Loading...
2021-03-10 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Retreat Meeting Via Zoom March 10, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Roger Pence Daniel Robles STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Chair Rosen announced that, as this is the Planning Board's retreat, the meeting format would be less formal and there would not be an opportunity for public comment. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2021 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. HOUSING ISSUES BACKGROUND Director Hope shared key findings from the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Regional Housing Needs Assessment that identifies such things as community profiles and housing inventory, as well as an analysis of tools and actions that jurisdictions have taken or are considering. It also includes ways to monitor how housing is available throughout the region. She specifically shared the following: • The region needs about 800,000 new housing units to accommodate growth by the year 2050. In past years, the region (Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap Counties) has been under producing housing, and this has helped to escalate the demand and cost. There is a backlog of about 45,000 housing units because population growth has outpaced the production of housing. • The main housing growth is expected to occur in King County, with Snohomish County second. • Cost is a large part of the current situation, and lower housing costs require public intervention. The income level of households in Snohomish County is above 125% of the Average Median Income (AMI). For a 2-person household in 2020, AMI was about $66,000. The assumption is that people who make more than $66,000 can get by with market rent or homeownership, in general. However, it is much more difficult for lower -income families to find and afford market -based housing that is not subsidized. The greatest help is needed at the lowest income levels. If income levels continue at the current rate compared to housing levels, income and housing needs will be greater over time. • There is a substantial difference between white people and people of color as far as the ability to afford housing. This, in great part, has to do with the systemic racism that has occurred over the years. So much has happened the past that continues to affect people today. Stable housing is very important for quality of life, making it easier for people to enjoy their neighborhood. • White people are far more likely to own their homes, and housing prices have risen more than income. There are fewer middle -density options available in many areas, often precluded by zoning laws. Middle -density homeowner opportunities have become much scarcer. In Snohomish County, single-family development (1 home per lot), represents the majority of the housing types. Moderate density (2 or more homes per lot) represents a much smaller portion. • Housing needs are changing, and nearly 1/3 of the households are just one person. Of the other households, about 1/3 have children and 1/3 have seniors. There is an imbalance of housing and jobs in the region, and 1 in 3 households in the region is considered cost -burdened or severely cost -burdened because of the difference between income and the available housing. • Current efforts include funding mechanisms offered by the State. Housing bills have allowed cities and counties to obtain additional tax revenue to help with low-income housing. The Edmonds City Council has taken advantage of this opportunity, but it was just a small amount (about $70,000) in 2020. The legislature is also looking at opportunities to provide more funding for very -low-income housing. Federal funding has been reduced. • Vision 2050 promotes sustainable development and paying attention to the climate, equity and housing. • At the local level, a number of cities are working on housing action plans, updating codes, and finding new solutions to address the situation. Some have already taken actions that are helpful. The PSRC did a survey, but she didn't find it helpful because it was not at a fine enough level. • Many jurisdictions are considering or are providing incentives that focus on providing more housing supply, as well as stability for people who are income challenged. Subsidized opportunities are part of the answer. Director Hope summarized that a combination of jurisdictions are working with some funding to do analysis. As the effort plays out, staff will report back to the Board with more information. Board Member Pence commented that most of the data in the presentation was regional, though some of the numbers were divided by county. He asked if Ms. Hope had any sense of what Edmonds' share of the needs will be. Ms. Hope responded that staff will be working with other jurisdictions at the county level to identify the data more closely to come up with ballpark numbers for Edmonds that provide a better way to measure how the City is doing. Vice Chair Crank said she is curious to know, whether the information comes from the PSRC or the City's Housing Commission, if the pandemic has resulted in a change of thought process as to how the two groups view their work. She suggested that the community is in a completely different mind set now versus early 2020. Director Hope said she would discuss this as part of the next agenda topic. HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Director Hope reviewed that the Housing Commission was established in 2019 via City Council resolution. As per the resolution, the Commission's mission was, "To consider diverse housing policy actions designed to expand the range of Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 2 housing, including rental and owned, available in Edmonds irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability, or sexual orientation. " Fifteen members were appointed, plus 8 alternates, from a citywide pool of over 125 applicants. The Commission was initially tasked with providing recommendations to the City Council by the end of 2020, but the timeline was extended an extra month due to the pandemic. The Commission began its public meetings in September of 2019, with the first several meetings focused on the Commissioners getting to know each other and their varying backgrounds, as well as gaining a better understanding of the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Commission submitted policy recommendations to the City Council in January, and then the group sunsetted on February I". Director Hope explained that the Commission's process included extensive public outreach. Four open house events and four community surveys were offered, with over 2,400 total responses. About 60 to 70 people attended a physical open house prior to the pandemic, and over 3,700 total visitors participated in the four virtual open house events. While the pandemic required changes to the public outreach plan, substantially more people participated in the virtual meetings for a variety of reasons. Physical events will remain one of the City's outreach tools, but there is good evidence that virtual tools are also a good opportunity to provide information and get good feedback. In addition to the open house events and surveys, other outreach included mailings, flyers, press releases, emails, and housing news memorandums providing periodic updates of the process. Director Hope said the Housing Commission provided 15 policy recommendations. A lot of them focus on the "missing middle" housing, but include other things such as the use of existing sales tax, partnerships with other agencies, Comprehensive Plan updates and dealing with discriminatory provisions in plans and deeds. In addition to the 15 formal recommendations, the Commission also provided a list of supplemental recommendations for the City Council to consider, such as simplifying zoning code language and streamlining the permitting process. Director Hope advised that of the 15 policy recommendations, 9 of them relate to planning. She emphasized that the City Council has not had an opportunity to review the recommendations yet. While she would present the statements for each of the 9 policies related to planning, she would not go into detail at this time. The 9 planning -related policies include: • Develop design requirements and zoning changes that allow for homeownership of two attached, single-family homes (duplex, townhome) in single-family residential areas where compatible with the neighborhoods. • Develop incentives that apply to "missing -middle" housing types, particularly geared towards helping people own their homes, even if they are below AMI. • Establish a new zoning type of single-family housing that allows for construction of zero -lot -line duplexes, triplex and fourplexes if they are only one or two stories in height and located in specific areas around transit, business districts, and school/medical complexes. • Develop subarea plans to create neighborhood villages of commercial/mixed-use development at Five Corners, Perrinville, etc. The idea is that the subarea plans would complement the existing neighborhoods by adding more creativity, gathering points, business opportunities, and some "missing -middle" type housing. • Consider the option of allowing cluster housing in single-family and multifamily zones in the City. • Allow either one accessory dwelling unit (ADU), either attached or detached, on properties in single-family zones. Rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit, they could be outright allowed with clear requirements related to size, ownership, parking, etc. • Encourage inclusionary zoning by requiring developments above a certain size to provide a percentage of the units at an affordable level or pay fees that could be used for affordable housing elsewhere in the City. • Develop multifamily design standards to ensure that development is well -designed and compatible with adjacent properties. • Adopt language that would include parking solutions as a goal in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Director Hope advised that an overview of the Housing Commission's policy recommendations will be introduced to the City Council on March 16'. They will likely review the recommendations over the course of the year before deciding what to do with each of them. There will be opportunities for public input as the City Council's work continues, and the Board may be invited to provide input at some point, as well. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 3 Board Member Cheung asked if the City collected demographic information about the people who participated in the outreach events. Director Hope said some demographic information was collected from the surveys and she could share that information with the Board at a later time. In general, people who participate on line tend to be more affluent and middle age or older. However, young people and people of different income levels were also involved. Vice Chair Crank asked if staff observed or noticed a change in thought and priorities over the course of 2020 due to impacts associated with the pandemic. Director Hope again noted there was greater participation in the public open houses and surveys, but she doesn't have an absolute answer for how their thoughts and priorities changed as a result of the pandemic and its impacts to their lives. However, during the pandemic, one of the Housing Commissioners lost their housing and wasn't sure they were going to be able to remain in Edmonds. This provided an eye-opening example of the fragility that many people face if their situations change at all. She emphasized that there were a variety of viewpoints amongst the Commissioners, and there were few things that received 100% agreement. However, viewpoints also changed as Commissioners were provided a lot more information. Board Member Pence reviewed that, when the Housing Commission was established, there was wide -spread recognition that there were different issues in different sections of the City. As a result, the City was divided into seven districts, with Commissioners selected from each one, to get a diversity of opinion. He asked if there was any way to divide out the citizen input that was received by district. Director Hope answered that the City doesn't have the infrastructure in place to make this distinction. She observed that the idea behind creating districts was to ensure representation across the City rather than allowing one area, such as the bowl, to dominate. Board Member Pence asked if Commissioners were encouraged to do community outreach within their districts. Director Hope responded that, while the Commissioners were encouraged to exchange ideas and solicit input from residents in their district, the goal was to address the housing situation citywide. UPDATE ON VARIOUS POSITION RECRUITMENTS Mr. Chave reported that the Mayor is currently reviewing applications for the vacant Planning Board positions, but he doesn't know how many applications have been received to date. Chair Rosen asked how many positions will be filled, and Mr. Chave said he anticipates two but doesn't know for sure, as the application, selection and appointment process is handled through the Mayor's office with no involvement from the Development Services Department. Board Member Pence commented that he was previously an alternate member of the Board, and the code that applies to the Planning Board states that alternates continue to serve until a successor has been appointed and confirmed. It also states that when there is a vacancy in a numbered position, the alternate would move into that numbered position automatically. Last December, there was some miscommunication and error in process that, at one point, showed four Board Member terms expiring simultaneously. But under the code, only two positions expire each year. As discussed by the Board in January, he and Board Member Rubenkonig were not reappointed by Mayor Nelson. However, they could continue to serve until replaced by new members. Board Member Rubenkonig elected to resign rather than continue until a replacement was appointed. Based on a previous discussion, he had assumed he would move into her numbered position, but this has never been clarified to his satisfaction. Mr. Taraday agreed that mistakes were made regarding Board Member terms. He expressed his belief that, based on code, it wouldn't make sense to have the alternate slide into an expired position. They should be appointed through the normal course. He reviewed the original ordinance that established the Planning Board to clarify questions about terms. While the language is not clear, he expressed his belief that it would be a misinterpretation of the code to conclude that the City Council that created the Planning Board would have staggered the terms in such a way as to have some Board Members serving terms longer than four years. His assumption is that the longest terms would have been four years, and the remaining terms would have been staggered for shorter lengths of time. Board Member Pence summarized that, based on Mr. Taraday's interpretation, there is a vacant numbered position (Board Member Rubenkonig), but rather than sliding into that position, he will remain an alternate but continue to serve until his replacement is confirmed. He recalled that at a previous City Council discussion, Mr. Taraday opined that perhaps Board Member terms expired on January lst rather than December 311t. He asked if the discussion has moved beyond that interpretation. Mr. Taraday explained that December on 311 at 11:59 p.m., Board Member Pence was the alternate still serving the normal term. At midnight on January 11t, his normal term expired, and he is now holding over waiting for a Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 4 replacement to occur. Going back to the original ordinance that was passed in 1980, Board Member Pence noted that term expirations were assigned to each of the eight positions (7 numbered positions and 1 alternate). If the expiration dates were carried forward, adding 4-year increments, his expiration date would be 2021, which would give him the remainder of this year to continue serving, even as an alternate that did not slide into a numbered position. At this time, he doesn't understand why his term would end a year earlier than what the code appears to indicate. Mr. Taraday said he also did the math and concluded that Board Member Pence's term expired at midnight on January 1, 2021. If Board Member Pence disagrees with his conclusion, then he would necessarily have to conclude that the City Council would have wanted some of the original Planning Board Members to have a 5-year term, and he doesn't believe that was the case. Again, Board Member Pence said he cannot find any precedent in City code or procedures or even State law that terms of office expire on anything other than December 311. He doesn't believe the City Council created this special exception for the Planning Board. He respectfully challenged the City Attorney's interpretation. Mr. Taraday clarified that the terms do not change in the middle of a day, they change when one day becomes the next. Whether a term expires at 12:00 p.m. on December 315t or 12:00 a.m. on January 11t, it is the same. Board Member Pence said his position is that when you add the numbers to the code as it was originally written, the term of the alternate expires in the year 2021. The only question remains whether that means January 1, 2021 or December 31, 2021. Again, he believes his term expires on December 31, 2021, the same as for any other Board Member, Commissioner or Elected Official in the City. Chair Rosen suggested the discussion is more about the term length than about whether terms expire on the 31 st or 1 st. Board Member Pence believes his term extends through December 31, 2021. Board Member Pence advised that a number of people have looked into the issue, and their research also concluded that his expiration date is December 31, 2021. He said he has only served on the Board for 18 months, and Board Members typically serve for a number of years. He is interested in continuing to serve as long as he can. Mr. Taraday pointed to language in the original ordinance that influences his interpretation of the issue at hand. Ordinance 2170 was adopted in 1980, but the effective date of the ordinance is January 1, 1981. This suggests to him that the terms would expire at the beginning of January 1st of the year indicated. If you take the position that terms expire at the end of the year indicated, Position 7 and the alternate position would have been given 5-year terms to start the original Planning Board. This conflicts with language elsewhere in the ordinance that states that Planning Board terms are 4 years. Board Member Pence noted that Ordinance 2170 has been amended a number of times since it was written and put into effect on January 1, 1981. His reading of the history is that the City Council just didn't worry about the terms, allowing 5-year terms for two of the eight Board Members. They didn't set up the 4-year cycle until after the first year was underway. Chair Rosen said it was his belief that Board Member Pence would be a member of the Board for a greater length of time, even if he misinterpreted the assumption that he would slide into the numbered position as had been the Board's practice, even if not directed by the ordinance. It seems odd that he wasn't reappointed given that he has only served for a short time. However, he recognized that it is the Mayor's decision. Board Member Cheung asked about the Board's past history for automatically moving alternates to the numbered positions. Chair Rosen said his understanding is that, while moving alternates to numbered positions was the Board's typical practice, it isn't apparently how the ordinance works. Mr. Taraday said he assumes that all of the Board Members who started as alternates and moved into a numbered position did so mid -way through the term of the numbered position and not after the numbered position term expired. Chair Rosen commented that, in his case, Board Member Lovell's term had ended, but he stayed beyond his term, preventing him from sliding in. Mr. Taraday agreed that some pretty significant mistakes have been made over the years and some fix will be required to get back to the point where two terms expire each year. However, he doesn't interpret the code to mean that alternates automatically slide into numbered positions even when the term of the numbered spot is expired. Chair Rosen requested an update on efforts to recruit a new Student Representative to serve on the Planning Board. Mr. Chave said the advertisement has been published and one application has been submitted to date. He said the Board could interview the applicant now or wait for more applications to come in. The application deadline will remain open until the position is filled. He advised that appointing a Student Representative does not have the same appointment requirements. Traditionally, the Planning Board has approved its own Student Representative. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 5 TRAINING SESSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY Attendance Requirements Regarding meeting attendance requirements, Mr. Taraday referred to Chapter 1.05 of the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC), which states that, "Members of all city boards, commission and committees shall be removed from office and the position deemed vacant if such member attends less than 70% of the regular meetings in any one calendar year and/or is not in attendance at three or more consecutive regular meetings. " The code also talks about remote participation, which allows members to `participate in meetings remotely up to two times per calendar year, and such participation shall be considered attendance for the purposes of this subsection. " As defined by the code, the Planning Board's regular meetings are those conducted in the Council Chambers, which means the Board hasn't had a regular meeting in a long time. This temporarily excuses some of the attendance requirements. Mr. Taraday advised that there is a proviso in the code and in the Governor's emergency proclamation, which allows remote participation only when Board Members can hear each other and members of the public can participate. In addition, a member's remote participation must be complete, from the start of the meeting to the end. If there is a disconnection during the remote meeting, the Chair has the authority to determine whether the member may continue to participate depending on how much of the discussion that person may have missed. Mr. Taraday advised that the Chair has the authority to excuse any member from attendance at any meeting for work -related reasons, illness or death in the family, and extended vacations in excess of two weeks in length. According to the code, a vacation that is less than two weeks would not constitute reason for an excused absence. The Chair must note the excuse at the meeting so it can be recorded in the minutes along with the reason given by the excused member. If the Chair is absent, the Vice Chair or Chair Pro Tern will make the determination of whether an absence is excused or not. The same procedure should be followed, announcing the absence, whether it is excused, and why. Mr. Chave reviewed that, in years past, members have come down sick late in the day and the Chair is not notified prior to the meeting that they wouldn't be in attendance. When this has occurred, the Chair has excused the member at the following meeting. He asked if that is allowable. Mr. Taraday said that, according to the strict language of the code, retroactively excusing a Board Member would not be allowed. However, it is important to note that it takes unexcused absences at three consecutive meetings to lose your seat. He reminded them that the code is changeable, and this particular language hasn't been reviewed for quite some time. He encouraged the Board Members to proposed changes as needed. Board Member Cloutier suggested that, since the minutes are not considered final until reviewed and approved at a subsequent meeting, there is an opportunity to amend them to identify an excused absence. Mr. Taraday responded that, as per the code, "the excused absence must be so noted by the Chair at the meeting from which the member is being excused. " Again, he said the language could be tweaked if it seems unworkable. But the three consecutive meeting provision gives the Board Members a fair amount of leeway. In the unlikely situation where a Board Member has three consecutive unexcused absences or 70% over the calendar year, Mr. Taraday advised that removal from the seat would be automatic as of the date the City Clerk's written notification is issued. He suggested staff touch base with the City Clerk to find out if attendance at Planning Board meetings is actually being tracked. He suggested that a change may be needed since it would be pointless to have a code about absences if they aren't being tracked. Mr. Chave noted that, when the code was developed, there were very few City boards and commissions. Since that time, the number has multiplied. He agreed that there are housekeeping changes that need to be taken care of. Chair Rosen observed that, in the past, the Board has been somewhat lax in excusing Board Members. He reminded Board Members that they need to be better at letting the Chair and/or staff know when they will be absent and why. If a Board Member misses more than 30% of the meetings, which equates to six each year, the unintentional consequence is that he/she could lose their position. Mr. Taraday said Board Member could prompt the Chair to address absences and identify whether they are excused or not. Unlike a lot of bodies that require a vote to excuse an absence, this responsibility is given to the Chair of the Planning Board. However, it is tightly defined as to what qualifies as an excuse. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 6 Board Member Pence said it would be nice to get some clarity from the City Clerk before the next meeting as to whether he has been tracking attendance at the Board Meetings. If not, does he intend to start? Mr. Chave agreed to contact the City Clerk on behalf of the Planning Board. Since the requirement is general, however, it would apply to other City boards and Commissions, too. This would be quite a job for the City Clerk to undertake. Chair Rosen suggested the code needs to be changed if the City Clerk will not be tracking attendance. Mr. Taraday said that something to remember if the Board is ever down a member is that three members shall constitute a quorum. Mr. Chave said it is important for Board members to notify the Chair of planned absences prior to the meetings, because excused absences will excuse Board Members from the attendance requirements. OUen Public Meetings Act (OPMI) Mr. Taraday reviewed that the legislature declared that all boards, like the Planning Board, exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business, and their actions should be taken openly, and their deliberations should be conducted openly. That means that the OPMA would apply. In the Planning Board's case, they are only doing the people's business when there is a quorum to act. When there is less than a quorum, the OPMA would not apply. Secret ballots are not allowed under the OPMA. Mr. Taraday explained the difference between regular and special meetings. Regular meetings happen at a regular time and in a regular place, and any kind of action can happen regardless of whether or not it has been posted on the agenda. If something urgent comes up at a regular meeting or the conversation leads in a different direction than anticipated, the Board is allowed to take unplanned action. Special meetings can occur at any time, at any place, as long as there is 24-hour notice of the time, place and business to be transacted. At a special meeting, final disposition can only be taken on matters listed on the agenda. Mr. Taraday said penalties associated with the OPMA are not insignificant ($500 for the first violation and $1,000 for any subsequent violations). Penalties can rack up quickly if Board Members start to meet via email, and the exchange of emails can easily snowball into meetings. The good news is that an OPM plaintive must prove that there is intent to meet, and the passive receipt of an email does not demonstrate the necessary intent to meet. He shared the following practice tips. • When receiving an email, count the people on both the "to" line and "bee" line before responding or forwarding the email. If an email was sent to more than one Board Member, then at least three Board Members are involved. You would want to be very careful about forwarding the email to a fourth Board Member, as this would constitute a quorum. • If a Board Member is starting a new email exchange or informing fellow Board Members about some interesting material they want to share, they should put all of the Board Members in the "bee" field. This would make it more difficult for one of them to "reply all" and accidently create a meeting. • If a matter is not urgent, Board Members should wait to have the actual discussion at the next Planning Board Meeting. • "Bee" fields are not always a safe harbor, as they can be abused. Under the right circumstances, the court could determine that there was an intent to meet. Mr. Taraday shared examples from case law to illustrate potential problems. Although he previously indicated that passive receipt should ordinarily protect you from a claim, there are fact patterns in case law that suggest the courts have not always looked at these situations in the most generous way. He concluded that email is dangerous, and his best advice is to minimize its use to discuss Planning Board matters. Vice Chair Crank asked if the OPMA requirements caused the City's decision to remove the chat feature as an option for virtual meetings when they changed to the webinar format. Mr. Taraday pointed out that the chat feature is problematic in part because members of the public who are accessing remotely are not privy to what is in the chat. Mr. Chave recalled that a mistake was made early in the City's use of the online meeting format when the chat option was left on and comments from members of the audience were showing up on everyone's screen while testimony was occurring. This created a situation where multiple comments were occurring at the same time. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 7 Board Member Pence asked if it would be considered a violation of the OPMA if City Council members text each other during a regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Taraday said it depends on how many Council Members are included on the text stream and whether it involves a quorum. Board Member Pence summarized that the Council Members can text each other individually during a regular meeting, as long as they don't text to a quorum. He commented that the public participates in public meetings to listen to the deliberations of their elected officials, and it is disheartening to find out that some of the deliberations were not public. Instead, they were conducted privately via text message. He asked if a member of the public could submit a public records request if they were aware this was going on, and Mr. Taraday answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Crank emphasized that this rule would apply to all boards, commissions and councils that meet on behalf of the public. Mr. Taraday agreed and said it is good to remember that text messages are part of the public record if you are texting about City business. He advised them to minimize the use of text for City business for exactly that reason. Mr. Taraday encouraged the Board to reach out to him anytime they have a legal question or concern that needs his assistance and/or clarification. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Board Member Robles said he would like the posting for the Student Representative position to be forwarded directly to the high schools. Mr. Chave said it was a public notice, but he could send the information to Board Member Robles and he could disseminate it to the local high schools. Board Member Robles suggested the Board has an opportunity to add educational features to the duties of the Student Representative. Based on the experience and comments provided by the last Student Representatives, he was hoping the position could be limited to high school students as opposed to college students. A college student can vote and regular Planning Board positions are available to them as adults. Whereas elevating a high school student to the position gives them access to something they do not normally have. Having this access allows them to represent their peers. Chair Rosen questioned if it would be fair to limit the position to high school students if that was not made clear in the posting. Board Member Robles agreed it might be too late this time, but he would like to consider the option of limiting the position to high school students in the future. He commented that sending the notice to high schools may be the best way to express their preference this time. Board Member Robles recalled the suggestion from the previous Student Representative that it is up to the Board to formulate opportunities for them to speak to the City Council, either directly or indirectly, as they represent the thoughts of the younger generation. He suggested the Board should form a curriculum that allows them to see the workings of government and learn how they can speak with power. Rather than interviewing the one application that has been received to date, Board Member Robles suggested they keep the position open for a bit longer to allow time for high school counselors to get the word out to the students. 2021 WORK PROGRAM AND EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen said the purpose of this discussion is to review the Board's 2021 Work Program and validate what they believe are the priorities. Mr. Chave advised that staff has been reviewing the City Council's recent activities to plan a schedule for items that are likely to come up in 2021. While the 2021 schedule is not yet complete, the Extended Agenda identifies items through July and includes the following: City Council has indicated that additional work related to trees is a high priority right now. This work will need to begin immediately, as the City Council recently adopted an interim ordinance that prohibits the removal of trees that are 24 inches in Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) or more. There are two public hearings scheduled for the Board's next meeting: outdoor dining and unit lot subdivisions At a future meeting, Mr. Lien will share what the City Council has been discussing as far as tree programs, heritage trees, landmark trees, etc. There is potential for a joint meeting between the Planning Board and the City Council towards the end of April. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 8 • Ms. Feser, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, will meet with the Board to provide updates on park activities and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. • A few board members have requested that staff provide a development activity report. • The Board will continue its work on electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle storage requirements. • Director Hope will provide a legislative report on items related to planning. Mr. Chave reviewed the list of items that are anticipated to come before the Board during the second half of 2021 as follows: • Staff is anticipating that housing issues will start coming before the Planning Board. These will be a high priority and take up a lot of time. • The City has requested applications and will soon start interviews for someone to assist staff with code writing. It will take some time to develop potential amendments, so the work hasn't been scheduled on the immediate Extended Agenda. • The implementation of code updates relating to trees is identified as a pending item. • The public outreach for the Climate Action Plan is currently in progress, and the Board will likely see the issue come before them later in the year. • Housing policies and implementation will be a high -priority item. • Updating the PROS Plan will also be a high priority. • Staff will start preparing for the significant update to the Comprehensive Plan that is required in 2023, completing a gap analysis to identify where the plan is lacking. The regional plan and countywide policies are currently being updated, and the City's Comprehensive Plan will need to be updated to be consistent. • While updating the subdivision code is a high priority, it will not likely show up on the Board's immediate agenda. INCREASING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Chair Rosen reported that the City's Public Information Officer position was originally approved to be full-time, but it was later reduced to half-time. He asked the status of the position and if the job description would include advertising the Planning Board's agendas. Mr. Chave reported that they are currently interviewing applicants, but no decision has been made yet. Board Member Pence asked where the position would be housed, and Mr. Chave said it would be part of the Economic Development/Community Development Department. He noted that the person previously hired for the position primarily took care of social media updates for the City. However, she did some work to standardize the press releases, etc. Chair Rosen referred to ideas that were offered by Vice Chair Crank when the Board last discussed how to increase public engagement. One involved the Board Members taking on a certain burden to share the opportunities that exist for public participation, such as on social media. At that time, the Board Members were cautioned against using social media to advocate for an issue or speak on behalf of the Board. Vice Chair Crank said it could be as simple as posting links to the Planning Board meeting agendas on their various social media networks. Chair Rosen encouraged the Board Members to look for opportunities to be proactive in informing and inviting the public about issues that are coming before the Board. Board Member Robles asked if City staff could provide hot sheets with information for the Board Members to share. Chair Rosen said someone from City staff has been very proactive about making sure that the Board Members receive media releases and notices within certain topics, and he finds it very helpful. He suggested that the scope of the information could be broadened to provide more information about topics that are specific to the Board. Board Member Robles suggested this could be an internal resource for the Board's information. Mr. Chave noted that the Development Director's reports provide a lot of helpful information. Board Member Robles commented that the Board Members should assume that items contained in the report can be made public. As Vice Chair Crank has cautioned in the past, Mr. Chave reminded the Board Members to avoid weighing in on the pros and cons of issues outside of their meetings. Vice Chair Crank added that the City's Facebook Page has been up-to-date on events and issues that are coming up, too. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 9 TRACKING AND METRICS Chair Rosen recalled that, at their last retreat, the Board discussed a desire to create some type of metric to track the outcome of their recommendations to the City Council. This information will help the Board get a sense of how effective they are being. Board Member Cloutier reviewed that the Board talked about having staff report to them ever the City Council takes action on one of their recommendations. A post -event recap could be a regular item on the Board's agenda. For example, the Board could review their recommendation to the City Council, and staff could present a brief summary of what happened and provide a comparison between what the Board recommended and the City Council approved. This feedback could help the Planning Board measure the effectiveness of their recommendations and consider how they could be a better resource to the City Council. The Board voiced concern about how this new report might be too burdensome for staff to prepare. Vice Chair Crank suggested they start small by adding "Council Recommendation Feedback" as a standing item at the end of each agenda. This will give the Board an opportunity to question staff about the outcome of their recommendations. They can expand upon the idea, as appropriate, moving forward. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rosen did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Pence said he is very curious about the Buildable Lands Report that is currently in progress. As the City moves forward to address housing issues, it will be important to pay attention to the amount of real estate that is subject to development and redevelopment. Board Member Pence referred to the Perrinville Woods Project, which is a 14-unit development that has generated a lot of public comment. Many are opposed to this lot being developed, and he is curious to know more about the project and whether the property should be recommended to the City for potential acquisition. Board Member Pence reported that the City is working on the median improvement project on Highway 99. He shared his recollection that a gateway planning was supposed to be done to spur redevelopment in the southern terminus of the highway. Vice Chair Crank said she is a member of the Highway 99 Gateway Task Force, which only met once in 2020 in late September or early October. The intent is for the task force to meet again in the first quarter of 2021. Other than the report that was provided to the City Council a few weeks ago, there is nothing else to report. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 10, 2021 Page 10