Loading...
2018-05-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 23, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Megan Livingston, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director's written report, but there were no comments from the Board. RECOMMENDATION FOR DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Director Hope advised that the Board has received all of the materials for the draft UFMP, except a slightly revised draft is still in process. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Board to discuss the key points of the plan and potentially forward a recommendation on to the City Council. She reminded the Board that the UFMP is intended to be a policy guide and not an environmental impact statement or scientific study. It is similar to plans in other jurisdictions, but with some information that is unique to Edmonds. The plan provides background information about the value of trees and outlines some of the challenges of trees. It also describes the City's current forest management program and explains how resources are currently being allocated to this effort. Director Hope advised that the draft plan identifies 21 objectives that include continuing to work with the Tree Board, encouraging partnerships with other organizations in the City, and identifying things the City can do to better manage its tree inventory on public lands. She pointed out that there are over 1 million trees in Edmonds, and doing a tree inventory for the entire City would be cost prohibitive. However, the City recognizes the need to have a better record of the trees that are located in parks, along trails, within rights -of -way and other public properties. The City has already started work to update its codes relative to trees. In addition to talking about how to manage trees in public spaces, the objectives speak to the need to encourage, education and incentivize the planting of trees on both private and public properties and to work together on future updates of the UFMP. Director Hope reviewed that there has been a series of meetings and open houses relative to the draft UFMP. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on May 91 and received a number of comments from citizens, both written and oral. Some revisions were made to the plan based on Planning Board and public comments. For example, the map called "Priority Planning Areas" was not intended to imply that trees needed to be planted in all of the red areas, which tend to be view corridors, too. The plan was modified to clarify that these are opportunity areas, but view and other matters will need to be considered. An additional statement was also included about the need to plant the right trees in the right places. Director Hope said that following the Board's recommendation, the draft plan will move on to the City Council for further consideration, a public hearing, and ultimate adoption. Board Member Rubenkonig said she compared the proposed 22 objectives in the plan to urban forest management plans from other jurisdictions. A lot of the objectives in the City's proposed plan lineup well with the other plans, but she identified some outstanding concerns that may already be included in the plan but perhaps need further clarification. She reviewed these items as follows: Support partnerships with utilities, districts, the Edmonds School District, parks with adjoining City property and other public and private institutions (such as interested churches) operating in Edmonds to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy. The plan addresses trees on public properties and rights -of -way, but there is more that needs to be included. For example, the plan should address city -owned buildings and campuses, as well as school and church campuses. Perhaps the City should look at partnering with these other entities for future actions that could benefit the tree canopy. Director Hope suggested that this concept is covered in Community Goal #C3, which calls for "coordinating efforts of the City staff, Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board and other interested groups to participate in and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events. " In addition, Action Item A calls for "collaborating and partnering with City departments (especially Parks, Public Works and Development Services), nonprofits and neighborhood groups for tree replacement and improvements to landscapes. " Also, Action Item D calls for `partnering with Snohomish County PUD, other City departments, non profits and other groups to incorporate shared information and outreach goals when possible. " Although churches and the Edmonds School District are not specifically called out, they would be included in this objective. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions stress the importance of partnerships, and she felt that was missing from the draft plan. • Determine the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope expressed her belief that this was already part of the plan. • Establish tree planting and maintenance guidelines. Board Member Rubenkonig said it seems a lot was addressed around this concept, but there is not a specific objective. Director Hope advised that this information is already contained in the City's Street Tree Plan, which will be updated in the near future. • Conduct public outreach regarding tree regulations. Director Hope advised that a number of objectives in the plan address public outreach, including public information and education about the City's tree regulations. The objectives not only address the need to educate the public on the tree regulations, but also on what trees to plant where, how to avoid hitting utility lines, etc. She felt that this concept was adequately covered in the objectives. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 2 • Further develop the urban forestry program. Director Hope pointed out that this concept was built into the document, specifically calling for further development of the UFMP system for the City. • Provide adequate public tree maintenance resources. Director Hope expressed her belief that this issue is adequately addressed in the plan. In addition, resources for tree maintenance will be addressed as part of the City's annual budget process. • Quantify the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope advised that the plan includes an objective that addresses this issue. • Dedicate resources for ongoing public outreach and education (Heritage Tree Program, etc.). Board Member Rubenkonig said this objective would be different than the Tree Board's efforts. The intent is to imply additional resources are needed for staff support. Director Hope said one outcome of the plan will be budgeting priorities and resources to implement the action items contained in the plan. • Develop annual reports/annual work plans with tracking and performance measures. Director Hope advised that the plan already calls out the need for annual reports. • Update and maintain public tree inventories. Director Hope advised that the plan also calls for doing an inventory of public trees. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that what other jurisdictions call out for partnerships is a bit different than what the draft plan calls out. Director Hope suggested that it is the same idea of working with a variety of partners. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that partnerships present a great opportunity for the City to augment its tree canopy, and she welcomes the idea of specifically identifying the other groups that could benefit from additional vegetation on their properties, such as the Edmonds School District and churches. Board Member Rosen voiced appreciation for the staff and consultant's hard work, as well as all of the touch points the public and Board have had to review the document. He also appreciates the reality check of what it means to do an inventory. As called out in the plan, there are at least 10 benefits that trees provide; some are global and others are very geographically specific to a microlevel. These benefits include: • Improved air quality • Carbon sequestration • Increased property values • Increased revenue in shopping districts • Reduced stormwater runoff • Noise buffering • Soil stabilization • Habitat • Promote walkability and increase healthiness • Food source Board Member Rosen said some of these benefits are more important in very specific places. For example, preventing stormwater runoff and hill stabilization is not true everywhere, but very true in some places. It is for that reason that he would encourage the Board to consider the following points: Prioritize data collection. You can only make good decisions if you have good information. When it comes to stabilization or runoff, the City needs to know where it is vulnerable and what kinds of things are necessary. This needs minimum standards and priority attention. He believes that an inventory is necessary. 2. Be bolder when it comes to trees on public versus private properties. Nearly every code the City has could be considered an invasion of private property rights. There are times when the City has a responsibility to require that Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 3 certain standards be met in order to ensure a hillside is stabilized. This is just one situation where the City should insert itself when it comes to safety in private areas. They should not fear crossing the line to work with the private sector to address these types of issues. 3. Find another way, beyond no net loss, as a goal setting. While it is a nice baseline to say that they should have no net loss, it is based on what they have now. Having no other reference point, he doesn't know if the City should be scared or very proud of what they have. The City needs a canopy and vegetation that achieves all of the 10 benefits and is also appropriate for the City's specific needs. 4. Make the objectives more geographic specific. The objectives could talk about runoff or stabilization or people wanting to spend more money because they are walking amongst the trees in a shopping area. They should set goals that are appropriate for the very specific geographic needs the City has. 5. Make the beginning the public education process a priority. It is important for everyone to have a common understanding of the benefits and importance of trees. Public education creates a favorable environment and a support for how the City and its citizens care for tree vegetation of all kinds. Director Hope pointed out that the City already has specific requirements for trees located on steep slopes. Trees cannot be removed from critical areas such as steep and/or hazardous slopes without a permit and under special circumstances. However, the City does not require that all private property owners must to have their backyards be forested. Board Member Crank asked if the routine update called out in the plan as every 5 to 10 years is an average based on what other jurisdictions have done. Director Hope said some jurisdictions try for five years, but the reality is it is hard to do. She recalled that a number of other plans in the City are 6-year plans, and the Comprehensive Plan is an 8-year plan. It's a matter of time and resources as to how often the plan is updated, and that is why the plan identifies a range. Board Member Crank referred to the objective that calls for establishing a tree bank and asked if the City currently charges in - lieu -of fees for anything else around housing and development. Director Hope answered that there are no other in -lieu -of fee programs currently. This would be a new program and would require some coaching as the new program is drawn up. Board Member Crank commented that she previously lived in a community that had a lot of in -lieu -of fees related to affordable housing, trees, common space, etc. One of the pitfalls in the beginning was that there was a lot of collection, but not necessary doing something with the funds until many years later. She understands that the plan will be a living document, and it should be treated as such. However, her hope would be that by the time they get to the first round of update, the in -lieu -of fee program will be part of that. The City should do whatever it can to circumvent getting to year 6, 7 or 8 of collecting in -lieu -of fees without doing anything with the funds. She recognized that Edmonds is a tree city, and she doubts it would get that far, but she cautioned that it could get to a point where developers get so used to paying the fee so they can do what they want to do, but the fees start to pile up. Director Hope expressed her belief that would not happen in Edmonds. There are a lot of needs and a number of people who are interested in trees. In addition, the City will do annual reports. Chair Monroe asked if Board Member Crank is concerned that developers would bake the in -lieu -of fees into their price and not see it as a deterrent or is the fear that the City would not spend the funds in a timely manner. Board Member Crank said her concern is a bit of both. If developers have a vision, it is sometimes more beneficial to pay the in -lieu -of fee and move forward with their project. On the flip side, she is concerned about the City collecting the fees without having a proactive approach for replanting trees. It is important to have a check and balance system in place as part of the tree bank program. Board Member Cloutier observed that the objective section includes a lot realistic and easily -understood goals, and each one has a set of actions. He is not concerned that the objectives and actions are unsuitable, but he is very concerned with the amount of effort and resources it will take to implement them. They need to figure out the cost benefit associated with each action to help determine how much they can do. Director Hope said she had hoped to provide this additional information, but it is still a work in progress. She cautioned that the intent is not to say exactly how much each action will cost, because it will change from year to year. You have to know more about how each project will be scoped out before you can decide the cost. However, the intent is to provide a lower level of information (i.e. low, medium and high cost) in the next draft. She added that the Board's ideas relative to priorities would also be taken into account when the plan is presented to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 4 Chair Monroe clarified that before the plan is presented to the City Council there will be a cost range on the sidebar. Director Hope answered affirmatively, but not in actual dollars. She cautioned that it takes a lot of work and more information to create cost estimates in actual dollars. Board Member Robles commented that "what you don't measure, no one pays attention to." If the City wants to regulate trees like an asset, then they need to be counted. There are ways to do this without counting every tree or involving the City at all. For example, people can account for their own trees as they grow and produce canopy. Their ability to leave a tree in place for many years creates the canopy the City finds desirable. When they decide to cut down a tree, perhaps there should be a credit against all of the canopy they produced. In the public comment letters, people are treating trees as assets that block views, increase or decrease property values, hold up slopes, etc. When trees are categorized as assets, they warrant some attention in terms of classification or quantification. However, it does not have to be a count of every tree. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that as she reviewed the very fine UFMP, (including public, Board and staff comments), some key points seemed to have priority to her. She recommended that the plan stand, but that the Board's recommendation to the City Council specifically call out the following: • We agree the UFMP is a foundational planning document necessary for establishing action to benefit our urban forest and tree canopy of Edmonds. • We agree with the premise the tree canopy coverage needs to be increased rather than a no -net -loss approach to benefit the urban forest. Director Hope suggested the Board keep in mind that a 1% increase is about 1,300 more trees planted. If they are serious about trying to increase the canopy, they should think about where these additional trees would go. We agree the approach to determine a goal for the tree canopy coverage to be either: unique to Edmonds or a weighted number reflecting the legislated tree canopy goals of selected cities. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not recommending a figure at this time, and she would prefer that the City Council provide focus for that particular goal. She does not think that staying put at 30.3% is good given that there has been a reduction in tree canopy since 2005. Director Hope emphasized that the reduction is a "perceived reduction" that is not based on a specific scientific study. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would look towards increasing tree canopy into the future rather than maintaining status quo. We agree to the request to better define the tree canopy and its vegetative makeup. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there was confusion at the public hearing that perhaps Douglas Fir were being proposed as potential street trees for downtown Edmonds. There was also concern expressed by the Board that not all trees need to be tall trees to benefit a tree canopy. What seems to be most important is the preservation of mature trees (at least 17 years old) because that is the point in which they become very effective. They need to look further at the definition of what makes up the tree canopy. Director Hope asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is implying that private property owners should not be allowed to remove trees that are more than 17 years old. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that she isn't addressing public versus private at this time. The tree canopy seems to refer to that which exists in the City of Edmonds and not just the tree canopy on public properties. • We agree that the City must attend to reviewing and reorganizing those sections of the code to reduce negative impact to the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that staff has already advised that the various City departments are starting to meet and coordinate efforts. • We agree that the City must continue departmental efforts to streamline the administrative processes impacting the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this effort has already started. However, she felt the Board should make it clear that this is a priority. • We agree that the City, through a revision of the City Code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify measures/actions/plans/programs to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy through the efforts of our City government and the City's property, including but not limited to, Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 5 parks, rights -of -way, capital projects and public buildings and their campuses. Board Member Rubenkonig felt this statement would help clarify all of the possibilities that exist for public properties. • We agree that the City, through a revision of the City code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify those incentives to preserve, maintain and increase tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that, at this time, the Board does not know what these incentives will be. They have heard about some that work elsewhere, and they are on the right track towards coming up with incentives. • We agree that without the addition of an arborist or City staff tasked with enforcement responsibility to carry out future proposed actions, the City is in a weak position to provide support to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties. • We agree that incentives can be created to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy in the private and public sector. • We agree that incentives to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy can be considered for reduction of stormwater management costs to citizens and their private properties. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that she agrees with the objectives laid out in the draft UFMP. However, when the plan is moved to the City Council with a recommendation, the Board should provide focus about what they have gained from their discussions and what they think the priorities should be. Vice Chair Cheung commented that, at this point, it is hard to say how the City is doing as far as tree canopy. If they are actually doing an amazing job and have more tree canopy than most cities, he is not sure they should push an increase. He suggested it is important to maintain the existing tree canopy while they figure this out. He does not want happened in Seattle, where property owners clear cut large numbers of trees to increase views, to happen in Edmonds. If the goal is to increase the tree canopy by 1% every year, the City will eventually become a forest. He reminded the Board that they are also working to address the issue of housing affordability. Chair Monroe said he is having a difficult time prioritizing the objectives without having cost estimates. Director Hope said she had anticipated that some information relative to cost would have been available for the Board, but the consultant is still working on this element of the plan. However, implementing some of the objectives would be fairly low cost. For example, having every department with a tree responsibility meet on a regular basis to review tree issues would not require new resources. On the other hand, updating the Street Tree Plan could be costly, depending on how extensive the updates are. Chair Monroe expressed his desire that the City should focus on education and giving citizens access to resources. He is not sure that hiring an arborist is the right way to go given the cost implications. Director Hope advised that the cost would be roughly $100,000 per year. Chair Monroe said the question is how busy that person would be. Once hired, he/she would find things to do, and it could become a spiral effect. Chair Monroe commented that while educating the citizens is good, incentivizing may be a bit of an overreach for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would love to receive a discount on her stormwater management bill for all of the trees she has on her property. She maintains a number of large trees, yet other property owners have been allowed to not have trees. That means she is paying a greater cost for stormwater management, and she would like something better than a handshake. She would like to be rewarded for the contribution she makes. There will always be a segment of people who are resistant to change regardless of the incentives and benefits that trees provide. Chair Monroe countered that he wants to live in a city where people want those changes but are not forced to make those changes. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that, although there is a segment of residents who are not interested in tree preservation, there is also a segment who are very interested and would like to do more. An incentive program could target the latter group. Chair Monroe pointed out that a lower stormwater bill for one person would mean a higher bill for someone else. Director Hope explained that there is a certain cost for managing stormwater throughout the City right now, regardless of how many trees there are. Those costs are not going to go down because some property owners maintain their trees. In order to offer incentives to some property owners, the costs would have to be shifted elsewhere. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 6 Board Member Robles observed that the goal is to produce canopy for the benefit of the City of Edmonds. If that is something the City wants, they must become "farmers" of canopy. Some properties must provide canopy so that other properties do not have to. Those who maintain their tree canopy have to clean their roofs more, etc. Again, he commented that what does not get measured, does not get attention. The point of measuring the tree canopy is to actually see the value that trees provide. Board Member Crank said she does not necessarily disagree with the points raised by Board Members Rubenkonig and Lovell (see email). However, it is important to recognize that this is a new thing they are doing, and they should not be "trying to put so much "meat on the skeleton" this early in the process. There are some who are very passionate and highly invested in the tree canopy, but the UFMP will not really apply to others. She recommended that they think about the UFMP as the "first layer of paint" or what makes sense to move forward from draft to an actual plan. Chair Monroe referred to the points raised by Board Member Rosen earlier in the conversation and said the three that stuck out to him were the need to prioritize data, public education and establishing no -net -loss. In addition, the Board seemed interested in pursuing a fee -in -lieu -of program. Beyond that, the plan implies more detail than the Board currently has. He suggested that the Board offer these few points to the City Council as part of their recommendation. When the UFMP is reviewed again in five years the City should have the correct data to address the other issues that have been raised. Director Hope emphasized that, if adopted, the implementation of the UFMP would be subject to budget decisions. Most of the objectives will not be implemented in the immediate future. They will be implemented over a number of years as the resources become available. Board Member Lovell referred to the email he forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting, noting that he developed the five bulleted items because he felt the Board still does not know enough about where the City stands with respect to trees. Furthermore, he expressed his belief that the comments and feedback from the public so far is only the tip of the iceberg. His recommendations were designed to identify the elements that are addressed in the plan but emphasize the need for further consideration and study to be undertaken by the City Council regarding each one. In addition to his five bullet points, he suggested that the data contained in the plan related to software, data points, analogue modeling, and statistics should be included in an appendix format so that the average reader can better understand the document. Ultimately, the goals and strategies are the key to the plan, and implementation of the goals and strategies has yet to be developed by the City as led by the City Council. The list he prepared was intended to gather the substance of the comments they heard, but also some of the main objectives in producing the plan in the first place. Director Hope referred to the 111 bulleted item and suggested that collecting height/spread data could be costly and time consuming, and she knows of no other city that has collected this specific data. Board Member Lovell said perhaps the City Council will find that this information is unnecessary. However, he found a number of comments that were repeated by citizens. For example, citizens have raised concern about tall trees that grow to block views, street trees interfering with infrastructure, and shrubs and other vegetation overgrowing from private properties onto public sidewalks. Director Hope agreed that more could be added about ensuring that sidewalks are kept safe and educating the public about what and where to plant. However, the Board should keep in mind that the Street Tree Plan update is intended to be the next step following adoption of the UFMP. The UFMP is intended to be a general citywide plan for tree management, and the Street Tree Plan will identify the types of trees that should be planted on each street, as well as the planting methods that should be used. Rather than trying to figure all of these situations now, the UFMP is intended to set some general parameters and prioritizes the need for an updated Street Tree Plan. Board Member Lovell summarized that his recommendation is intended to point out that, in their review of the plan, the City Council needs to figure out what must be done to meet the objectives and goals in the plan. They should stay away from naming or listing a bunch of specific actions at this time. In general, he is in favor of collecting information that will guide the implementation of the plan's objectives. Board Member Rosen emphasized that additional data is needed in order for the City to make better decisions, and that is why he suggested that data collection should be a very high priority. What to count is the first thing that needs to be decided, followed by how to accomplish the count. However, he agreed that the UFMP should not get into the specifics of what should be counted. Secondly, he suggested that the objective for data collection should not be for public education. There are many more things they want to educate the public about. Public education should be a separate point of emphasis. Vice Chair Cheung asked if consideration was given to the impact of tree canopy on solar access. Director Hope agreed this is an important point in the sense that trees can present obstacles for people who want to grow gardens or have solar arrays to Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 7 improve energy efficiency. They discussed these tradeoffs and that is why the UFMP does not say exactly what each property owner should do. The intent is to education and provide information so property owners can make the best decisions relative to trees. Board Member Robles commented that data collection does not have to be all that expensive if homeowners provide their own inventories to the City. The ratio of existing trees to the ratio of trees that would be cut down should determine the cost of the permit. Collecting the data is possible as long as the program provides value to the property owners. The costly part comes in processing and retaining the data that is collected. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the City of Philadelphia is crowdsourcing its inventory. Board Member Robles said crowdsourcing is a way to build the social fabric and get people involved in their community. Board Member Rosen said he understands the goal of maintaining the existing 30.3% tree canopy but is concerned that it is not specific to any needs. The City could meet the goal, but still not meet any of the objectives. He recommended that the goal be specific to the City's needs as opposed to a simple number that has no reference point. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that there are a number of objectives that are not related to the canopy. None of the objectives should be thought of as goals by themselves. The plan is to do a package of actions that touch on all of the goals, but they cannot "eat the whole elephant at once." Rather than picking a random number, they should identify what to tackle first that has the most "bang for the buck" or to test drive the City's ability to actually do something. The implementation plan should touch on all of the objectives, and not just those related to tree canopy. While no -net -loss should be one of the objectives of the plan, it must be in context with everything else. The City does not currently have the ability to measure for no -net -loss, but the actions taken moving forward should be consistent with the overall goal of no -net -loss in mind. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the draft plan is fine, and the objectives are good. However, at the moment, she does not have a clear understanding of what the Board is tasked to do. She felt the Board would benefit from continuing the discussion to the next meeting so staff could provide some additional information and direction based on the Board's discussion. She has not heard any objection to the objectives identified in the plan, but there is an interest in possibly re -prioritizing them. When the Board moves its recommendation to the City Council, she suggested that they provide some focus of attention pertaining to the 30.3% tree canopy retention, data collection, etc. In particular, she felt the responsibilities of a City "arborist" should be clarified as they pertain to both private and public properties. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not concerned that increasing the tree canopy would prevent the development of affordable housing. That is not how development works. Currently, other jurisdictions require about 30% tree coverage for development and incentives are offered. For example, perhaps units can be smaller if a developer protects a grove of existing trees. Director Hope commented that these types of details would be addressed as part of the plan's implementation, which will come at a later time. The UFMP is intended to set the stage for coming back and doing more work to get to the specifics. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that there are too many issues that she would like to have additional time to think about before formulating a recommendation for the City Council. Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the UFMP is intended to be a plan and not an execution document. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan, which provides policy direction but not regulations. For example, no one builds a lot based on what is in the Comprehensive Plan, but the rules for building on the lot must be derived from the principles contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He cautioned against getting too caught up in defining all of the steps for implementation before the plan is even adopted. Approval of the plan means that the City is agreeing to a set of goals and objectives. At this time, the Board should focus on the goals and objectives that are important for the City, without getting into the specifics of prioritization and implementation. The plan is intended to present a vision for how the City wants to handle urban forest management going forward, and the next step will be to develop a set of implementation actions using the UFMP as the guiding principles. At this time, the Board is being asked to make a recommendation on the draft UFMP, which contains higher -level goals and principles for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the draft plan identifies a 30.3% tree canopy without any clarification. It appears that this number is being used as a no -net -loss figure. Board Member Cloutier referred to Urban Forest Asset Goal #UA1, which calls for maintaining the citywide canopy coverage, but it does not identify a specific level the City should achieve. However, the "rationale" statement makes it clear that Edmonds has no set canopy goal. The first action item under Goal #UAl Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 8 is to develop and adopt an overall canopy goal for Edmonds. The plan outlines how the concern can be addressed, but it does not provide a specific implementation plan. He emphasized that implementing the plan is a separate process, and the plan provides the principles and higher -level goals that will guide future implementation. The Board could recommend approval of the plan, with an attached recommendation that implementation of some of the objectives move forward quickly. Chair Monroe suggested that, along with their recommendation, they need to provide the City Council with a summary of the consensus they have heard from the public. In addition, the Board would be remiss if they didn't also add their own input. He agreed that they should not get into specific details of implementation, but they could highlight some particular points. Director Hope cautioned against the Board trying to summarize the public input. The City Council will receive all of the documents pertaining to the Board's hearing and discussion. Chair Monroe agreed and suggested that the Board could select the public input germane to the topic so the City Council is aware of the concerns that were raised over and over again. Chair Monroe summarized that the Board has highlighted the following points for potential inclusion in its recommendation: 1. With regard to data collection, knowing the target will be very important. 2. The public education objectives are important. Currently, people do not understand enough about the benefit of trees. 3. Adding cost ranges for each of the objectives is important. 4. No -net -loss is something that needs to be discussed further and understood better. Board Member Cloutier felt that the four issues are already addressed in the plan as it stands. The plan sets forth objectives, but how the objectives are implemented and how much it will cost will be addressed when the action items are implemented. Chair Monroe said the intent of the four points he made above was to add emphasis to things already covered in the plan that the Board wants to emphasize based on public comment and Board discussion. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the objectives in the plan address all of the issues and concerns raised by the public. As the action items are implemented at some point in the future, staff can provide a reference to the public comments that are applicable. He emphasized that the objectives in the plan do not fix any of the public concerns until the City moves forward with implementation of the action items. Board Member Crank pointed out that postponing their recommendation until June 13' would create a delay in when the plan is presented to the City Council. The Board did not express concern about delaying the process for a few weeks. Again, Board Member Cloutier pointed out that Goal #UA1 calls for determining a goal for tree canopy. Chair Monroe suggested that while determining what the goal should be, the City should operate on the premise that it is not going to be less than 30.3% or no -net -loss. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the intent of no -net -loss is already captured by the action items in Goal #UA1. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if incentives for private property owners is addressed in the objectives contained in the plan. Board Member Cloutier clarified that this would involve a code amendment and should not be an objective. The intent of incentives is not to reward citizens; it is to protect the overall tree canopy. Incentives may be one action the City takes to support increased canopy coverage, but the goal of the plan should not be to provide incentives. He referred to Goal #UA2, which calls for identifying places where more trees are needed. Once this has been identified, the plan leaves it open for whatever needs to happen to accomplish the objective. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board needs to address the tension people have voiced about not wanting to be told what to do with their properties. But she would also like to work with those who want to make a difference. Again, Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the goal is to have more trees or to maintain the existing tree canopy, and the plan provides a list of different ways to accomplish the goal. It is not intended to be an action plan. Chair Monroe pointed out that each of the objectives include a list of actions. Board Member Cloutier agreed. However, he clarified that, similar to the Comprehensive Plan, none of the action items are being done by adopting the plan. It simply outlines potential actions for accomplishing each of the objectives. Director Hope emphasized that adoption of the plan does not mean the end of the effort. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than identifying a certain percentage of land for parks, commercial, residential, etc., the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the goals that are important to the City and then the development codes implement these goals and policies. One of Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 9 the challenges is that the City cannot always solve tension and words do not necessarily do that. She agreed there is an underlying tension, which can sometimes come from people who haven't even read the plan. These people may not be soothed by words the Planning Board adds to the plan. All of the issues will be worked out on an ongoing basis using the principles outlined in the plan. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE ITS DISCUSSION OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE JUNE 13TH MEETING. AT THAT POINT, THE BOARD WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY STAFF BASED ON THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH FAILED 2-4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS RUBENKONIG AND ROBLES VOTING IN FAVOR, BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, CHEUNG, CLOUTIER AND CRANK VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote.) BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED MAY 20, 2018 BE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 5-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, LOVELL, CRANK, CLOUTIER, AND CHEUNG VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES AND RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote) INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope advised that tonight's presentation is intended to be an introduction to the draft Housing Strategy. The Board has already provided input, some of which was incorporated into the document. She reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan includes an action step that calls for developing a Housing Strategy by 2019 that would help increase the supply of housing that is affordable to a range of incomes and to meet diverse housing needs. A Housing Strategy Task Force was formed and has been working on some recommendations to help further some of the ideas and to bring the expertise of housing professionals into the recommendations. She referred the Board to the draft Housing Strategy, noting that it has not been formatted or finalized at this point. She introduced Kevin Ramsey from Berk Consulting, who was available to present the draft plan to the Board. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income -restricted housing. A goal of producing more housing is enabling more people to live in the community of all different incomes and backgrounds. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, noting that there are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost -burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AML AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost -burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the need. Mr. Ramsey explained that one reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 10 AMI). He provided a chart showing the average rental costs in Edmonds, noting that people earning $50,000 per year or less cannot afford the average rents in Edmonds. Mr. Ramsey advised that commuting patterns were analyzed and found that a substantial number of workers are commuting very long distances to get their jobs in Edmonds. Most commute from more affordable communities. While the chart illustrates the situation for very low and low wage workers, the problem also exists for the moderate wage workers. It is estimated that about 2,400 people are commuting long distances into Edmonds, and this creates traffic, pollution, and high transportation costs. Mr. Ramsey provided a chart comparing the existing housing stock in Edmonds to the current housing needs. The study found a shortage of smaller housing types. Over 70% of households have only 1 or 2 members, but only 11 % of the housing units have one or less bedrooms. There is a significant mismatch between the size of the units and size of households. This is likely due partly to empty nester households living in larger single-family homes, etc. This is to be expected in a lot of communities, particularly those with aging populations. One solution is to provide more small -sized units so households who want or need to downsize can stay in their community. Mr. Ramsey reviewed each of the six objectives included in the draft Housing Strategy as follows: 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing. There is currently a high level of need for low and moderate -income workforce housing for those who live in Edmonds as well as those who have to commute long distances to get to Edmonds for work. When there is limited land area in a community, apartments and condominiums can efficiently provide a lot of new housing in limited land area. Actions associated with this strategy include: encouraging transit -oriented development by leveraging transit corridors and focusing higher -density development in those areas to take advantage of the transit service; allowing for greater flexibility in multifamily zones, such as reduced parking and unit size requirements and greater height limits; and providing for a fast, predictable, and user- friendly permitting process. Currently, the permitting process in Edmonds is more time-consuming and there is a bit more uncertainty in it when compared to other communities, and this creates a disincentive to doing more housing development in Edmonds. Developers who participated on the task force suggested that the permit process could be streamlined without lowering design and safety standards. City staff is already looking for these opportunities. Example: The City of Portland, Oregon, has goals of encouraging more infill development in traditionally single- family areas and allowing for a greater diversity of housing options. The intent is to ensure that the design of new development is consistent with neighborhood character without putting up permitting barriers. They brought together community members and stakeholders to develop several housing prototypes that meet the regulations and design standards. If a developer uses one of the prototypes, a project can get through the permitting process more efficiently. The program has been successful and is currently being expanded. 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle." Currently, there are few housing options other than single- family (63%) and larger multifamily (30%) units. There is very little in the "other" category of duplexes, townhouse, etc. That means there are not a lot of opportunities for moderate and middle -income people who want to get into the ownership market. The single-family homes are generally too costly for people at that income level. Potential actions for this goal include identifying single-family areas in Edmonds that might be appropriate for infill development such as townhomes and duplexes that are done in a way that meet the community character but also allow for more types of housing. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) is also a type of housing that could be very useful in Edmonds. ADUs allow for more affordable housing options in existing single-family areas with minimal impacts on community character. They provide a source of income to homeowners who are struggling to afford rising housing costs. Currently, the City's has significant restrictions for ADUs, and it is difficult for many households to take advantage of this option. Modifications may be appropriate to encourage ADUs as a housing option. Example: The City of Mountlake Terrace encourages ADUs via more flexible requirements and providing guidance materials and outreach for homeowners. The intent is to make the process more transparent and get the word out about the benefits of ADUs. They have seen a lot more permits in recent months, which indicates there is a demand for this housing type in the area. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 11 3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing. Many workers and families in Edmonds cannot afford market -rate rents. The current supply of subsidized housing is extremely modest compared to the level of need. This strategy is aimed at what can be done to provide more opportunities for these workers to live in Edmonds, as well. Potential actions include contributing City dollars to support an affordable housing project for 30% AMI or below. When a non-profit housing developer is seeking to pull together grant funding and other sources to make an affordable project work, having some investment from the City helps with grant competition and making projects pencil out. Other potential actions include expanding developer incentives to include affordable units in market -rate development and reducing or eliminating fees for affordable housing projects. The City currently has a multifamily exemption program that could be expanded to become more effective at incentivizing affordable production in return for abatement from property tax. Example: The Highpoint is a 1,600-unit master planned development in West Seattle. About half of the units are subsidized and/or income -restricted units for low-income households, and the other half is market -rate housing. The project was developed via a mix of private and public funding and offers a diversity of housing types for a mixture of incomes. This is a successful example of a level of density that might be appropriate for Edmonds. 4. Identify and adopt strategies to reduce homelessness. Homelessness is a growing problem in Snohomish County, and data indicates there are 260 students attending schools located in Edmonds that are homeless or housing insecure. The City can play a more proactive role in addressing barriers to the development of housing for the homeless. Potential actions include exploring partnerships with current service providers and county health and youth services and looking at ways to reduce barriers (code restrictions) to the development of permanent supportive housing. The City should also explore opportunities for cheaper and quicker solutions such as tiny houses and single -room occupancy housing. This latter option has been proposed by at least one church in Edmonds. Example: Othello Village in Seattle is a city -authorized homeless encampment with 28 tiny homes. The village includes shared kitchen and shower facilities and is intended to be a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. 5. Support the needs of an aging population. About 20% of the population in Edmonds is over 65, and a significant amount of the population falls within the 50 to 65 range. In the next 10 years, these individuals will be reaching the senior status of 65 plus. These people will have unique housing needs and a wide spectrum of incomes. Potential actions to address this goal include playing a more active role in partnerships that support aging in place, examining how property tax and utility rate relief programs can be expanded and reducing the barriers to the development of more group homes and other housing solutions for seniors so that people can stay within the community when their housing needs change. 6. Provide protection for low-income tenants. As housing costs rise, renters are at the most risk of displacement. The City can take more actions to help ensure that laws around fair treatment of low-income tenants are abided by and that tenants have full information about what their rights are. Potential actions include creating requirements to provide fair housing information and creating anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. Director Hope said the intent of tonight's presentation is to solicit initial feedback from the Board. Staff will come back with a more augmented draft for a public hearing on June 13'. Following the public hearing, the Board will have an opportunity for additional discussion prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. The Task Force will also meet on May 251' to identify any additional changes to the draft document prior to the public hearing. There will be additional opportunities for public comment prior to the City Council's final adoption of the strategy. An implementation process will follow final adoption. Board Member Robles commented that the draft Housing Strategy is fantastic. The consultant and staff really listened to the input provided. The plan is very modern and represents a convergence of ideas that even addresses short term temporary housing. Board Member Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, he requested more information about the City's recent contract with Cohn Consulting. Director Hope advised that in 2017, the City Council allocated funding to study the issue of homelessness in Edmonds, and Cohn Consulting was hired to do a more detailed assessment. This is separate from the Housing Strategy. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 12 Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13"', followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high -income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower -income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board's suggestions was to stress "aging in place." The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public's concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27`'. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board's packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING — OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City's current decision -making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13 decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means "court like," which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following: • Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD). • Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments: • Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III -A column and the "A" and "B" qualifiers would be removed. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the "A" and `B" qualifiers from the text. • Leave site -specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site -specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council. Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV -A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council's final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel. • Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications. • Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14 being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board's review on June 27' with a potential public hearing on July 25' followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the "review of approved permits" clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision -making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision -making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council's request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27' without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15 Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the Board's deliberations always benefit the City Council when looking at the subject in hand, and she appreciates all the time that was put into preparing the information. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the May 161 Economic Development Commission meeting. He noted that Mary Monroe was appointed as the Commission's new chair and Nicole Hughes is the vice chair. The Commission had a lengthy discussion about setting up subcommittees to work on a variety of subjects throughout the year, and a list was developed. The Dayton Street project was of particular concern given that the street will be closed for a long period of time due to major reconstruction and utility work. There was also talk about the Edmonds Marsh, Firdale Village, ground floor ceiling height in the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone and a number of other items relative to economic opportunities that will be researched and reported on by the Commission. He announced that he would be unavailable to attend the Commission's June 20t1i meeting, and he recommended another Board Member attend in his absence. [."1 11111 111►%_1_0401" The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 16