Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Welcome to the 08/13/2025 meeting of the Redmond Planning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order, and we'll start with a roll call. Commissioner Parna? Present. Commissioner Coleman?

Present.

Commissioner Copely?

Present.

Commissioner Gagne? Present. Vice chair Woodier?

Present.

And I am chair Weston. Commissioner Van Nyman is excused tonight. I'd to thank the following staff for being present. Glenn Coyle, Becky Fry, Ami Corconi, Mike Despin, and Chris Wyatt. I look for a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second. Commissioner Maraner, could you ever get your microphone? Second. Thank you so much. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. That's approved. And a motion to approve the meeting summary from 07/23/2025.

So moved.

Second.

Oh, all in favor? Aye. Thank you. Aye. That's also approved. Alright. At this point, it's time for us to hear public comment and items from the audience. This is for topics that aren't addressed by our public hearing on the fire functional plan later tonight. And I'd like to remind that RCW forty two seventeen a five five five prohibits any public comment in support of or opposition to ballot propositions, measures, or candidates. Glenn?

Good evening, Chair. We have, one comment from David Morton.

Good evening, Commissioners. I'm David Morton, Redmond 98053. I'd like to address some significant development considerations in Southeast Redmond. The area where Cadman's gravel mining operations took place is environmentally sensitive since it lies within Redmond's critical aquifer recharge area. Within this gravel pit area, Lake Washington School District recently acquired a substantial parcel for future school development, acknowledging Redmond's growing need for schools due to population growth.

A proposal for an adjacent parcel seeks a zoning change to allow for a combination of uses in a large facility dedicated to manufacturing and wholesale trade, some ground floor commercial and retail space, and residential dwelling units. Introducing manufacturing and trade could create valuable new jobs and bolster Redmond's economy. The inclusion of commercial and retail spaces would provide convenient services for workers and residents. The residential component could enable a true live work environment potentially reducing traffic congestion by allowing people to live closer to their workplaces and everyday necessities and contributing to a more walkable and sustainable community. However, this proposal presents significant challenges.

The most pressing is the site's location within a critical aquifer recharge area. The potential for unknown air pollution and groundwater contamination from unspecified manufacturing and industrial activities raises serious environmental concerns that demand scrutiny. The very flexibility of future occupants means we lack clear information to assess these crucial environmental impacts. The city of Redmond has a clear strategic goal to establish a countywide industrial growth center in Southeast Redmond to protect and expand Redmond's manufacturing and industrial land uses and to prevent encroachment from incompatible uses, specifically housing. A fundamental conflict arises with this goal if Redmond allows housing and unspecified manufacturing and industrial activities on a parcel directly bordering an existing residential neighborhood and a newly acquired school site.

It risks creating long term compatibility issues and land use conflicts between industrial operations and the well-being of families and students. Development in this critical area ought to support Redmond's comprehensive plan, safeguard the environment, and protect the health and safety of Redmond residents. Please consider these implications carefully. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Is that all? Alright. Thank you. In that case, we are going to move on to our public hearing on the 2025 fire functional plan. I'd like to bring up Good evening. Thank you very much,

Chair, Commissioners, and members of the public. I'm Ami Ami Quiracone, deputy chief of support services and administration for the Redmond Fire Department. Tonight's public hearing is about a proposed amendment to the capital facilities chapter of the Redmond comprehensive plan. This amendment would formally adopt the twenty twenty five, twenty fifty fire department functional plan by reference. As you guys know, the functional plan is our long term road map for fire and emergency service facilities and looks specifically at the current conditions of our stations and support facilities, the service needs we have today and we anticipate in the future, and the capital improvements we'll need to make to maintain the levels of service as the city grows per the plan.

By incorporating the plan in the comprehensive our plan into the comprehensive plan, we ensure that Redmond's long range city planning is fully aligned with the operational and capital needs of the fire department while meeting the growth management act requirements for adequate public facilities and levels of service, especially in the neighborhoods identified experiencing growth. So adopting the plan by reference would give us varied benefits, some of those including, again, that alignment with the GMA, supporting of our city policy and goals, promoting equity, improving capital investment strategies, protect environment and land use integrity, enhance our transparency, and also help us prepare for growth. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to the Chair to open the floor for public comments.

All right. Thank you very much. I am going to open the public hearing. And we can start with comments.

We have one person signed up for comments. David Martin.

I'd like to speak in support of the proposed twenty twenty five to two thousand fifty Redmond fire functional plan. This plan is not just a bureaucratic document, it's a critical roadmap for ensuring Redmond's safety and well-being. As Redmond continues its impressive growth particularly in high density areas like downtown and Overlake, Redmond's fire and emergency services must evolve to meet these new demands. The functional plan comprehensively addresses this by outlining necessary investments in facilities, apparatus, and staffing. I commend the plan's emphasis on several key areas.

First, the commitment to modernizing Redmond's fire stations is paramount. The plan's assessment highlights critical deficiencies in seismic readiness, backup power, and basic accessibility in some stations. Ensuring that essential facilities can remain operational during disasters is best practice and a fundamental responsibility. The proposed renovations and new construction, including the relocation of Station 12 and the future Station 19 are vital steps to improve response times and coverage in your densifying urban centers. Second, the plan's focus on equitable service delivery is crucial.

Identifying and addressing response gaps in vulnerable and underserved communities aligns perfectly with Redmond's broader vision of an inclusive city. Every resident deserves timely and effective emergency services regardless of their location or demographics. Finally, I appreciate the forward thinking approach to fleet modernization, including the integration of electric apparatus and the recognition of emerging risks like battery fires. This demonstrates a commitment to both environmental sustainability and operational readiness in a changing world. The plan also clearly outlines a diversified fiscal strategy, including the appropriate use of impact fees, which ensures that new development contributes its fair share to the infrastructure it relies upon.

This is a responsible approach to funding these essential upgrades. In closing, the twenty twenty five to twenty fifty Redmond fire functional plan is a well researched, strategic and necessary investment in Redmond's future. It provides a clear path to maintain and enhance the high level of public safety that Redmond residents expect and deserve. I urge the Planning Commission to recommend its adoption to the City Council. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that all?

That is it for verbal comments. But I also just want to note that we received two written comments.

Great. So we will be sure to review those. I'm going to close the verbal portion of the public hearing, but leave open the written portion in case more comments come in. And at this point, I'd like to turn it back to Amikor Koni for, the Issues Matrix.

Glen's going to pull that up on the screen there. Okay. So, how would we like to go through the issues matrix?

Alright. So what we're usually doing, is if you wanna briefly speak to, the answer in the question, and then we turn it over to the commissioner who asked the question if they wanna close or if they have additional either comments or feedback. We try to keep it somewhat actionable, so we don't leave things open unless, they have a point clarification.

Absolutely. Okay.

So And then at the very end, we'll go and gather if there's any additional items that have popped

To add into it.

Over the last two weeks.

Sounds good. Thank you, chair. So the first one, these are in sequential order as they were asked in the meeting. Didn't really note that there were any that needed to be grouped together, so, I didn't wanna try to combine all that. So if we can all replay the meeting from a couple of weeks ago. So this first question here from commissioner Copeley was talking about the, inclusion of that standard that was happening down at the state with the one staircase in there. As you can see from the answer that we provided in there, that was a great conversation point, but it wouldn't make any changes to the plan. So we don't recommend any changes to the functional plan.

I'm comfortable closing that out.

Thanks. Thank you. Alright, issues number two, was when we started to talk about the monitoring section. This was the first time that this subject was brought up and asking how accountability and monitoring is integrated into it. And so we did talk about this quite a bit, that there may be some opportunities to do some different recommendations or different clarifications in there. But however, as it's actually done, don't really see how the plan may need a substantial change to it. But Commissioner, if there's anything or any additional clarification.

I am comfortable closing this one because a variation of this was asked in question six, which we can get to. Issue six, rather.

Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. So then the next issue that we discussed was talking about the risks associated with relying on impact fees and grants. And so we talked a little bit about the current and climate with the administration. As you said, we actually diversified our fiscal strategy and included actually excluded grants specifically, knowing that they may be available to us, but we certainly aren't trying to, lean all of our financing in on something that we're not sure is, gonna be available to us.

I I think we can close this, but I have a recommendation. I would say the last line of your response. Your response was great. The last line of the response is something we could add to the narrative of plan itself. And I will read that out. The plan is designed to adapt to funding shifts while maintaining long term delivery goals.

Okay.

That in a nutshell exemplifies the approach and it also makes it clear to others who might be asking this question.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. But otherwise we can close it.

Yes, please. You.

Or issue number four was planning for future growth and future density. And we were looking at the, let's see, forward looking analysis tied, inquired whether, I'm sorry I'm reading it here. Oh, this was chair. This was your question. We were talking about how the planning, whether or not it was connected to what other cities had have actually practiced as, you know, as a best case in there.

So I know Chief Despain has actually joined us tonight too, and so he provided the bulk of this in here. But, our projected service is based on our terrain and our demographic. And while you can get some best practices from others, the analysis that we've provided is based on what we have here, the density, the population, and is informed by that. So while, we, you know, I think had a good conversation, we don't see that there should be any changes to the plan, or not recommending any additional changes to the plan.

Yeah. I think that pointing out, appendix B was super helpful. I would say that if there are things that ultimately go to voters, I think fleshing out this comparison would help because it tends to be a community that really, in my impression, cares about these sort of details. Especially the comparisons.

To how we're performing against others other cities or

To not repeating mistakes that other areas have learned. Yep. Building on just general knowledge from other communities. So I think something like that might be useful going forward. I'm happy to close it now for this particular plan though. Okay. Alright.

Yep. Thank you. Yep. Noted case studies.

Yes.

Yep. Got it. Issue number five. I believe we did get this in an oh, your version isn't updated, but, commissioner Coleman, you actually did send us an email earlier about closing this issue out based on our staff answer. So okay. Do we wanna still read through it? Or is everybody good with that? Okay.

Thank you. Did anyone have things there were a bunch of things on this theme, and I think there was a really good job answering each of them in particular. But if anyone here needs to comment, do let me or because they have additional, just raise your hands and let me know. But it looks like we're good.

Okay. Sounds good. Okay. So we returned back to clarifying the monitoring and responsibilities. I think this is what you were talking about here. And, to discuss whether or not what kind of cadence there might be for doing review. As we had talked about in the meeting, we talked about that the citywide has process through the entire planning process. Glenn's involved in it. The finance department's involved in it. And we are linked into that. And what we weren't trying to do with this plan was to, repeat what already is in motion, by the other departments and the other teams. So.

So this one I think the way I I think the response is adequate. I think adding this particular line that it will mirror the cadence of review of other functional plans. That's what we're looking for.

Okay.

Because since this is the first time this plan is coming forward, the others have been through these cycles. It would be great to just piggyback on that so that we have the same level of scrutiny on the performance of this plan. If need be, and I know that it's not possible to get perfect metrics on performance of the plan itself, but having a few lines in there saying that we will look at what other plans are doing to evaluate their performance and we will build our own as in foreshadowing something Mhmm. Is a is a way to make sure that next cycle this can move forward. Yep.

Because I think there is a I've and this is for the commission. I I feel that we are a bit it feels like we left fire planning behind a tad bit and we're playing catch up. So all the more reason that we wanna see that the great plan that you have comes to fruition. Mhmm. Right?

So we want and this is for anybody who the council who will be managing the budgets and for all of that to know, hey, we we are gonna be evaluating the whether the plan's taking effect. Therefore, you will need to give us the dollars for it. So it's also about saving the funding in a different way. Mhmm. So I definitely think a few more lines on this would be good. You don't have to say exactly how, but say that you are evaluating it and it will mirror every other functional plans performance reviews Got it. Cadence. Yep. Would that be Yeah.

Something I think that's great. And I think we were talking about the clarity in section 8.5.

So Yeah. So if you can leave this open and get more language along those lines, it's not like I'm looking for Mhmm. Every two years, six months, or very specific, but the principles of it.

Okay.

In a way. Right?

Yep.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

I actually wanna piggyback on that. I really agreed with that comment. And I think one of the ways that it's helpful to think about it is people who work in the city might have a very clear idea of how the functional plans work in the cadence, and what the comp plan does, and how it's used in rolling out city services. But, I think the average resident doesn't necessarily have that same familiarity. And, it's really helpful helpful when a plan like this connects a few dots and says, okay, this is part of the comp plan.

Because it's part of the comp plan, then we can expect to rely on these things going forward. Mhmm. It didn't used to be part of the comp plan. This is really a line. Like, we're drawing a line and saying, now we're going forward and doing this properly. And so it will look like this. I think that's a really helpful, pivot for people to just be clear on.

Okay.

Yeah. And so, yeah, I don't think it needs tons of specifics, but I do think it needs to be restated that this

is Just kinda fill in a little bit more of that information. And that's great that's great feedback. Like you said, like, we kind of skip level think and piece things together and, you know, your feedback is definitely helping us kind of figure out, like, we made a leap in there. So k. Thank you. On this situation, would we provide some comments to you, like, in an email with some suggested language ahead of the meeting on the twenty seventh or bring it to the twenty seventh meeting and have you guys look at

it?

We just expect to see it in the next packet.

Okay.

And if there were any things where you were like, I'm not sure that you're hitting the mark Mhmm. Then absolutely follow-up with commissioners. Okay. Who requested, in this case, commissioner Aparna.

Okay.

But it's I think we'd just expect to see it in the packet.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

Oh, and Glenn. Glenn.

Just to clarify, when you say in the packet, are you saying it in the PC report as a recommendation from the Planning Commission? Or

Hopefully, in the plan itself. Is that possible?

Right now, during the public comment period, usually, we don't make edits to the plan itself. It's really, here's, you know, here's the draft you're looking at. Here's the planning commission's recommendation for these, like, changes. That's how we typically do that for that kind of process. So that's why we were kinda clarifying. Do you want to see some example text or something around that?

Great. So this is why clarifying process is helpful. Commissioner Parnah.

So would it be possible to get the exact text which could go into Yeah. So that's what looking

That's what I was suggesting is I can, you know, put it in here in the matrix, send it to you in advance. You guys can see this is the three sentences I came up with. Is this good? And then that will get forwarded on with the packet that goes to counsel and then they can

Exactly.

Take it from there.

And that would get adopted into the report. So that not during the public hearing, but it'll stay in the issue matrix. Yep.

And that doesn't necessarily have to go to the whole commission. That could go to commissioner Aparna, and I wouldn't mind being on that off.

Okay. Okay.

And then is that good?

Fine. I mean, that's fine. And it will be in the matrix for the rest of them to see anyway. In case Right.

So an updated matrix in the packet.

Yep. Updated matrix. I'm looking to him because he's my he's my yoga process.

Yeah. My system would have the example text in the issues matrix, but also have a bullet point in the planning commission recommendation stating that you wanted some change around that.

So just out of curiosity, if he if he asked for changes, it doesn't go into the plan at all even after the public hearing is closed?

So planning commission's role is is a recommendation body to counsel.

Okay.

Just always keep note of that. So the recommend the list of recommendations. Technically, everything commission kind of suggests is a recommendation to counsel. So we compile these recommendations, and then it's up to counsel to actually accept or reject those recommendations in the final adoption.

Can I actually ask a clarifying question on that though? Because when we did the park plan, we absolutely made extensive edits in that document that were then brought in as part of the document that was passed not as a separate recommendation. We very rarely have actually used a recommendation to change That the

process was slightly different as it was part of Redmond Twenty Fifty where we had a lot more study sessions, review processes. There was a lot more iterations of review and comments. But ultimately, from a legal process, it really was this kind of the same thing that the recommendations, like the changes that, were suggested by planning commission were included, like, in that final adoption draft for counsel. And it was noted to counsel that these were the changes that planning commission had recommended during the review process. So they always had a discretion to say, no. We accept or reject that.

Can we do a red line change to the plan the way we have for other plans, or does that not work?

I mean, technically, we could. I mean, it's yeah. It's it's really what the substance of of that is.

Yeah, I'm a little confused about this frankly because everything that we have done so far, the changes have been made onto the document itself after discussions and all of that. And yes, you're right that the changes are highlighted as hey, these are the things that we called out. But there were things that we didn't call out in the recommendations because it was part of the main document. So if functional plans are different, are all functional plan? Even the water plan, we asked for changes and they were made in the document, the water functional plan.

And the only exceptions were in that, like the changes we made the very last day were included in recommendations as a separate piece. Right.

Yeah. So the actual process is they might have done some kind of interim versions to kinda show, but ultimately, those final, like, changes were actually made when the plan itself was going, like, to the council packet for adoption.

So you're saying it's like a presentation of it? Yeah. So they may have made the red lines so that you could see how they would show up, but they didn't actually you didn't officially change the final document. No. It just went parallel with it.

That that really does not match, for either the water plan, the park plan. Yeah. I I don't think that's correct.

We made fair number of changes.

Maybe we can follow-up on this after the meeting because it we'll figure out something that gets this in at the appropriate level. But I'm gonna follow-up with staff, make sure that we have Yep. Our plans all straight on our plan.

And I know there is some confusion on the process because most of the work the last four years was the comprehensive plan where we've done numerous drafts where there's a lot more discussion and kind of like bring in different iterations and stuff like that Right. As we got to the final product. So

Yeah. It was this is slightly

different where this is more of an amendment process.

This is, we should double check on this offline. We'll do that after the meeting. But I think we'll leave this particular item open, and follow-up with new text.

Yep. I'll make some suggested We'll figure

out the correct way to actually incorporate that in our recommendation.

Sounds good. Okay. On to the next one. So this was construction cost accuracy and inflation planning, and we had a discussion about what we had used in there. And so the staff, which rolls onto the next page here, so we did use comps for that. And then, and then we talked with, I actually got some feedback from Jeff Churchill. We had originally looked at escalations, and then we pulled it out, and he said, you really it's standard in long range planning to just put in a estimated cost for today's value. That way whatever happens in the future can happen, and there's no, you know, miscommunication there. So that was what the staff response was to that.

So I I think the response is fine. But again, because the numbers are in the plan, we want to know where the numbers came from. So having it sit in a vessel of in today's construction dollars or date of publishing construction dollars. Just that clarification will help a lot because if I have that question, guaranteed other people are to say, is this accounting for inflation, whatnot? So just having if you put it in a memo on the side, it does not put context to the numbers.

So just put the context to the numbers and we can close this if again, it's just a question of adding that one extra line near that Yep.

100 mark. Yeah. And I think that's what we had said here is that that that's definitely a place that could bear some refinement. So if you wanna do it the same way as we're doing with the other one is I can

Yes.

I can send you what that would look like, get your blessing on it, if that would work.

Yes please. I mean it's just I'm just looking for just a clarity and a context line, nothing fancy. Yep. No problem.

Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Alright. Issue number eight. This was we were talking about requested clarification for the climate related, requirements and major building retrofits. And if we were aligned with the state level mandates, and that we said that we were, in alignment with the Washington State clean building standards and that that legal requirement applied to only our buildings over 20,000. And we talked about our lead gold and all those things. We didn't see anything that really out of this issue, like, we were able to discuss. So we didn't make recommend any changes to the plan.

Yeah. No. This was just a clarification question. Yep. So, I think the plan looks good as is, I'm happy to close.

Okay. Thank you. We had a second question regarding the diesel generators. And so we talked about fuel for quite some time. Again, through this conversation, didn't see that this was anything that would actually require any changes to the plan.

No, it's just helpful information.

Cool. Thank you. We received a question on our mutual aid. I think this was a clarification, but it wasn't noted in the discussion that it was a clarification. But, chief Despain, talked about our process of automatic aid to outlying communities. We do talk about it a bit in the plan just because it does have some impact on level of service. But overall, the conversation, the topic really didn't see that we would have to make any changes to our plan.

No. I think it was just informational. However, we will leave this open because we let the commissioners close their questions.

Okay. Sounds good. Then we talked about the fleet electrification. And, we talked more about fuel again on this one. And again, I think it was a good educational conversation, but, didn't think that there was anything that came out of that that would require any changes to the plan.

Yeah, was a great response. Really echoed your initial response, and I appreciated the balance that's necessary to kind of hedge climate plus functionality worst case scenario. So yeah, was great. Thanks.

Cool. Thank you. So we can close this one out, too.

Yes.

Thank you. Then we talked about disposition of the existing facilities. And, so we clarified that what would happen to any of the facilities wouldn't really fall within the confines of this plan. And in fact we added some clarification in the response to this that actually ends up becoming a council decision on what we do with it. So while all of that conversation, again, great topic, something fun to talk about, but we didn't see it would require any changes to our plan.

This is another one where I actually think putting exactly this text in would be very informational to any readers who aren't familiar with city processes and how this would normally work. And I think it's especially important because there are other city properties right now that are getting a fair amount of council attention, including

Which ones? Higher city.

So I just I think it doesn't change your planning at all, but it's a really nice button it up for a reader who might not be quite as familiar. Mhmm. Like, what is the plan with these places after they're done?

Yep. No. Good point. Okay.

So if you'd ever be willing to include even just this little blurb somewhere, that would be great.

Okay. Sounds good. Alright.

Thank you. We

talked about the water storage and addressing that, that relevancy in the plan. And so then we did discuss that obviously, our water levels do affect our level of service, but that infrastructure planning actually is in the water plan and doesn't have a like, that's not something that is in the control of the purview of the fire department except to acknowledge our relationship to that particular functional plan and that need.

So again, this is one where I love the text and the response. Having this as part of that little section on water saying, hey, we recognize this is part of what we need, but we are working actively. So then you're tying the two plans together and you're letting people know that, you know, it's working in tandem.

Mhmm.

And I think that's key in this. So just taking this text, cleaning up a tab and putting it in, it's not changing the plan. It's clarifying it, I think.

Sure. And we have that part of number chapter two, think it is, is where we bring in all of our framework and we have that relationship into Yeah.

But putting it because there's a water section there.

Mhmm.

I'm just putting it there as well saying we're working with our partners to achieve the same goals or something. Okay. Thank you.

If I

could We could close it. So

Or close or why don't we keep all of these little That would be then

we would open keep number hang on. Sorry. On number three open as well because that would be adding the last line that I requested. And that's just the one on yeah. So three would be open, and then 13 also would be open just for

Mhmm.

Just adding those lines in.

I think it's also it's nice when the current plan kind of speaks to what might be grabbing people's attention or anxiety in our surrounding community? Especially, like, East Side doesn't have the paper or any so the news that gets through tends to be sort of alarmist if it breaks through. Mhmm. And, it's like we've been hearing about Mercer Island's water main issues again for the second summer in a row. Like, Kirkland has spent a ton of money creating new water storage tanks and then parks on top.

So there's just like a lot of interest in those projects. So it's really nice if there can just be a small tie in saying like, this isn't a gap. This is a connection with other plans, written by the city. And I think that just it's a place where it's just confidence inspiring.

Okay. Yeah. So leave all these open because they're edits, and then incorporate on this particular one the language that we already used in the staff answer and just kind of folding it into space in there.

Does that does that work?

Yeah. That that was great.

Okay.

Thank you. It's minor edits at least for this one. Like Mhmm. I think the responses are awesome. I just wish it was a plan. Okay. Thank Fair you. Yep.

Okay. Item number 14 was we talked about battery storage again and electrification. And as we talked about in that conversation, you know, that's why we put this future forward line item out there for purchasing of stuff because we know it's a risk. We just don't know how we're gonna address the risk. So we didn't see that we needed any changes to the plan to address that. Does that meet you your needs, commissioner?

Yeah. And I'd I'd close this online, but I appreciate the again, the reflection on the fact is the two things that connect, we have more electric vehicles and capacity and then then creates some potential risk. So yes, appreciate the way it looks at it. The thing that was interesting, you wrote in here that it's impact fee eligible?

If it's if it can be connected to growth. So if there's a relationship to, let's say, EV charging facilities in certain areas that are tied to growth, then we should be able to get a portion of that be, impact fee eligible.

So if the buildings have got those put in, then you could make sure, hey we need to cover that because there's more of that capacity. Yeah. Great, thank you. Yeah, that's super helpful.

Item 15 was we talked about the liquefaction zone and the risk and the selection criteria, and we talked about that there are some known hazards that we're aware of. Can you scroll down a little bit more? Yeah. I think that in this one here, and that was part of the conversation was, that sometimes we have to make decisions about balancing risks and also emergent and immediate needs. I think based on the conversation that we didn't see that that we need to make any changes to the plan. We are letting you know that we are conducting a feasibility study for Station 11 as we move forward.

Great. Okay. Happy to close on this one.

Okay. Thank you. I think that was the last item, wasn't it? Yep. Okay.

Alright. And then, Commissioners, have any new items come up since we last met? Vice Chair Woodier.

Yeah, I did have a question regarding the fire functional plan, and I know I submitted a mail this afternoon, which wasn't very clear, so I'm gonna attempt to clarify that. And it's in reference to chapter six. And I'm wondering, how are we thinking about emerging technologies, and I'm thinking specifically drones, as enabling tools that extend the reach, efficiency and adaptability infrastructure. We have a drone fleet in the police department. As the command infrastructure gets built out as technologies, particularly around payload capabilities, start to advance, I'm thinking that, or I'm wondering how could these play an important role in supporting a fire response modeling and situational awareness.

So really, these emerging technologies provide solutions that potentially are efficient, more effective, and how are we thinking about that? There is an add on question to that and that is

Well, actually, why don't we do just that one first? So is that

Is that within our scope?

Is that within the scope for this?

Not for a functional plan. I I I read the email so I knew what you were about and That stuff like falls into some of the work that Chief Despain has done with us with our community risk assessment and our standards of cover. That gets into the kind of the tactical operational thing. What we've done in the functional plan is we've earmarked again funding for risks we know, but we don't know what we're gonna need to to do to solve that. And what you're talking about there has some merit to it because we are partnering to some extent with the police department with being able to see how their drone can help us out with, you know, maybe, somebody who's lost out on a trail and being able to use the, the heat seeking capabilities there. Vertical,

because we're building up and

Yeah. Yeah, and so one of the things that we would have to do from an analysis standpoint is how often does the drone provide us a tactical advantage versus we still need a paramedic to show up and go meet a patient up on the sixth floor.

We're thinking future because the technology is advancing so so quickly. But I think what I'm hearing you say, this is out of scope.

Yeah. So this is a this is a facilities plan. So this is looking at mostly structures and our large capital investments. The drone is, again, what we would identify through a standards of cover analysis and say, hey. You know what? We have this it provides a tactical advantage to us in certain areas. We should start to bake that into, you know, our budgeting process for the next biennium Does that make sense? Yeah. Cool.

So I'm okay with that then.

Okay, great. And then you had a follow-up question.

No, I was gonna say if that is within scope, then I think there's an opportunity to be thinking about within the language of this argument. Do we need to have more formal statement of cross departmental coordination, so that we are taking more holistic view of how we solve for this plan? And it sounds like it's out of scope, so it's not.

So cross department with? With the police department. With police.

Yeah, because we're all the city of Redmond, there's a lot of interdependencies there. And so therefore, that explicit cross alignment is an opportunity if we really want to be efficient in our response. How we think about even infrastructure, which is part of the scope.

Yep. Okay.

But it's out of scope of the functional Yeah. It's a great idea. But it's not this plan. It's another planning activity. Yep. Thank you.

Alright. Additional questions. Commissioner Barna.

I had a comment. And this might feel nitpicky. But it to me it has some depth connotations here. On page 43, there is a discussion on infill often leads to narrow roads, etcetera, etcetera. And one of the bullet points there says, growing number of renters, seniors, and others who rely heavily on emergency services. That does not read very well. It reads like renters need more emergency services as a sentence. It's a little awkward.

Mhmm.

Because it also feels like, I don't know. It it can be phrased better so it doesn't sound discriminatory.

Got it.

Maybe that that was not the intent, know, but it could be phrased cleaner.

Okay. You'd like to add that as another item on the issues matrix for us to clean up that language?

Guess so. It's And you said you specifically saw it on page?

It's on page 43.

Yeah. I think it's yeah. When we're talking about the different neighborhoods because that's down in the yeah.

Right. I don't know if it goes into the issue matrix or it's just like a typo class kind of deal. I'm not sure.

No. I think that sort of tone is very much our purview. So it's Okay. I think that that can go in the issues matrix and then especially where there's specific example of it. Right. Do you have recommendations for, like what you would hope So to see instead?

So it will be growing numbers of renters, seniors, and others who rely heavily on so I think renters are is a word which I have a problem with. Like Mhmm. You're saying there's a growing number of people all around. Whether they're owners or renters should not matter. So I think renters is where I'm having trouble with the if you remove that, it would be seniors and others who are vulnerable Mhmm. Who rely heavily on would give you that depth that you're looking for here.

Sure. Okay. I think there's a way to kinda noodle on that and see if there's a different phrasing.

Right. Yeah. I'm I'm this is very clumsy phrasing on my part, but the renters really does not strike the right Mhmm.

So. And there might be there might be demographic things that go with it. Like, there might be a different Mhmm. Percentage of people who speak English in that population. Right. Or which is absolutely an issue in emergency Mhmm. Response. Or so calling out a little bit more like, what what are the either abilities or the communication barriers or that sort of thing instead of just being like this group really Mhmm. Causes a lot of calls. I

Yep. Well, in the context of that is just to describe that, you know, there are zones, you know, impact levels of service. Right? And that there are, you know, groupings that we know that there's a relationship to calls. You know? So the point isn't to point out everybody who causes more calls to happen. It's just to say that in a in a broader sense. So I think that there's a way of just kind of like maybe reducing some of the specificity to get the same point across without it making it look like we're pointing at just certain

points. Yeah. I think I think that would do the trick.

Okay.

It's just more like because for me, it sounds like you're calling our renters, but you're not calling our owners. Which makes, you know, it's people.

Right. Yeah. Understood. So again, does it go on the issues matrix? Or would you just like a clarification like in an It's email.

Would be on the issue.

Okay. Sounds good. Alright. Thank you.

Mr. Coleman.

I had just a question, first of all. I was reading the comment, the external comment from Devin Kellogg, there's sort of three things that were put in here. And, I don't know how do we address

those in these? So, generally,

way that we handle comments is, if there is a point that was raised in a comment that you think needs to be on the matrix because it should be addressed, then you can bring that point with your spin on it. Okay. And if there are three points and you think each of them should be their own item, then let's do it that way just keep it cleaner. But if it's something where you're just like, this was a thoughtful comment, but I don't think it needs to actually be registered in the issues matrix, that's totally fine too. And then we just appreciate the comments. Glenn?

Yeah. And I would just maybe provide some context on that letter because the community won't be able to see that until the PC report is published. I would just maybe paraphrase or somehow summarize and how that ties into your comment or suggestion.

Yes, so there's one particular one here, which is I think we talked about this when we had our prior meeting. It was around vegetation and the increase the comments in essence about there's more browning trees, there's more falling needles, there's more kind of fuel and looking at sort of similar issues that obviously we've seen in the rest of the country, how we address that in the functional plan. And it's a climate change question. It's also a safety question about how do we deal with things that are on the ground or browning trees that you know neighbors go, oh, you know we have a neighbor who had a browning tree and they actually got it taken down themselves, but we were concerned, getting concerned about it actually just falling to be honest.

Mhmm.

So I don't know whether that's a functional or an operational question.

Yeah. That would actually it wouldn't be functional plan. So our functional plan is, again, where are we locating our stations and are we addressing the GMA, like our comp plan level of service, which is six minutes of travel time to a thing. Right? So just to make sure.

What you're talking about there actually would be like a vegetation management plan, which would actually would be cross cutting not just with the fire department, but with public works parks and anybody else that's actually doing vegetation management, within the city itself. And then some of the things that may be observed may be district issues. They may be King County issues, and that would be definitely outside of, like, while we provide services to fire district thirty four, and we can consult with them on what they should do, ultimately, you know, they would have to have their own vegetation management plan. So it's definitely not within the confines of the functional plan. Again, it goes back to the community risk assessment, that standards of cover document that we that, you know, chief Despain was point on talks about that kind of stuff.

But ultimately, who's responsible for ensuring the maintenance of that? That's gonna go into parks and public works through a vegetation management plan. Did that answer the question?

I answered the question. It doesn't necessarily get to the what do we do about it and who's

what we do about it, I mean, again, it would be, some of the things that we have actually started to look at is, is doing a vegetation management plan from a wildfire mitigation standpoint. That is one of, like, the projects for fire, but again, we don't do that alone. We can say we've identified a risk, but we need the people that actually have the chainsaws and the pruners to also be in this with us, and we also have to think about what are we planting in terms of trees. So it's a very, like, it's complex kind of plan to put together, but

Do you have is there a system right now or systems, sorry, that's too grandiose a word. Is there a way that people in the public can call the fire department and say, I think there's a problem of x, y, or z vegetation issue in my housing area or in someone's lot and I'd like someone to look at it. Can they do that? Is there an easy way of doing that?

If they called the fire department, to be honest with you, we'd probably call public works or parks. It depends on where the tree is, if the tree is in a right of way. If the tree's in the right of way, that's the city's responsibility. If it's neighbors' trees, that's not gonna be something that the fire department's really gonna be able to to do anything with. I know that doesn't sound like a wonderful answer, but, so then it goes back to, again, a broader thing where the community, where we work together on, do we actually need to look at overall what our vegetation management looks like in the city? Do we need to think about that? But, yeah, again, do we start creating policies and codes around the types of trees that people can plant in their yards? Again, that's outside of the boundaries of the fire department that goes into a planning.

Yeah. It's a question sorry. It's a question I was asked by a neighbor of mine as well.

Yeah. And it's I mean, it's something yeah. Go ahead, Glenn. He's the planning department guy.

I was also gonna note in our climate resiliency elements of the comprehensive plan, there are some high level policies that provide direction towards, the potential increased risk of wildland fires. I believe one of them was, direction to do, like, a wildland strategic plan or vegetation type plan, which isn't part of the comp plan, but that's the policy direction.

Yeah. I I just think it's so much in the news that addressing it is this is outside of the the conversation we're having this evening. Right?

It's okay.

But addressing it at a public from a public perspective because we've had it here. I don't know if other other commissioners have heard it, but I've heard it from more than one.

So what I think I would recommend here, because it's we're very, unfortunately, limited in scope Yeah. For planning commission, but the council is not. So excellent, thoughtful community feedback like this. I really think should go to city council, probably not us. Like, I appreciate that our discussion here jogged this thought, but it's like, it would be easier to get an actual outcome and something addressed by going to counsel and then they can they have a lot more control over schedule.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I just don't want to die here from the fact that we don't have an answer in this discussion. We should put it somewhere, that it can have some impact or be addressed in some shape or form publicly. Correct. Thank you.

Yep. Thanks. You're welcome.

Commissioner Cobley, do you still have a comment? No. You're good. Anyone else?

I was gonna say Chief Despain just turned your Chief Despain, did you wanna throw something in on that? Because I know you have a lot of experience in other agencies.

Yeah. Good evening. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. We can.

Okay. Yeah. So good evening, Commissioners. Yeah. So if it helps, we are already working on this. So what happens is a vegetation management starts at a, what they call a community wildfire protection plan. So we'll just call it the wildfire protection plan. That has to start from King County and work its way down. So it's already going through King County Emergency Management. So it's already started there.

The chief has already made it a point that once that's done, then we'll take that the next step and incorporate it into us. And so one is when we develop that plan, it is a cooperative effort between the different city departments. And also, it kind of balances the regulation of you can't just cut down trees indiscriminately and those kind of issues. But what it does do is once you have it in hand, it opens up these grant funds that we can have access to. And when we tried to access them before because we don't have a current CWPP, we can't we don't have access to them.

So it kills two or three birds with one stone. That's already in play. It's grinding its way through the King County regional piece first, and then it comes to us. And then we have to partner with us and the because it has to be regional because wildfires typically carried from one region to the other. So you can do everything right. And if the neighbor doesn't, then it ends up the the ember wash comes into your neighborhood, and you end up with houses on fire, and it doesn't do any good. So it has to be kind of a cooperation between everybody, not just Redmond. But we are working on that if it helps. So it's not going un addressed, it's been addressed in our strategic plan and it's kind of in step two or three of five right now.

Thank you, Chief. Good. We got a thumbs That was a great answer.

Thank you so much.

Sorry, thank you too for the question.

Alright. Any last thoughts? No? Then I think we are done. Thank you.

Cool. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Alright. Moving on to staff and commissioner updates. We'll start with Glenn.

I don't have anything in particular. Just a reminder, the next meeting is August 27, I believe. And, we'll continue with the fire functional plan. In addition, there will be the introduction of our capital facilities plan for general government facilities. Similar plan to this, but related to government facilities, which is another category of our infrastructure.

And in addition, there will be a briefing related to the environmentally Environmental Sustainability Action Plan Refresh. Again, that's not a document that's reviewed or recommended by Planning Commission, but it is a result of the work related to the natural environment element and the climate resiliency element that the commission worked on as part of Redmond 02/1950. So yep.

Thank you. I have three updates, which is very unusual. One is chair and two more personal. So the first is chair. Just wanna remind everyone as we're heading into the fall and then later the holidays to take a look at the planning commission schedule and just try your best to arrange meetings and personal travel and everything either around the meeting dates or else, if you can make it remote, that's wonderful.

Everyone's been doing a great job, but I just wanted to, like, in the spirit of the upcoming season change, just remind everyone. Personally, I had two really interesting planning topics that I can't chat about, except for here in this little updates moment. The first is, I had a chance to talk to the student from Redmond who got into Puget Sound Regional Council's Summer Planning Academy this year. So it's a rising junior from Lake Washington High School. And I just wanted to mention the program.

So if anyone knows any students who are interested in potentially considering planning as a career or a major in college, it was a really well run program. So they sent the kids on light rail, the fast ferry, buses all around the city on all of these, like, mad dash gathering data, gathering impressions. Not quite field trips, I don't know what you would call them. But then, they had a whole series of public speakers, which were apparently quite high quality. They have mentors and interns that were at the university level, talking to the high schoolers about their path, which was incredibly impactful.

And it just sounds like a great program. So the applications are in the spring. If you go to the PSRC website under get involved, you can find the link. But I just wanted to kind of broadcast it because it was just a really cool career option that I think kind of flies under the radar and is right in our purview. And then the second thing was just a fun tour. We got my family got tickets to go on a walking tour of the Issaquah Creek Rehabilitation Project. So this is at the South End of Lake Sammamish at the state park. And it was like a construction site. We wore hard hats. There were diggers.

It was really neat. But it was just to actually see the work that goes into rebuilding a stream. I know that's happened a lot around here, but I haven't actually gotten to see it up close. So it was just a really fun afternoon. I enjoyed it. And they're doing a ton of tree planting this fall. So if anyone wants to see a close-up, that would be a time to see it. What's your process for that? The process. It's if you go to, the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust website, they have a ton of events.

And I just I thought it was really interesting. And they're, like, rerouting the creek and, like, all the trees that blew down in the bomb cyclone. They have, like, dozens of them that they are planting in snarls to make slower water. It's just very cool. Alright. Any other commissioner updates? Commissioner Coleman?

Mine's a more amusing one. I'd just like to really thank the Elton John tribute band outside for, being with us in our meeting this evening. They've been amazing. Rock and roll.

It's cheered things up. Alright. Well, with that, I look for a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Alright.

Thank you. We are adjourned.