At its Aug. 27 meeting, the Redmond Planning Commission heard public comment from David Morton, a Redmond resident, urging the city to pair the Environmental Sustainability Action Plan (ESAP) refresh with a dedicated funding stream and a sustained public education program.

Morton told commissioners, “We’re at a critical juncture with climate impacts becoming more evident, and this refresh provides a vital long term policy framework to reduce emissions and enhance resilience.” He said the plan’s “five big moves,” focused on buildings, transportation, waste and community resilience, are appropriate because existing buildings and transportation are the largest local sources of emissions.

The nut of Morton’s request was funding and outreach. He cited a People for Climate Action (PCA) report, which he said recommends expanding existing programs to include heat‑pump water heaters, induction stovetops and improved weatherization, along with better transit accessibility and fare reductions. “Without a long term funding source, the city’s ability to implement projects, offer financial assistance, and sustain these efforts over time will be limited,” Morton said. He suggested options for a dedicated funding stream such as a voter‑approved sales tax or a special fee and urged a “robust ongoing public education program” to build community support.

Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the ESAP refresh during the portion of the meeting captured in the transcript. Chair Weston opened the public comment period after routine roll call and procedural approvals; staff member Glenn Coyle noted one person signed up to speak and later said the PCA report Morton referenced had been emailed to the commission.

The discussion in public comment reiterated elements of the draft ESAP described by Morton as the plan’s “five big moves” (buildings, transportation, waste, community resilience). Morton praised staff outreach and the plan’s alignment with local planning documents referenced in his remarks. He also identified gaps he believes remain in the draft: modest current funding and staffing levels for the Energy Smart Eastside program and an absence of a guaranteed long‑term revenue source to finance incentives, retrofits or transit improvements.

No motions or directions to implement Morton’s specific recommendations appear in the transcript. The commission’s next agenda item was a staff briefing on the ESAP refresh; that briefing is noted as forthcoming in the meeting record but is not included in the provided transcript excerpt.

The public comment and the scheduled briefing make clear that implementation details — funding, staffing and public education — will be key issues as the ESAP refresh moves through the Planning Commission process. The transcript does not record any formal commitments, timelines or actions by the commission on those points.