the code for the Planning Commission to add items to the docket that have not gone through the formal docket process, by which I mean an applicant applied to the city to be put on the docket. Technically we are able to add things. There doesn't seem to be much memory of this ever being done before, so this is fairly unstandard. And I think it deserves a certain amount of clarity from the Commission whether or not this is a road that we want to go down in general.

I personally feel that the application process is handled the way it's handled for a reason. It was decided by the city council a year and a half ago, it was published, we all received training, and I say we, I mean the Planning Commission as representatives of the community in public received training on this in February. There is a reason that there are dates, fees, rules, and a two step process to decide to add things to the docket. It's so that it's fair, and it's so that it's transparent to the public what is happening and how decisions are made. This is not the way that this has been happening today, especially through email, and actually our last meeting too, doesn't feel particularly transparent to me.

It doesn't Nothing was published in a packet. There was no opportunity for the public to give any feedback on the proposal and whether or not it should be included in the zoning code. And I think that there was an element of surprise in the previous meeting where there was a sense that perhaps there had been a mistake and the applicant or sorry, I keep saying the applicant. They didn't apply. The property owner was not aware of the docket process and didn't know how to reach the city to ask.

And what we've heard both from the property owner's representatives and from other investigations on our own is that they have been in steady contact with the city. They did have opportunities to ask. If there was confusion, there was time to resolve it within the normal process. So in my opinion as chair, what we are doing here right now in this set of decision making steps is deciding if we want to go outside the normal formal process that has been set up by city council a year and a half ago that we've been following for this one applicant or not. So that's just I would like to just be transparent.

That's why we're even discussing this at this point. It's not standard, and I want to give people a chance. We've been asked to reopen verbal common. I would much rather that doesn't necessarily feel like the right step to me until planning commission decides if there's even interest among us in putting our power behind this choice. And if we do, then I think we should consider that.

But I want people thinking of this in a is this the process? Is this a choice that we wanna make broadly, or is this would we like to stick with things as published? I would love to actually just have a brief discussion on that before handling it back to Glenn, just so people have a chance to ask questions. We have not been talking behind the scenes to negotiate this, so I just want a chance for people to be able to talk on record. Commissioner Van Dyemen.

I I think they've operated in good faith. I think they met with Mayor Boerne and with Director Helen, who directed them to come to us. And I can put a lot of weight behind that. We're not going outside of the process. We are using the process that's available to us to add it to the docket.

To I'm sorry, you just, referenced something that I don't think most commissioners know about.

In the in the letter that was written to us with the timeline of everything that had happened, the the Was it Rachel's letter that came to us? It said that they had In order to had In May, they met with They had a meeting with Director Helen and Mayor Bernie and they said, Please go to the Planning Commission and ask them to add this to the docket. That would be the best thing to do at this point. That was in one of the written documents we received today.

Okay. I don't think we've received that information in the packet from the city, so I do think that that counts as new information.

I believe that was forwarded, the letters. That was one of the written public comments.

And likewise, the city has taken the time to go through and explain that, yes, this does meet all of the criteria. So the the process does allow for us to do this. We've you know, the the mayor of the city is telling us that this would be a good thing to do. The director of the planning is saying this would be a good thing. And and also, by putting it on the docket, we're not making a decision, we're just considering it. And so that's my position.

I just want to clarify here, the property owner wrote a letter saying that we have the planning commission has not directly heard from either the director of the planning department or the mayor to instruct us to see this. So I just wanna clarify that. Commissioner Aparna?

I want to, I'm looking at the letter that they sent. They met with mayor Bernie and planning director Carol Carol Helen on May 23. Our deadline for applications was April 1. So I don't see respectfully, I do not see that as an argument to take this on.

Keep reading. One When you keep reading, it says, and they were directed to come to planning commission.

True. But they had already missed the deadline. So after the debt so here is here is the thing. There is a process. If there was, let's say, hypothetically, another parcel, another developer wanting to do make a change to Redmond 2050 right now.

If they had followed the process and they did all the work and somebody just walks in and it takes away resources all of a sudden. And somebody so it's it's opening the door to something that hasn't been done before. And I have been in previous docket sessions at least three years before Edmond twenty fifty started. And from what I remember, and I could be wrong, so I think staff can correct me, is the the idea that the planning commission can bring comp plan amendment suggestions to the docket is more of a principal thing. It was not to advocate for a particular parcel or a particular project.

So, like, if I said, hey, I need to have more pavements. I'm just throwing out a really stupid example. But let's say Redmond twenty fifty said, yes, walkability is important, but we really didn't address that in any of the policies or the code. I would bring that to the commission for the as a potential docket item, Saying, hey, we we said we wanna do this, but it's there's no place for it right now, and we need to make place for it. So it's a it's a broader a prince based on principles, something actionable.

We had a conversation about this before, long time ago, but we never came up against having to advocate for a parcel to be on the docket because the onus is on the property owner to get on the docket. Then we can advocate for it or against it. That's separate.

And and when they I I don't know. I I'm not I just cannot get myself all too concerned about the process when the process clearly states that we have a mechanism to do what's being asked of us, and that the mayor and the plan and the director of the planning department has said

I have question to clarify. The process passed by the city council actually does not. It's the zoning code. So these are two separate things. I would like to keep that separate. Commissioner Gagne.

I have a question about the deadline. Do we know do we have any clarity either through the emails or from other communications or in the packet about why they missed that April deadline and approach the mayor after the deadline?

No. I don't believe so.

Thank you.

Commissioner Copely.

So for the record, I do have some information on that. So this evening after 5PM, I read commissioner Aparna's email opposing the docket edition. And the sixth item, talked about a precedent, about the concern about precedent, which I share. And so I called the number on Rebecca Bloom's email. She works for Columbia Pacific Advisors and spoke to her around 6PM tonight, and I asked why they missed the deadline.

And she said that they were trying to get the code amended until sometime in April and when they realized that it was too late they weren't going to be able to do that that they were recommended via the email that you referenced by Carol Helen and Mayor Bernie to go through this process.

So I would just like to point out we actually did speak to this applicant on November 6 through the code change process, and we referred them to the docket on December 4. So that's the Planning Commission, that was the Planning Commission decision at that point was that we were not considering this for code rewrite three of Redmond 02/1950, and that we would like them to go visit the docket. The training on this was about two months later on February 12, and in that time they had numerous contacts with the city. I do believe that they were aware of the pathways to get more information about the docket and file on time if they were interested, they did not. Commissioner Coleman.

We can do the timeline and the discussion. If I'm I'm reading into this. Hey. We talked to the mayor and we talked to the planning director and they told us go talk to the planning commission. I don't see anything in here. I don't I haven't seen that email. And are there any notes from that meeting that specifically state for them to do that? Because that seems to be the things that's changed and why it's here. I don't if I'm getting that wrong, but that's what I'm reading into this, that other than that conversation, it wouldn't be in front of us and we wouldn't be having a conversation right now. So what was the notes from those meetings, to do that? Otherwise, it's hearsay. I

don't think we know. Commissioner Parna. I'd

like to add another point. If director Helen and mayor Bernie ask them to come to the commission, it doesn't mean that they've said it's going to go through. We often get a lot of things from counsel and everywhere else where we are learning to use our judgment on this particular issue. So I don't think it's a mandate that, yeah, let's do this. I just wanna be very clear that that's not how we operate. So yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

I have one more question if I could. Commissioner Chair. Do we have a sense from the staff how the staff feels about this if if this is something that's going to create disruption for them, or if there's a consensus among staff about their feelings on this request.

Staff does not take a position. We would just refer you to the threshold criteria analysis.

I think that there's no disagreement that there is an option in the zoning code to offer this. I think the question is whether the Planning Commission as a group believes that's a good path forward to start using that statement in the zoning code to start shepherding certain projects around the stated process. Commissioner Coleman.

Before we decide that, I'd like to understand how many times this has been asked this way previously in the last, like, ten years, for example. Is that is this been how many times this happened before?

So in in my memory, it hasn't happened.

So that means we're we're setting up an exception to this may be something which could happen, but it's rare for it to happen. It feels like it's a gap in the the a glitch in the system, if I could put it like that. That's not to say we shouldn't go forward with it. I'm just trying to understand the context of it. It hasn't happened before, this is the first time. Once we do it, it's likely to open up other opportunities for people to go do that. And is that okay? I I you know, I I'm not sure I have a position on that one way or the other, but if that's the implication.

That is the implication. Commissioner Van Nyman.

Why would anybody choose to be late and then come beg us to put them put them on the docket? Like, we're not set I mean, the precedent is the precedent is that the deadline is what it is, and people aren't gonna like jump up and down to say I wanna miss a deadline so that I can go beg the planning commission to put it on the docket. Like, this is I I just and and again, I don't think we're advocating for any position, we're saying it it meets threshold criteria. These people have been operating in good faith and and that we shouldn't get wrapped around the axle over process to consider something that that may or may not be a good idea. All we're doing is considering the actual proposal after it's on the docket.

So I would just like to remind a few reasons why I don't want to even guess here, but some things that have come up in email which haven't been part of the public comment because they were not in microphones in this room. So there is a $10,104.70 application fee for changing the zoning code that's set by city council to reclaim the city's time and wages for projects like this. So by not applying, the city has to cover that fee. The the property owner has offered today, this afternoon, to cover that fee, but again that's a standard part of the application process, which is why we have a process. I also think that there was an interest in, from what I'm reading and just trying to work through what honestly feels like lobbying rather than through the normal channels where we have public comment.

That may just be the way it appears to me, it might not be the actual intent, but that would also be a reason to avoid it. So just I don't don't think it's helpful to get into the why necessarily of why they chose not to, I think it's just do we want to put our commission's efforts into creating alternate channels from the ones that are already published or not. Commissioner Copeley.

I found this interesting as a new commissioner because, we were told that the docket process is boring. That nothing was going to happen and that you're gonna be able to sleep walk your way through this part. So, you know, you're all done with the hard stuff. So this is really surprising to me. But I think it's important.

I think it warrants consideration and discussion because I think we have to ask, like, why do we even have this capability to do this if we're never going to use it? It's just an interesting question. And then the second portion is, what do we value and what are we trying to get out of this as a city? I think for me the reason that I was open to bringing this up to the commission as a docket item is because housing is something that we talk about a lot.

I do actually just want to jump in here. We are not at the stage of the process where we're actually arguing the merits or, this is not pros or cons of the particular project, this is whether or not to put it on the docket. So we're gonna have to be, this is really, it's kind of an unnatural process to have to decide whether or not to docket it and then talk about the merits of it. So we're really just in a does it meet the criteria that are summarized in the issues matrix, which we really should get to, we'll do that just after this. But then also does it meet the process, appropriate to dock it?

So we need to kind of I hear what you're saying very much. I've heard other opinions that are also about the merits of

the

project. That's not actually what we're talking about right now. It's just should this be on this year's docket. Commissioner Copeley.

I guess then that begs the question, are we really talking about docketing this item or are we talking about docketing at all? Do we need to split the hairs further and say that there's really two things being here, is docketing this item and whether or not we should docket anything ever?

I don't think that's necessarily where we're going.

Okay. It just sounds like maybe we'd be setting a precedent by docketing it, and we don't know if we want to do that. Is that right?

It would be changing a precedent. Well, it would actually be going around a published procedure to dock it in. So maybe we could work through the issues matrix, cover the material that's there and then we can continue to discuss.

Well, the first issue was, the timing of the application that was brought up. Most of the comments were addressed through your discussion. The second item was related to the threshold criteria analysis, which I could pull up. Zoom in a little bit. Don't know if commissioners want to just look at those or what you prefer.

Maybe we can go through this this way. I would like to personally just review item four because that was about the fee. I think I got the number right when I said it verbally, but and then if other commissioners want to jump to any of these other portions for discussion we can. Jeff Churchill.

Can I just add a clarification on number four since we're going to discuss it? The fee is what you said it was. That's actually the combined comprehensive plan amendment fee and the SIPA fee. So if you were to go look it up, you'd to add the two together to get to that number. So just so you all know. Because those would both be required parts of the application. And then as I believe it was commissioner Weston stated that the property owner had made an offer to cover the cost. That may be possible. That's something that we're looking into with the we're researching that specifically with the city attorney to see if there's a mechanism to do that. So that's kind of the the status of it.

And I think we would just have to find the answer to that before the city council makes any kind of final decision. Because right now we don't know how we would do that, but that's kind of what the state of it is at this moment.

Again, because it's outside the normal process. Are there any other pieces that councillors would or sorry, commissioners would specifically like to look at in this. Commissioner Copely.

If anyone doing this the right way would have to pay $10,000 to do it the right way, then it stands to reason that if we're going to do this at all, if it were to happen, that 10,000 would need to be covered. Otherwise, you could circumnavigate having to pay that fee by going through this process. So that doesn't seem am I wrong about that?

Commissioner Parner.

From what I understand, if it goes through the process, they would have to cover the fee, and that's part of the initial application process. The initial review is not 10,000. It's the whole review if it goes into the docket process. But the fact is that they have not made an official application. And even now, technically, while they have applied informally, and we have an email saying they will cover the costs.

You get what I'm saying? We have acted on behalf of the applicants in this scenario. We have technically asked staff to look into this project based on a public comment, literally. That is where I think I have a huge problem. They might be the applicant in the sense that they're the end benefactors of this outcome, but I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but what it does is it puts us in the position, and I have seen this in minor ways before and probably, you know, stop seeing it like a gazillion times before, is it puts us in the position where we are accosted by applicants outside of this room.

Where they will call you, they will mail you, they will try to cajole you. I would like that to be a cleaner thing, where we have a conversation, we talk about the merits and demerits of an application in its own weight. That's the process. Right now, they are having conversations on the side. Great. That's how you build, consensus outside. That's great. But if you don't hold the basics, that's where, right now, we are the applicants officially. And I have a problem with that. Like, even if it's, even if it's implied.

It's not technically true, but it's it's implied that I took this on without knowing anything about this, and I've said, let's go for it. And that's why I have a problem with it. And as that is the process piece. Then there's the merits and demerits of what they're proposing in it, and whether that makes sense to go ahead to the next phase. Right? And and I have said this in an email and just for transparency, I want to kind of reiterate a couple of things. For me, the biggest thing about this project is the fact that if just for housing we've converted a lot of

Hold on a second. So this is the place where I'm gonna jump in again because I really wanna keep us Right. Two step. We all wanna get straight to the meat of this, but I think that there that we're just not there yet. So I would like to not get into that set of arguments right now.

Just for clarity on the commission, so the way this will move forward, what I would like to do is ask for a motion to pass the docket as is. What can also happen here is if someone would like to amend that motion, then they can make the amendment. If that amended motion gets a second, then we can discuss and vote. If we get four commissioners voting in favor, then the amendment would go through. But if it doesn't get a second or we don't get the four in favor, then it won't go through, and we'll just be back to considering whether or not to pass the docket that was presented as part of the original packet.

So any questions about that voting process? Because it's, again, not our standard, but I just wanna make sure everyone's really clear on what they're voting for. Commissioner Cobley.

I guess before we vote, does everyone, I don't know if I can answer this question for myself, feel that they have all the necessary information they need to vote the way that they

Okay. Great. Will compel. Okay. Maybe can we are people able to formulate what they would need, like, now in order to reach a conclusion about whether or not? Commissioner Coleman.

My challenge with this is the process of coming back to us. So I go back to the same question I have, which is I'd to see the notes of that meeting to understand if we were told to relook at this by the mayor and director of planning.

No, we were not told.

Okay. So we don't know if they actually said that or what the wording was or any of those things. So it's actually that conversation we should strike from the letter and forget about it. No? Confused.

They were told that they wrote that they were told they had a meeting and that was their advice that they received. And I I take them at their word.

I'm making a different question, which is where are the notes from that that says that? I don't see that. If there's a meeting and you are asked to come back to us from the mayor and the director of planning, where are those notes to do that? I don't understand why we're discussing this if it didn't this is hearsay of a conversation. I I don't see any written notes to say that.

That's my problem. Because otherwise, as a principal, then you could go to whoever is the mayor, whoever is the planning director in the future and do the same thing and therefore go around if it's something that doesn't actually work for you or you missed a deadline to do that. And I have a problem with that because I think you could end up with multiple people wanting to do that at different times. We're not talking about right now, like five years' time, we look back and say, hey, we made this decision now, what's happened in the interim? It's the principle of the process. I get all the discussion about the pros and cons of the application, it's not about the application or who's applying.

There isn't an application. There isn't an

app. Right. I'm just sorry. It's my wording. Right? What we're looking at right now, it's not the merits of that. It's the merits of us changing a process that could create all sorts of different ways of trying to get back into the docket process in the future by conversation with with the mayor or somebody else.

Commissioner Van Nyman.

I mean, I'm not sure what you're suggesting really because I take them at their word that they that Mayor Bernie and director Helen told them to come to us. And again, this is a pain in the neck way to do something. Nobody would ever voluntarily try to make this the way they want to do something.

Okay. So this might be a difference of opinion. I don't think we're necessarily going get further arguing this particular point because I think, again, opinion. Are there other questions that people would need to have satisfied in order to know how to vote? Commissioner Copely.

I'm feeling conflicted because commissioner Van Eyman talked about them operating in good faith. I've seen the record of 12 communications in a nine month period, and I'm inclined to feel that they're operating in good faith. At the same token, I'm hearing about how if you're able to subvert the process and get something done outside the process, it puts us in a bad place in the future. As a city just all the way around, it's it's not for the best. I'm also getting all of this information after 5PM today.

So reading your email, reading the other email, not seeing this as part of the public disclosure package necessarily, and feeling like we as a planning commission have a responsibility to the city to make sure that we know what the full picture of this is before we vote. And so I'm feeling personally conflicted right now about having a vote now when all of this has come out in the last three hours.

Commissioner Mparna. I would like to mention that I did mail out over the weekend, so it's not something that came out after 5PM. So, no, that's fine. I'm just so for the record, it I sent out my objections, and if necessary, we can put that in the report as well. But it was sent earlier.

The app applicant non applicant applicant has put in their comments through the afternoon of today, which gives us very little time. And for me, that is also a matter of concern. It's not like they didn't know. These meeting minutes when we got it in Feb Friday, they would have got it too. They they are choosing to do this like, for me, that's a repeated problem.

You know, once it's an error, they acknowledge that they did not apply on time. If they had a reasonable response as to, hey, you know, we got confused. We got bad advice. Or something has gone wrong in the development process for them. Or at least an apology they acknowledged, but they don't have any problem subverting the process. I see that as a problem because I see that as opening the door for many things. And it doesn't and I will say this very bluntly, it doesn't look like very good faith to me. When you drop something two hours before a planning commission, it's not good faith. When you knew this was coming. Right?

So this public hearing was already announced, the written part and everything. So they waited till the last very minute. And for me, that's not sounding great. I'll be honest.

Commissioner Coppley, I just want to double check. Do you have a specific question that would help in your vote decision?

No, I don't feel like I have a specific question. I just wanted to better understand the last portion of your reason for being against this, is that this could set a bad precedent. I wanted to really understand that better. And I had no knowledge that this had never been done. And, you know, Jeff, I think, is our senior person at the table here saying, I don't think this has ever been done.

So me being a brand new commissioner, I had no idea that this wasn't just standard practice. And so I get the weight of it, and I want to make sure that I cast my vote in a way that is most appropriate and informed. So that's my hesitation right now with with a vote.

Alright. So I do understand that. However, I also unless there is, like, additional facts and questions, I think that people have a choice of so first of all, whether to propose an amendment in the first place, whether to second it, whether to vote for it, against it, or abstain, that is a completely valid those are all valid choices here for commissioners. I don't necessarily see the facts particularly changing here. I think we have the information that we need to docket this or not.

So I wanna give people one more chance. Is there any, like major question or fact or anything that would change their confidence level and their choice to take on representation of an applicant who hasn't actually applied. Commissioner Cobley.

The only thing that comes to mind is public comment. Now that all of this is on the record, if there were public comment, I could be persuaded one way or another by what people think in our community. So that is the only thing that comes to mind.

Okay. So there is an option to open public comment, but I would strongly advise against it. I think that we've already let a public comment kind of pull us outside of far outside of our normal process. I think that there is a certain responsibility to sitting on this commission, and part of it is making choices about where to adhere to the rules, I would say. And so it's technically, I'm not going to reopen it, but if multiple people would like again to motion second and find a majority to reopen public comment on this so that you can get that information, we could.

Commissioner Copeley.

I would say not today. I would say public comment written over the course of the next period in the interim between when we meet and now, and up to you on public comment, like in person here, if people want to show up and talk about this at the next meeting. I'm also just keenly aware that

we are how public comment works. This is not a I'm sorry. I give you the option. You can you're welcome to make a motion, second, and vote if people would like to reopen public comment. Otherwise, I will close the written portion that is still open, and we will move on to the remainder.

Yeah. I would make a motion to open public comment.

Second. Or sorry, any seconds? Second. Alright, so all in favor?

Aye. All

opposed?

I'm an aye for public comment.

You would like to reopen

public Yes.

That's three. We need and then, all abstain or any abstains? So commissioner Gagne, in this case, I didn't hear you if you voted.

Oh, I oppose.

You oppose.

I'm sorry. That didn't come through. Yeah.

Thank you. Alright. So in that case, we do not have the floor to reopen. So we will not reopen public comment. I will close the written comment at this time, and we should move on to a vote. I look for a motion at this point to recommend approval to city council of the 2025 annual docket as presented in the packet. Commissioner Van Ammen.

Mic. To clarify, we would First we would vote on whole as it exists, and then after that, if we wanted to, we would add an amendment.

Correct. Or you can move a motion that includes the amendment right now if you'd

prefer. Okay. I move that we amend the and we add this to the docket as it currently stands. Alright.

Any seconds. Okay. I don't hear a second, so that will drop that option. I look for a motion again to recommend approval to city council of the twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six annual docket as presented in the packet.

So moved. Second.

Do we want any further discussion at this point? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. All opposed?

Abstaining.

And abstain. Alright, in that case that's approved. So thank you for all working through that. I know this is hard, thank you. Alright. So at this point, we will move on to staff and commissioner updates.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to let you know about a couple of things that have been going on in the planning department. We hosted a lunch and learn today for city staff with our community based organization, Eastside For All, that we've been working with just to start to kind of continue that process of having other departments work with community based organizations. So as you know as the transportation staff mentioned that they've been working with them and community groups as well.

So we want to continue to encourage that among other departments. It was really well attended, and I think we had a really good discussion. Just another event that is coming up on Tuesday, June 17. Becky Fry will be on a panel about accessible design, co hosted with the Visibility Empowerment Center and Magical Bridge Foundation. They're also gonna be on the panel. So the it's a free webinar about accessible design. I think she will send it to the Planning Commission email as well, about how inclusion shouldn't be an afterthought. And that's the only updates I have right now.

Thank you. Jeff Churchill.

I'll add a couple more. Also on Tuesday the seventeenth, the City Council has a couple things in front of it that may be of interest to the Planning Commission. One is that they have on their consent agenda the 2025 code package that you all worked very hard on in the fall and in up through January, I think. And that is as many hours of work on your part, and we expect that to come to a conclusion on Tuesday. And then also the city council will have on its consent agenda a resolution authorizing the application for countywide centers for Marymore Village and for the Southeast Urban Manufacturing Industrial Center that allows us to put the application in this fall.

Also, a result of many hours of your work. And then there are two projects kicking off this week that I just thought worth mentioning. One is same with Southeast Redmond, the Southeast Redmond manufacturing industrial center market study that will be part of the application. So the council approved the consultant contract for that. So that work will get underway.

So sort of implement that work, implement those the the policy framework that you all recommended. And then second is the kickoff to the capital investment strategy update. So as you may remember, in the capital facilities element, there's talk about capital investment strategy, which is kind of a collection of the projects from all the functional plans. Right now, goes out to 2030, and Glenn will be working with city staff from across the departments to update that to go out to 2050. And all those projects are gonna come from functional plans that come to the Planning Commission. They either have or will. And Lauren's leading the Southeast Redmond, Marcusetti work.

That's all.

Great. Any other commissioner updates? No? Okay. Well, in that case, look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Alright. That one was easier. We are adjourned.