2021-04-28 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
April 28, 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
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Roger Pence
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe (unexcused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2021 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented that the decisions the Board is being asked to make directly affect property and
she and her parents have purchased. They have been working with the City for the past four years to subdivide the property
into three lots and build homes. The 1-acre property is located in a high -density zone and can legally be subdivided and
developed. However, the only three flat areas on the lot are densely treed. About 90% of the trees are large and would be
protected based on City code. She voiced concern that halting development on properties in Edmonds to honor the land and
the name of the Snohomish people will end up pushing out urban sprawl closer to the tribal lands allotted to them in the
Treaty of 1855. The City's actions will ultimately have a negative affect on the Snohomish Tribe. Edmonds citizens and
property owners will lose millions of dollars and the City will lose property tax revenue because of the decisions that are
being made to lay the financial burden upon only the owners of undeveloped land to achieve the goals of the City related to
trees. This is discriminatory, and a very small portion of the City's population will end up paying for the clearcutting that has
occurred. The fines are incredibly expensive for people who own undeveloped land.
Ms. Ferkingstad pointed out that most, if not all, of the undeveloped land in Edmonds has challenges (dense trees, steep
terrain, difficulty of access, etc.) that are expensive and difficult to overcome. It takes determined and driven people willing
to take on these challenges to build homes on these properties that are needed and allowed. She cautioned that penalizing a
property owner for the value of the trees on their property before development will have a detrimental effect on the cost of
building a home and on the worth of any land with dense growth of 24-inch or greater trees. Potential developers will factor
the City fines into the purchase price, devaluing properties because of the trees.
Ms. Ferkingstad shared her belief that taking away property value without compensation is against the 51 and 141h
Amendments of the United States Constitution. A comprehensive plan is needed that does not devalue property and harm
property owner, but instead gives greater value to properties with incentives to keep the trees. She urged the City not to
demand a quick pay out that will potentially bankrupt Edmonds property owners. She concluded that government taking for
public use without compensation is against the law. If pursued, these actions could come at a huge price to the Edmonds
taxpayers. She urged the Board to look at the side of the property owners who want to build homes and fulfill a need in the
City. Housing prices and demand is already significant in Edmonds, and the penalties would cost her family over $500,000
before they can even design and build a home. She pointed out that the cost of building materials has escalated substantially,
and the tree requirements will put an undue and unfair burden on the people who want to build new homes.
Board Member Pence requested the address of Ms. Ferkingstad's property so the Board could become more knowledgeable
about her situation. Mr. Lien agreed to share that information with the Planning Board. Ms. Ferkingstad advised that Mr.
Lien is aware of her situation. Because of the significant slopes, the potential building sites are limited. While they plan to
retain 50% of the trees, they would still be required to pay a substantial amount into the tree fund. They will need to cut
down 10 trees just to build one home, and the fine for each tree is between $8,000 and $10,000. There are 30 trees on that
one lot.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said her understanding of the findings of facts associated with the emergency ordinance is that the
City wishes to undertake careful thought and deliberation in crafting of the permanent landmark tree regulations that may
apply to all private properties in the City. She said she was present to comment on the technical studies and public outreach
efforts she believes are necessary to undertake this type of deliberative process:
A technical study to quantify the cost of private tree maintenance, as well as context costs for different types of
damage caused to private property by trees, such as foundation damage or root intrusion, is required. She observed
that the City has already qualitatively identified a subset of these impacts in the "Right Tree, Right Place" Section of
the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). However, these impacts were never quantified for private property
owners in a similar manner (i.e. the dollar value assessed for the environmental benefits). This is true for both the
UFMP and the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. The model used for the I -Tree Hydro specifically identifies that it
doesn't address maintenance costs. It is only fair that the City use public funds to explore both sides of this issue
before undertaking this process. These costs are necessary for the City to properly evaluate the burden placed on
private land owners for the environmental benefits, which have already been quantified. The costs will also be
necessary to create an effective incentive -based program that the City has already identified under Action B of the
UFMP Goal 3.
A technical study is needed to evaluate the City's public investment versus private burden priorities in relation to
Washington State Environmental Health Disparities Data. Upon recent review of the 2017 Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment and the UFMP, she found no consideration for its environmental justice issues. The City has already
identified in the UFMP that the Tree Canopy Assessment forms the "foundation for developing community goals
and urban forest policies." The priority planting areas identified in that assessment are not consistent with the
communities of greatest need, as identified by the State. Those living near the SR-99 and I-5 corridors are
disproportionately impacted in comparison to both the City and the State at large for diesel pollution and other
environmental exposures and correlate with lower education, living in poverty and limited English proficiency. The
affect of the City's action to center public investment in parks, street trees, and the City's priority planting areas,
will necessarily concentrate public dollars in the portions of the City that needs them the least for their air and water -
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 2
quality benefits while simultaneously creating a disproportionate burden for private property owners to maintain
trees where they are needed most. That is not fair.
Public outreach is needed. The City undertook significant outreach, including community surveys, to develop the
UFMP, which identified the public is generally satisfied with the City's activities on public property, but prefers to
have the City only provide guidance and education, as opposed to regulation, when it comes to the stewardship of
trees on private property. For private lands, the UFMP guides education incentives to encourage good tree
management practices and contains no actions that would support the emergency ordinance or regulatory
development process the City is currently undertaking. It is clear from the emergency ordinance that the City may
be evaluating actions in the ordinance that are a deviation from the UFMP. The plan also states, "conducting
outreach to the community is an important tool for engaging public interest and support." Given the deviation from
the UFMP, the City needs to undertake public outreach. All of these studies and efforts would have an added
benefit of properly supporting the findings of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Assessment.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Board
Member Pence noted that Sound Transit is soliciting input on ways to address their major funding gap for the ST-3 projects,
particularly those in Snohomish County that are not yet under construction. He commented that April 30t' is the deadline for
public comment and questioned if the City of Edmonds has expressed an official opinion on the matter. Mr. Chave said he is
not aware of an official statement from the City. Board Member Pence further commented that Sound Transit has $20 to $40
million in its program to improve access to the Edmonds and Mukilteo Sounder Stations. This is a lot of money to spend for
a very small number of additional riders that might be served. He said it is his personal opinion that those projects could be
sidelined and the money shifted to other Sound Transit projects in the County that provide benefits to substantial numbers of
riders. Mr. Chave responded that there is a lot of history on the Edmonds Station. Promises were made and money was
committed at various times for improvements. From the City's point of view, this funding is money that was owed years and
years ago but was never actually spent at the Edmonds Station, whereas similar money was spent at other stations around the
region. The money is not necessarily intended to address future ridership, but improvements at the station that were to have
occurred some time ago.
Board Member Pence noted that the Director's Report also addresses Planning Board appointments. Chair Rosen advised
that the Board Members received the updated schedule that the City Council approved on April 271 to realign Board
appointments to ensure staggered 4-year terms. The City Council recognized that the appointment terms had gotten out of
synch for a variety of reasons, and their desire was to bring them back into compliance where there would be a regular
rotation of no more than two terms expiring each year. There were also questions about the alternate position. Historically
by precedence, that person would move into an open position, but it was not clear and there was some misunderstanding of
intent. The City Council approved a schedule for realigning the appointments and clarified the alternate position. They
agreed that an open position is not automatically filled by the alternate. The alternate is intended to ensure continuity and a
quorum, and that person would certainly be eligible to be appointed. However, it should not be assumed that person would
be appointed.
Mr. Chave reviewed each of the Board Member positions as follows:
• Positions 1 and 2 (Rosen and Robles) expire at the end of 2022.
• Positions 3 and 4 (Cheung and Monroe) expire at the end of 2023.
• Positions 5 and 6 (Crank and vacant) expire at the end of 2024.
• Positions 7 and alternate (Cloutier and Pence) expire at the end of 2021.
Chair Rosen said another point of confusion was that the City Attorney referred to positions at the beginning of the year,
whereas the Board expressed its understanding that terms expired at the end of the year. The City Council confirmed that
Planning Board terms expire at the end of the year.
Board Member Pence said that, as the most recently appointed alternate on the Board, he received a letter in December,
informing him that his term was ending at the end of 2020 and he was not being reappointed by Mayor Nelson. Based on his
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 3
judgement from the City Council's recent decision and the roster that Mr. Chave recited, it appears that he is still a bonified
member of good standing until the end of 2021. He suggested that the letter from Mayor Nelson should be rescinded or
updated to reflect that he has not been booted from the Board. Chair Rosen said the City Council and Mayor Nelson
acknowledged there was an error and took action that Board Member Pence is a still a member in good standing as an
alternate.
Board Member Cheung clarified that, based on the City Council's action, Board Member Pence would not move into the
position that was vacated by Carreen Rubenkonig. He asked if there has been any progress in filling that position. Mr.
Chave said the position was advertised and a nomination will likely come before the City Council soon. Chair Rosen
suggested that part of the delay was for the City Council to take action on the term expirations first.
Board Member Cheung pointed out that, based on the schedule, the terms of Board Members Cloutier and Pence expire at the
end of 2021. He asked the likelihood of them being reappointed for another term. Mr. Chave said it will be up to the Mayor
as to whether or not they are reappointed. Board Member Cheung commented that Board Member Pence would act as a full
voting member of the Board until the current vacant position is filled. Mr. Chave explained that the alternate can participate
in all of the Board's discussions, but can only make motions and vote if another Board Member is absent or there is a
vacancy on the Board.
TREE REGULATIONS
Mr. Lien recalled that the Planning Board reviewed the draft Tree Code regulations during the 41 quarter of 2020. Following
a public hearing on the draft regulations on December 9, 2020, the Planning Board forwarded a recommendation to the City
Council on January 13, 2021. The City Council reviewed the Board's recommendation and adopted a version of the tree
regulations on March 2nd under Ordinance No. 4218. Through March and April, the Council continued to amend the tree
regulations, which were adopted on April 13, 2021 under Ordinance No. 4220. An amendment to Ordinance 4220 is being
drafted for the Council's consideration in May, which would establish a process for when it is not feasible for a developing
property to meet the tree retention requirement. Adoption of this amendment will conclude Stage 1 of the Tree Code update,
which focused on tree retention associated with development.
Mr. Lien advised that most of the tweaks to the Planning Board's recommendation to the Council were not significant.
However, some were more substantial:
• Amendment to the Requirement to Retain a Minimum Number of Trees with Development. Questions were
raised by both the Planning Board and the City Council about what how the retention and planting requirements
would apply on sites that do not have any trees. To address this issue, the Council adopted an amendment that
requires properties with three or fewer trees on them to have at least three trees per 8,000 square feet of lot area post
development.
• Use of Fee -In -Lieu Funds. When the Planning Board discussed the fee -in -lieu, they all felt it was important that
the payments received for not planting the required replacement trees should be used specifically for planting trees.
The City Council retained this provision, but added that the funds could also be used to purchase open space or
forested properties.
• Removal of Substantial Trees. Per the Board's recommendation, tree replacement would be required at a ratio of
3:1. However, both the Planning Board and City Council recognized the importance of the larger trees on a site.
Rather than requiring replacement of these trees, a City Council amendment requires an appraisal of all trees that are
24 inches or greater that are proposed for removal. The amount of the appraisal would be paid into the tree fund via
the fee -in -lieu program.
Mr. Lien reported that the City Council also adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 4217 that applies to landmark trees, which
are defined as "Trees with a diameter of 24 inches or greater at breast height (ABH)." The ordinance applies to all properties
throughout the City, and the intent is to allow time for the City to develop tree regulations that apply to all properties. Both
in the Planning Board's recommendation and the City Council's discussion, there was a desire to expand the scope of the tree
regulations that were being reviewed. The Stage 1 amendments were focused on retaining trees with development, so it
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 4
applied to subdivisions, short subdivisions, new single-family development, single-family redevelopment and multifamily
development. When a site is being developed, it is required to retain trees, but there is an exemption for developed single-
family properties without critical areas. Stage 2 of the tree regulations are intended to expand the regulations to apply to all
properties.
Mr. Lien advised that, as per Ordinance No. 4217, landmark trees can still be removed if they are documented to be nuisance
or hazard trees or if tree removal is reviewed and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land -use approval.
Because there are already tree regulations in place (Phase 1) for new development, trees that are reviewed in accordance with
the new tree regulations may be removed. Any development proposals that were vested prior to Ordinance No. 4217 would
not be subject to the ordinance.
Vice Chair Crank commented that the past several City Council meetings have been inundated with tree discussion. She is
curious to know if staff anticipates any additional direction from the City Council. She also asked if there has been any push
back from the amendments that have already been adopted. Mr. Lien answered that the City Council gave clear direction to
the staff and Planning Board that tree regulations will be a significant topic of discussion before both the Planning Board and
the City Council. Vice Chair Crank observed that there appears to be a lot more push back from the public regarding tree
regulations, and she asked if staff foresees even more discussion than normal at the Planning Board level because of that push
back. Mr. Lien expressed his belief that amendments that apply tree regulations to private properties will draw a lot more
interest than the tree regulations that focus on development. When Ordinance No. 4217 was passed, he sent a postcard to
every property address in the City to get out in front of code enforcement issues associated with the potential amendments.
For years, the City has been telling people that single-family properties without critical areas are exempt from review. In
addition, he had conversations with tree companies that work in Edmonds, several arborists and the public utility district. He
has received 869 emails related to trees since March 11. Trees are a hot topic, and expanding the tree regulations to apply to
all properties in the City will require additional staff time. As mentioned earlier in the meeting, the Phase 2 process needs to
have a robust public engagement process. Given the potential scope of Phase 2, he voiced concern that the September 2nd
expiration of Ordinance No. 4217 is too optimistic.
Mr. Lien cautioned that it will be important for the City Council to provide specific direction to the Planning Board and staff
as Phase 2 moves forward. He recalled that, prior to starting Phase 1, the topics of discussion were presented to the City
Council. However, when the Planning Board's recommendation was presented to them, they questioned why it wasn't
applied more broadly. He said he would work with Director Hope to consider whether or not staff should solicit more
specific direction from the City Council before starting Phase 2.
Chair Rosen asked if staff has been directed to outline a recommendation for the Phase 2 public engagement process. Mr.
Lien said that he has developed public engagement plans for other projects he has worked on, and he felt it would be a wise
approach for Stage 2 of the Tree Code update, too. Issues that have been raised at both Planning Board and City Council
meetings include trees that impact views, net ecological gain, wildlife corridors and habitat, and applying the provisions to all
properties regardless of whether critical areas are there or not. This code will have an expansive impact and should have a
robust public engagement associated with it. Chair Rosen asked staff to keep the Board advised of how it can help in
forming or encouraging a public engagement plan.
Board Member Cheung recalled that there was significant public participation the last time the Board conducted a public
hearing on Tree Code amendments that would apply to private properties. At least 50 people provided testimony and many
of the comments were repetitive. There was a lot of anger and frustration that the City would even consider a tree code that
infringed on private property rights. He suggested there may be other ways to solicit public comment in a more efficient and
streamlined manner.
Mr. Chave commented that the Board's goal should be to solicit as much public input as possible before the public hearing.
If early public participation helps inform the direction of the Planning Board's recommendation, they can often head off a lot
of the anger and frustration before the public hearing. Once the Planning Board has developed draft amendments for a public
hearing, they must allow all who want to participate in the hearing to speak.
Board Member Cheung recalled that, at the last hearing, many commented that they were not advised that the City was
considering amendments to the Tree Code until they received an announcement for the public hearing. Although the Board
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 5
had spent several meetings discussing the proposed amendments, members of the public were not adequately notified and
invited to participate early in the process.
Board Member Pence commented that the public hearing is the last step in the process of amending the code. There must be
good engagement with the public prior to the public hearing. While they can solicit written comments from the public, there
also must be opportunities for dialogue with the public in something like a town hall format. Providing an opportunity for the
Board and staff to respond to the questions and concerns that are raised in real time will help shape a better product that will
get less negative feedback at the public hearing.
Mr. Lien referred to the "Upcoming Tree -Related Items and Timing" document (Page 18 of the Staff Report) that was
prepared by Director Hope. The document was created based on Tree Code discussions, specifically the no net loss that is
mentioned in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). He explained that it was never the intent that the Phase 1 Tree
Code amendments, alone, would enable the City to meet the no net loss requirement. The City needs to undertake a number
of tree -related activities, as well. He specifically highlighted the following:
• Inventory of downtown street trees. An inventory is currently underway to identify the species, health and
location of all of the downtown street trees. The inventory will provide important information for the Public Works
and Parks Department that are responsible for managing the trees.
• Street Tree Plan Update. This update in currently underway. The Street Tree Plan is largely used for
development. Street trees are primarily those that are between the sidewalk and the street. The City has a map that
identifies what species of trees are supposed to be planted in the downtown and along major arterials in the City.
The Street Tree Plan will also spell out maintenance activities and standards and who will be responsible for doing
the work.
• Heritage Tree Program. This has been identified as a priority for the Planning Board to work on. He envisions the
program to be similar to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Special trees throughout the City could be
nominated and recognized. There is draft code available from past efforts, and the Planning Board will be working
on this item in the coming months. As the Heritage Tree Program will be a recognition program, he doesn't
anticipate a lot of controversy.
• Tree Canopy Goal and Tree Canopy Assessment. The City has published a Request for Qualifications for a Tree
Canopy Coverage Assessment. With the UFMP, the assessment was based on a 2015 ariel photograph, and the City
is looking to do a lidar assessment this time. This new assessment should provide more accurate information about
the City's current canopy coverage.
Chair Rosen asked the difference between an inventory and an assessment. Mr. Lien responded that an inventory
documents individual trees, and an assessment is not as precise. Rather than counting the number of individual trees
throughout the City, an assessment identifies how much area of the City is covered by trees. Chair Rosen said it
would seem the assessment would need to be completed before a tree canopy goal can be identified. Mr. Lien
agreed and said the goal is to complete the assessment right away.
Assessment of Staffing and Other Resource Needs. With the 869 entails he has received regarding the Tree Code
since March 1 St, his ability to work on other things has been limited. The City now has a full-time arborist, but she
primarily focuses on parks and not Development Services. As the Parks and Development Services Directors were
working on job descriptions for the arborist, it was decided that Development Services had enough work for a full-
time arborist. The job description hasn't been completed yet, but he hopes an arborist will be on board by the end of
the summer to help assess tree -related activities associated with development. This will be particularly important if
the City has regulations that require a review for all tree removal even if a permit is not required.
• Tree Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development. The City Council has directed the staff and
Planning Board to start working on this item. The discussion will also involve trees and views, solar access, wildlife
habitat corridors, etc.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 6
• Tree Giveaway Program. Now that the City has an established Tree Fund, staff can work on a Tree Giveaway
Program using vouchers, etc.
• Expanded Public Education and Information and Wildlife and Habitat Corridors. The wildlife and habitat
corridors are primarily the stream corridors throughout the City. It has been previously noted that the City was
largely developed prior to any critical area regulations. While buffers have been established in the Critical Area
Ordinance, the quality of the buffers is not sufficient in a lot of instances. Public education and outreach will be
very important as the City works to improve the habitat within these areas.
• Stormwater and Watershed Analysis. This analysis will be required for the City's next Municipal Stormwater
Permit, and it has been a hot topic in the Perrinville Watershed, as well.
• Other Tree -Related Issues. A City's Tree Board meets on a monthly basis to talk about tree issues, and the
Planning, Engineering, Public Works, and Parks Directors are working to improve coordination on tree issues
throughout the City.
Chair Rosen recalled that Mayor Nelson used the word "crisis" when issues related to the Perrinville Watershed were raised.
He suggested that situations like this should be prioritized. Mr. Lien reported that the City's Stormwater Engineer has
indicated that the Perrinville Watershed is a high -priority project for him. While it won't involve regulation for the Planning
Board to review, it will require a broader analysis of the watershed. He explained that the majority of the watershed is
located in the City of Lynnwood, so some coordination between the two cities will also be required. He advised that the
situation predates the City's stormwater regulations, which are currently quite strong and require that all stormwater
associated with new development must be managed on site as if it were a pre -development condition. Some watershed
restoration is needed to address the development that occurred prior to stormwater regulations and improvements.
Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the City Council's direction, priority items for the Board to work on include the Heritage
Tree Program and provisions for tree retention on private properties, whether or not there are critical areas on site. He
suggested an important first step will be to develop a public engagement plan. He will also have a discussion with Director
Hope about how much direction the City Council should provide prior to the staff and Planning Board diving in the Phase 2
update.
Vice Chair Crank said it is important that the Planning Board's time is utilized in the best way possible. This will partly
come from getting clear direction from the City Council to avoid the back -and -forth discussion that might potentially occur.
She would particularly like more direction on the Council's wish list that was presented at the joint Planning Board/City
Council Meeting in March.
Chair Rosen reiterated that public outreach will be very important, and the Board would like clear direction about what the
City Council wants them to focus on. This will enable the Board to structure the process in a way that allows them to work
efficiently and effectively.
Board Member Pence recalled that the Planning Board has had previous discussions about how to encourage more public
engagement. He suggested that Planning Board Members could help staff develop the public engagement plan, as well as
potential amendments to the Tree Code. He expressed his hope that the Planning Board could play a greater role in the
process, beyond their regular meetings. Chair Rosen agreed and encouraged the Planning Board Members to reach out to Mr.
Lien to let him know of their interest and background.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rosen announced that the agenda for May 12th will include an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department regarding parks and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan Update. The Board will continue their
work on tree programs and regulations on May 26th, along with a development activity report from staff.
Board Member Pence noted that State Legislative Updates are schedule for the June 231 and August 25' meetings.
However, the legislature has already adjourned for the summer. He suggested the updates should be deleted from the
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 7
extended agenda. Mr. Chave responded that the legislature has been very busy this year on planning -related issues, and Ms.
Hope wanted to provide an update on some of the significant things that have occurred. Board Member Pence suggested that
the update be scheduled for the May 12' meeting rather than waiting until June and August. Mr. Chave agreed to relay the
request, but commented that Director Hope may not be ready to provide the update on May 12'h
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rosen did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Cloutier thanked staff for providing the list of tree -related activities showing how much work the Board has
to do. He cautioned that it will be important for the Board to carefully track its progress as it moves forward.
Board Member Pence said he is still very interested in housing issues and anxious for the Board to start working on them as
directed by the City Council. He had a conversation with a City Council Member suggesting that backyard cottages would
be a straightforward topic the Board could be taken up early on. He also reported that Snohomish County will complete the
countywide Buildable Lands Report by June 30'h, and he is curious about the details that pertain to Edmonds. This
information will be necessary to inform the work ahead in responding to the Housing Commission's recommendations.
Vice Chair Crank reported that she has spent a lot of time listening to City Council Meetings and learning more about the tree
regulations, and she will try to share the information she has learned with the Board.
Vice Chair Crank said serving as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission was really interesting. She advised
that the commission will begin work to update the airport master plan, and a lot of issues will come up in the next few
months. Sound Transit will make a presentation at the Commission's July 221 meeting about what their extension programs
might look like. She will provide more information as the date gets closer.
Vice Chair Crank commented that there is talk that Snohomish County may be going back into Phase 2 of Governor Inslee's
plan, and she encouraged people to continue to be careful, mask up and exercise patience.
K"I PlIIJ 711u 10401"
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2021 Page 8