Loading...
2019-10-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting October 23, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North. 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 Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Roger Pence (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Board Member Rubenkonig commented that she appreciated the description provided in the minutes regarding the differences and similarities between the Capital Facilities Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2020 — 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long-term capital needs to address the City's growth. It covers a planning horizon of 6 and 20 years with projects to address level of service (LOS), safety and transportation. The CIP is organized by the City's financial funds and includes projects in the next 6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects with funding sources. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2019 Fund 112 Projects: • The $1.8 million Pavement Preservation Program was a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2019, the City overlaid 6.5 lane miles and 13 new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps were added using funding from the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs. • The 891 Place Retaining Wall Project was funded with REET dollars. The project is on a small cul-de-sac street. The existing wall was failing and causing the street to settle and slope away. The rockery was replaced with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and the project was completed last spring at a cost of about $125,000. • The 84r' Avenue Overlay Project started in the middle of September. It is a combination of stormwater improvements plus a 2-inch-grind overlay on a half -mile section between 220' and 212' Streets. The project includes replacing 17 curb ramps to be ADA complaint, and it is likely the overlay portion of the project will extend into 2020. The overlay portion of the project was funded by a federal grant the City received a few years ago, and only a small local match was required. • The Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project was completed this year. The older 1.5-million-gallon tank presented a lot more challenges that required additional budget appropriation, but work on the 3-million-gallon tank went smoothly. The project cost was close to $4 million. • The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project is in progress. They are currently paving Dayton from 3rd to 51h Avenues. The project includes replacement of 1,200 feet of water main, 1,200 feet of storm pipe, and 1,300 feet of sewer pipe, followed by a complete reconstruction of the street. There will be a break in activity, and the project will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9' Avenues. • Phase 1 of the Seaview Infiltration Project was completed this summer and was funded by a State grant. An infiltration facility was installed to take stormwater off the Perrinville system and infiltrate it into the ground. The Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 2 goal is to minimize the impact to the Perrinville system and the existing creek. The cost of the project was about $350,000. Mr. English also shared highlights of 2020 Projects: • The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program will be funded at $1.1 million, which should provide for about 3 lane miles of street overlay. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project is funded with federal dollars and will upgrade safety at 7 intersections in the City, primarily by upgrading pedestrian ramps and installing rectangular rapid flashing beacons at crossings. A Hawk Signal will be installed at the intersection of SR-524 and 81 Avenue, similar to the HAWK signal on SR-104 near City Park. • The Highway 99 Revitalization Project will continue to go forward in 2020 utilizing a $10 million state grant. The corridor study has been completed and the City learned that the cost of upgrading Highway 99 with all of the streetscape and safety improvements would be well over $100 million. The City is now taking a different approach going forward, installing center medians and taking out some of the turn lanes along the corridor to improve safety at high accident intersections. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move other elements of the project forward. • The Dayton Street Walkway Project is also grant funded and part of the Main Street to 9t' Avenue Improvement Project. The portion between 5' and 9r' Avenues will be constructed in 2020, and the portion between 3rd and 5t' Avenues is currently in progress. • REET funding will be used for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which started last year and is proposed to continue in 2020. Projects include flashing beacons at 31 Avenue and Bell Street, a project that was funded in 2019. The equipment has been purchased but hasn't been installed. • Several Traffic Signal Upgrades will be done in 2020. They have made a lot of progress over the last three to four years and work will continue into 2020. • The Guardrail System Program will continue into 2020, with replacement of existing guardrails that need upgraded and adding new guardrails in areas where they are needed. • The Traffic Calming Program has been in place for several years and will be funded with REET dollars in 2020. In previous years, the program was funded via the 112 Fund. • The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9r' Avenues. With the exception of the sewer line, all other utilities will be replaced. The existing sewer line will be refurbished with a cured -in -place pipe process, which is less costly. • The Water Utility Replacement Program will continue and the plan is to replace over 8,000 feet of watermain, including the work that is part of the Dayton Street Program. They will also overlay about .35 lanes miles of street, and most of that work is related to the Dayton Street Project. • The Stormwater Utility Program will replace 4,900 feet of pipe. • The Willow Creek Daylight Project will continue, with $750,000 identified for design. An update on the project was recently provided to the City Council. • Phase 2 of the Seaview Infiltration Facility Project will be another infiltration facility that adds capacity to the one that was completed in 2019. • The Ballinger Regional Facility Project is a predesign project that the City is evaluating the potential of building a new infiltration facility in Mathay Ballinger Park to try and minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on Lake Ballinger. • The Perrinville Creek Flow Management Project will continue to look for opportunities to install raingardens within the drainage basin to reduce runoff into the system. • The Sewer Utility Program will replace 2,500 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,300 feet of sewer pipe using the cured -in -place method, overlay 0.35 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. • Design will start on the Pyrolysis Project at the Sewer Treatment Plant in 2020. Ms. Burley noted that most of the park projects identified in the CIP and CFP fall within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She reminded them of the decision criteria that goes into choosing parks projects and then shared highlights of 2019 projects: Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 3 • The first inclusive playground in the City was installed this year at Seaview Park. • All of the tennis courts at Seaview Park were refinished and the restroom was refurbished. • The Olympic Beach Restrooms were completely revamped. The project was scoped to be done by a contractor, but it ended up being done in house by City staff. • The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is ongoing and will likely extend into the spring of 2020. They have found a solution and have submitted the final permits and designs. • The City Park Walkway Project will happen this fall and includes widening the exit to allow for better pedestrian access. The work will be completed in house by a parks crew. • The Gateway Sign is currently being constructed. Next, Ms. Burley shared highlights of the proposed 2020 projects: • Civic Park was designed in 2019. The City has secured funding necessary to build the park, including a $2 million request from the 2020 budget. The $2 million request originally included $500,000 from the general fund, but that is no longer needed. The entire $2 million will be funded with balances in the various park funds, including the Park Impact Fee and REET funds. Everything associated with issuing the bonds has been completed. She summarized that $3.1 million of the project funding is in carry-over funds, $3.7 million bonds, and $3.4 million grants. The project is currently at 50% design, and the goal is to get to 90% design in December and submit for permits in November of this year. This will enable the City to issue a Request for Proposals in February or March of 2020 and break ground in late spring or summer. Construction is expected to take one year to complete. • The Marina Beach Park Project will continue in 2020 and go hand -in -hand with the Willow Creek Daylighting Project. The proposed $30,000 will be used for design to prepare the project for grant applications in 2020. RCO grants are coming up in 2020. • Funding was included to support ongoing maintenance and repair at Yost Pool. In 2020, replacing and rehabilitating the pool grates will be the largest maintenance project. They will also replace the acid/chlorine injector and the pool cover. • The 4r' Avenue Cultural Corridor is currently in the design phase, and the estimated cost for design is about $350,000. About $50,000 has been spent to date, and another $100,000 is allocated in 2020 to continue the design work. Design is critical for the City to secure grant funding. • The City has identified a 1-acre parcel for a Community Garden. They had hoped to purchase it in 2019, but the Purchase and Sale Agreement still hasn't been finalized. The funds will be rolled into the 2020 CIP. • The City has plans for two outdoor fitness zones, one of which was programed in 2019. They were unable to get to the project, so both are now programmed in 2020. One will be at Civic Park and the other at Mathay Ballinger Park. The City received grant funding for the projects. • The Waterfront Redevelopment Project will continue in 2020. About half of the funding for the project was programmed in 2019 and the remaining half in 2020. This is not really a funding request; it is just a carryover of the budget that was identified in 2019. Ms. Burley advised that the draft CIP and CFP also include a list of future projects that go out beyond the 2020 timeline, such as relatively minor park improvements, ongoing maintenance, etc. The City will continue to set aside funds for future land acquisition, as well. Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. The CIP and CFP were presented to the Board at a workshop on October 91. Following the hearing tonight, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 41, and the Council will hold a public hearing on November 12'. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans before the end of December. Board Member Crank asked about the schedule for 234r' Street/Highway 99 Traffic Signal Project. Mr. English answered that the intent is to start the project in February or March of 2020, but the actual signal will not likely be activated until late fall of 2020. Board Member Crank asked if the City will need to do a traffic study to identify the traffic patterns at the intersection. Mr. English answered that the City was required to coordinate with the Washington State Department of Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 4 Transportation (WSDOT) and obtain approval for the project. There was some assessment on how the intersection would operate from a Level of Service (LOS) standpoint, and WSDOT has approved the project. Board Member Monroe asked if area equity was a factor in scoring and identifying projects for the CIP. Mr. English explained that they rely heavily on the City's current planning documents and grant funding opportunities to identify transportation projects for the CIP. The scope of the work plays a significant role in the City's ability to obtain grant funding, so the City doesn't have a lot of ability to distribute capital projects based on area equity. However, on the preservation side, they try to focus on different pockets of the City as the programs continue year to year. Ms. Burley said most parks projects are related to maintenance, but the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan looks at underserved areas where there are no parks. From a land acquisition point of view, one of the first criteria is looking for areas that are underserved by parks. Board Member Rubenkonig said that when she looked at the overview of projects, her initial sense was that more projects will take place in the downtown area. However, she also recognized that this area is more densely populated. It is also important to keep in mind that there are a large number of drainage basins throughout the City that must also be maintained. It is important for the public to understand why the City needs to put money towards the highest and best uses. The need to keep the drainage basins operating drives some of the necessary decision making. Regarding transparency, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that it is important that citizens can understand the reports and that they are laid out in a way that nothing appears to be hidden. They need to be written in a language that citizens can understand. She said she enjoyed the information provided in the staff's presentation, particularly the information explaining where the funding will come from. However, she would have liked the information to be on the slides provided for each of the projects, too. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Parks projects are funded entirely by one fund. Ms. Burley answered that a significant amount of the park funding comes from Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) via the 125 and 126 funds. The 332 fund is the grant exchange fund. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig said it would be helpful to show funding sources on the slides for each project. Student Representative Bryan asked if the traffic calming involves installation of speed bumps. Mr. English answered that radar speed feedback signs are the primary approach for the traffic calming program. There are both pros and cons associated with speed humps. While they do slow traffic, they tend to cause people to break and accelerate more, and this results in increased noise in residential neighborhoods. They goal is to find other ways to solve speeding issues and speed humps are the last resort. The signs have been effective and they try to rotate them into different areas. Student Representative Bryan agreed that the radar speed signs are more effective than speed humps. Vice Chair Robles asked where the proposed community garden would be located, and Ms. Burley answered that it would be just east of the entrance to Yost Park. The one -acre parcel is being gifted to the City as part of a will; but in the meantime, it is the owner's desire that the City build the community garden while she is still here to see it. Vice Chair Robles commented that Meadowdale Field is being utilized in orders of magnitude greater than it was used before. He said he is a strong advocate for creating and improving the social fabric of the City. He also commented that the improvements at Seaview Park are beautiful. He said he appreciates all of the projects the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and Public Works Department are able to accomplish each year. He asked if there are currently enough staff resources. Mr. English reported that Public Works just filled a few vacancies, but they are still down one employee. There are few large projects coming up in 2020, including Civic Park, Waterfront Redevelopment, and Wastewater Treatment Plant. There are often constraints associated with managing the workload, and Public Works often hires consultants to help manage the large projects. Board Member Crank asked Mr. English to speak to whether or not the pedestrian crossing projects would also involve lighting improvements or adjustments. She said she lives at 236' and Highway 99 where there have been numerous accidents and lighting seems to be a factor. There are numerous types of lighting on Highway 99, but it still gets quite dark in some locations. Mr. English said he is not familiar enough with the project designs to know if new street lighting will be added, but his recollection is that there will just be some minor adjustments. Board Member Crank asked if flashing lights could be added in the pavement, similar to what was done on 212t' Street near the high school. Mr. English said the City is Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 5 steering away from that approach because they have had maintenance issues. The Citywide pedestrian improvement projects will not have inground lights, but there will be lights on the side. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that during the Board's review of the CIP/CFP in 2018, Board Member Cheung suggested that the City consider providing a covered area for pedestrians at Holmes Corner across the street from Edmonds- Woodway High School. She also expressed the need for more design elements at that intersection. At that time, staff had agreed to consider these two ideas. Mr. English agreed that it would be great to provide a covered pedestrian area at the intersection, but from a funding standpoint, he is not sure the project would rank high enough to be included in the CIP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like to see what could be done to improve the intersection. She also voiced concern about the lane channelization at the intersection as you head westbound on 761 Avenue. It seems to be unclear as to where the turn lane starts and the lines are inconsistent with other intersections in the City. Mr. English agreed to pass this concern on to the Traffic Engineer. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed. CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2020 — 2025 CIP/CFP TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION (REFERRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL) Mr. Chave explained that the Comprehensive Plan elements have implementation actions that indicate additional steps the City intends to take to move forward goals and policies. One in the Housing Element talks about developing a Housing Strategy by 2019. He reviewed that the City Council recently established a Housing Commission to study housing policy issues. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019-2020, the City Council felt it was appropriate to modify the related implementation action contained in the Housing Element, which identifies 2019 as the date for developing a "Housing Strategy." They adopted Resolution #1420, which provides two options to consider as ways to amend the implementation action in the plan. Given that the City Council recently created a Housing Commission that is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2020, staff has also identified a third option. The issue was forwarded to the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation. He reviewed the options as follows: • City Council Option 1 — Delete the existing language in its entirety. • City Council Option 2 — Amend the existing language to read, "Develop a strategy by 2020 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. " • Staff Option 3 — Amend the existing language to read, "Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration. " Mr. Chave said staff is recommending Option 3, as it best reflects where the City Council is at this point in time. Again, he said the Housing Commission is set to sunset at the end of 2020, and it is supposed to forward its recommendations to the City Council by that date. Board Member Monroe asked if the implementation action item would have to be amended again in 2020 if the Housing Commission does meet the deadline for presenting recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Chave responded that the Housing Commission has a pretty definite date for completing its work and reporting back to the City Council by the end of 2020. There is some urgency to the Commission's agenda and actions, and it intends to meet that date. Board Member Monroe summarized that because the Commission has a charter date of 2020, it might make sense to be silent on the date and let the charter dictate the timeframe for the implementation action. Mr. Chave explained that implementation actions are statements of intent, and having a date makes it clear that the action is important to move forward. It provides a milepost in the plan that helps people understand the City's current priorities. While a date is not required, it would be helpful. Board Member Monroe said his thought was that removing the date from the implementation action would eliminate the need to change the Comprehensive Plan in two places if the City Council decides to extend the work of the Housing Commission beyond 2020. He said he would also support Option 1, which would eliminate the implementation action item entirely. Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 6 Mr. Chave explained that when the City Council adopted Resolution #1420, it hadn't yet created the Housing Commission and staff created Option 3 in response the Commission's charter. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that even if the Housing Commission presents its recommendations to the City Council by the end of 2020, the City Council may decide to extend the Housing Commission's charter to allow them to do additional work. Mr. Chave agreed that is possible, but it is more likely the City Council will find that the Housing Commission has accomplished its mission. At that time, the City Council will determine the best approach for moving the recommendations forward. Board Member Rosen observed that the City Council is looking for a recommendation from the Housing Commission. He recalled that when the Planning Board met jointly with the City Council, they expressed a sincere desire to be an informal part of the process. He questioned it if would be appropriate to recommend inserting a requirement for Planning Board participation into the implementation action language. He reminded them that one of their responsibilities is to provide recommendations to the City Council when they have strong opinions, and housing is one of those topics. Vice Chair Robles said his impression at the joint meeting with the City Council was that the Planning Board was not to get involved with the Housing Commission's work. He expressed his belief that the Housing Commission's timeframe will be dictated more by public input and velocity of public input. He questioned the ability to impose a limit on public input. He felt the process should go as long as necessary to solicit input from as many citizens as possible. He concluded that the issues are not so simple that they can be resolved in one year. There are so many factors emerging that can impact the final recommendations and some sort of contingency plan should be in place. Board Member Crank stressed the need to work smarter and not harder and authorize resources in the best way possible. The worse -case scenario is that the Housing Commission and City Council decide to extend into 2021. If that is the case, Options 2 and 3 would require an additional amendment to change the date. She suggested that Option 1 might be the best solution since it wouldn't require additional staff and Planning Board time to go through another public process to amend the timeframe in the future if necessary. Mr. Chave explained that most implementation actions in the Comprehensive Plan include general target dates that allow the projects to be added to the work plans of the City Council and various City departments. Given that the Housing Commission is intended to finish relatively soon, Board Member Crank said she would lean towards Options 1 or 2 to avoid having to come back and spend time changing the date again. Board Member Rosen said he supports giving the public a timeline for when an implementation action will be delivered. However, they must recognize that conditions and information will change, necessitating the need for deadlines to be adjusted. He said he supports the timeline, which sets up an expectation to the public and sends a signal to the City Council that the project should not go on for an extended period of time. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Board Member Rosen brought up a good point about Planning Board involvement in the process. Although both the City Council and staff have indicated that the Board would be involved in the process at some point at the request of the City Council, she would like the Board Members to have an opportunity to provide feedback and share their points of view. She asked if there is something more formal that would establish that the Housing Commission would present its findings to the Planning Board for feedback prior to presenting their recommendations to the City Council for action. Mr. Chave explained that the City Council established the Housing Commission to provide policy options. Once the Housing Commission has completed its work and presented its recommendations, it will be up to the City Council to decide the best approaches for implementation. Implementation strategies that require Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments will be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave explained that the document that was prepared by a consultant and sent through the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council was a housing strategy and not an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. It was a set of potential ideas or actions the City could take to address housing needs. The City Council determined that it wanted to have a more robust public process and discussion, and the Housing Commission was created to complete that task. The Planning Board's role is to advise the City Council, but most of its work is related to codes and plans. The Housing Strategy is different. Although it was run through the Planning Board initially, it was not a requirement. The project is moving a different direction now. The idea of the process going forward is that the Housing Commission will provide the City Council with a number of ideas and policies and then the City Council will decide the next steps. They may refer some Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 7 things back to the Planning Board (Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments), but the City Council could elect to take action on certain items that do not require Planning Board input. The Planning Board's role moving forward will depend on what the City Council decides to do. At this time, it is unclear exactly what that set of actions or referrals might be. He suggested it would be prudent to wait for the Housing Commission to complete its task and report to the City Council, and then the City Council can decide the next steps. Denise Miller, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Housing Commission and there is no plan at this time to extend the Commission beyond 2020. The Commission will provide periodic updates to the City Council, and the intent is to be very transparent throughout the process. As the Commission gets into discussions about different ideas and policies, it is likely that groups of Commissioners will be assigned to work on specific suggestions. The group is diverse and plans to take its information out to different areas of the City. The goal is to involve all interested citizens in the discussion and make sure that all information is made available to the public. No minutes will be prepared for the Commission meetings, but video recordings will be available on the City's website. Again, she said the Commission will provide periodic updates to the City Council and the Commission does not plan to go beyond the 2020 deadline. The idea is to get the work done and move on. The Planning Board will not be precluded from getting involved, but its participation will depend on what the City Council determines its role in the decision -making process should be. Board Member Rosen asked if the Housing Commission would simply provide a list of options for the City Council to consider or if it would provide a recommendation for specific policies and/or strategies. He pointed out that Option 2 calls for developing a strategy and Option 3 calls for providing housing policy options. Mr. Chave said "policy options" means a series of ideas that would logically lead to additional future actions. He does not anticipate that the Housing Commission will be involved in writing code or doing the type of detailed work that the Planning Board is responsible to do. Instead, they will provide a recommendation on the direction the City should go and address various housing needs and options. The Housing Commission is not intended to dive into the specific details of the code. Instead, they are to recommend general things the City should explore and expand upon to address housing issues. Strategies will take the general policies to the next step of implementation. He summarized that the Housing Commission's recommendations will presumably lead to Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments. Vice Chair Robles suggested that Option 1 would provide the greatest flexibility and be more efficient. Commissioner Monroe voiced concern that Option 3 extends beyond the scope of what the City Council asked the Board to do because it redefines the scope of the Housing Commission. He said he support either Option 1 or Option 2. Board Member Rubenkonig said she doesn't see much difference between Options 2 and 3; it is a simple matter of semantics. She likes the idea of "providing housing policy options" as opposed to "developing a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting the diverse housing needs." Board Member Rosen said the record shows that, on multiple occasions throughout its review of the Housing Strategy, the Planning Board talked about the public process being inadequate. Rather than being a power grab, the Planning Board was the initial voice that the outreach program needed to be more robust. The City Council's decision to step back and form a Housing Commission was good. What was not wrong in the original process is that the Planning Board was an important part of the receptacle for hearing and processing ideas and concepts. That is part of the Planning Board's role, and that part of the process should remain intact. The City Council's decision to form the Housing Commission was in response to citizen input. They want to hear from the citizens without stacking the deck in any way, and the Housing Commission meets that intent. However, he doesn't believe the Planning Board's involvement is any less important in the current process than it was the first time around. The Planning Board should be part of the work, and it would make sense for the Planning Board and Housing Commission to engage in joint conversations. While the Housing Commission would continue to report directly to the City Council, the Planning Board could add value to the Housing Commission by providing valuable input. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 3, WITH ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "PROVIDE HOUSING POLICY OPTIONS BY THE END OF 2020 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING INPUT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD." VICE CHAIR ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION. Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 8 Board Member Crank questioned how the discussion got from simply changing the date of the implementation action to the idea that the Planning Board would not be part of the process. The Planning Board has been part of the process up to this point. She cautioned against making the latter statement. She said she cannot justify its inclusion because she doesn't see how anything has changed. Board Member Rosen commented that the additional language gets rid of the ambiguity. He recalled that the City Council made it clear that it is a Housing Commission project and the Planning Board should stand down. The City Council and staff have both indicated that the Planning Board would not be involved in the process until after the Housing Commission has present its policy recommendations. The additional language indicates the Board's desire to be part of the Housing Commission's process, and the City Council can decide whether to adopt it or not. Student Representative Bryan said he would favor the inclusion of a date as part of the implementation action because it provides more transparency and informs the public of what the plan is for the Housing Commission. Board Member Crank concurred. Board Member Crank asked if the proposed motion would imply that the Board's input is required before the Housing Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. She cautioned that requiring Planning Board input before presenting a proposal to the Commission would add more time to the process. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it is not the Planning Board's intent to be the judge and jury for the Housing Commission's recommendation. It is not the Planning Board's role to give a stamp of approval to the Housing Commission's work. Board Member Monroe commented that the Planning Board has been interested in the housing issue for a long time, and now they are being told to step back. Board Member Rubenkonig said the Board was never told by the City Council or the Development Services Director that they would be out of the loop. However, the Housing Commission will not be required to consult with the Planning Board as it goes about its business. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Board Member Monroe pointed out that the Extended Agenda indicates that a Housing Commission Update was supposed to have been on the October 23rd agenda. Mr. Chave said the update will likely take place on November 13' and will be provided by the Development Services Director. Chair Cheung asked that "Election of Planning Board Officers" be added to the November 131 agenda. He also reminded staff of the items the Planning Board wanted to add to the "Pending" list. Mr. Chave said he hasn't had a chance to formally add the items to the extended agenda, but he would do so by the next meeting. Board Member Rosen suggested that Chair Cheung review the extended agenda prior to the next packet being posted to make sure the items are included. Mr. Chave said that may be tricky, depending on timing, but he agreed to try. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that, at the Planning Board's joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board (ADB), there was some discussion about the two boards working together to update the detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations. She noted that there are many illegal ADUs in the City, and they are at a place where the design criteria currently in place prohibits property owners from providing such housing for family members. She is not suggesting that policy changes be made, but the criteria could be updated. Mr. Chave clarified that the current code does not allow detached ADUs, even for family members. However, ADUs that are attached by a breezeway that meets the definition in the code are considered attached ADUs. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that perhaps it is time to reconsider the attachment criteria. Mr. Chave said the current code contains general language that says if you are constructing an ADU, it needs to be done in such a way that is consistent with the design of the existing house so it looks like one structure. That is as far as the guidelines go. An ADU must resemble a single-family house. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the ADU criteria is Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 9 generally left up to staff s interpretation, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He explained that staff generally looks at whether the ADU would have similar materials, colors, etc. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Mr. Chave sees potential for the Planning Board to work with the ADB to review the ADU criteria. Mr. Chave said he isn't sure what the end result would be. Board Member Rubenkonig said the standards are old and need to be updated. Mr. Chave explained that the most substantial changes would come after the Housing Commission has presented its recommendations to the City Council and the City Council has indicated a desire to consider detached ADUs. At that point, the Board would become involved in the process and would have an opportunity to identify potential design parameters. For attached ADU's, which is all the code currently allows, it makes sense that they be required to be designed consistent with the existing house. If the Board gets into discussions about detached ADUs at some point in the future, they can consider the need for different types of design parameters; but right now, he is not sure it would be beneficial to bring in the ADB to talk about the attached ADU regulations. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be beneficial to talk about good quality and what needs to be changed to update the outdated codes. She said she was hoping the Board could be more proactive in laying the groundwork for future policy changes. Mr. Chave cautioned against the Board going off on a tangent that does not ultimate relate to any policy choice the City Council wants to make. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the current ADU codes are outdated and she would like the Planning Board and ADB to look at the impact of a legal ADU for family members and its criteria. She felt that some things could be better attended to in order to make ADU's more pleasing to the neighborhoods in which they exist. She said she understands Mr. Chave's point of view, but she would rather be more proactive and do some of the homework before being asked to consider potential policy changes. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Planning Board comments. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2019 Page 10