The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-07-14 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04 � O Planning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBN090aWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09 Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135. Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 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. 1. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived 2. Approval of Minutes A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5656) Approval of Minutes Background/History Staff catching up on minute editing and approvals. Two sets of meeting minutes for June pending approval. Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from June 9th & June 23rd meetings. ATTACHMENTS: • PB210609d (PDF) • PB_20210623d (PDF) Planning Board Page 1 Printed 711312021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 14, 2021 3. 4. 5. 6. A. 7. A. 8. 9. A. Announcement of Agenda Audience Comments Administrative Reports Public Hearings Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5658) Code Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Bicycle Parking Standards Background/History The Planning Board has reviewed the draft bicycle parking code amendment (AMD2021-0001) on June 23, 2021 and scheduled the item for a public hearing Staff Recommendation Make a recommendation on the draft bicycle parking standards in Attachment 1 to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment (PDF) • Attachment 2- Draft Presentation (PDF) • Attachment 3- Applicability Calculation Example (PDF) Unfinished Business Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5657) Code Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Background/History This is a continuation of Planning Board discussions from June 9 and June 23, 2021 for the EV charging infrastructure code amendment (AMD2021-0002). The first meeting provided an introductory look at the topic and the second meeting focused on the proposed standards. This proposed code amendment is intended to align with and support the City's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals. Staff Recommendation Discuss proposed code amendment and schedule a public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment (Markup) (PDF) • Attachment 2- Draft Presentation (PDF) • Attachment 3- Applicability Calculation Example (PDF) New Business Planning Board Extended Agenda Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5659) Extended Agenda Planning Board Page 2 Printed 711312021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda July 14, 2021 Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Discussion Extended Agenda ATTACHMENTS: • 07-14-2021 PB Extended Agenda (PDF) Planning Board Chair Comments Planning Board Member Comments Adjournment Planning Board Page 3 Printed 711312021 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History Staff catching up on minute editing and approvals. Two sets of meeting minutes for June pending approval. Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from June 9th & June 23rd meetings. Narrative June 9th & June 23rd meeting minute drafts attached. Attachments: PB210609d PB_20210623d Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 9, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuen Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Discusses the meeting's agenda. Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience for public comment. rn 0 co 0 N m a r c m E a Natalie Seitz: Discusses city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property. Addresses some of the statements the Council made during the Stage 2 Tree Issues discussion on June 1ST, and the memorandum/information developed by the city in support of the Stage 3 Issues discussion. Encourages Planning Board to review comments made at the City Council meetings. Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Discusses issues with some of the options raised at Council Meeting and the desire for better clarification. States that neither Option 2 nor 3 provides specific guidance with regard to trees above 24 inches diameter at breast height and that Council needs to immediately clarify its intent to regulate the maintenance of those trees. Believes that the Council stating that they support Option 2 and 3 for "tracking purposes" is not accurate or transparent. States that both options limit or prohibit the removal of trees, and there are many other less costly ways to track tree removal than this regulatory effort. Talks about being consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Does not want Council to penalize people from growing and maintaining trees. Seeks transparency and equity in process. States that the city is stuck because, barring the emergency ordinance, there is nothing that prevents an owner who plans to develop from removing trees as a maintenance action and then being treated exactly like an un-treed property when seeking a development permit. States that the solution to this issue is resolving the funding mechanism for the development regulations and respect all the public input that went into the Urban Forest c Management Plan process. Talks about other equitable options such as revising the tree funding fee structure to equally burden all properties where trees have historically and - could grow again or Option 6 with no exceptions, which would in time become equitable. i States that barring those options, the next most equitable path forward is to revise the i tree fund to require monies to be spend in areas where they were taken from or a restructure these fees to account for the difference in stormwater benefits provided by Q trees. rn 0 to Wants Planning Board to ask Diversity Commission to evaluate the disproportionate amount Highway 99 communities will pay under the proposed tree ordinance for benefits m that are diverted outside those communities. Also wants GIS analysis to identify the areas a r that will be disproportionately penalized and those that will receive benefits. Believes m there are significant land use impacts in SEPA that aren't being evaluated. Thanks the E Planning Board for their time. a Rob Chave: No other public comment. Alicia Crank: Would like to see a Planning Board member apply for one of the PSRC positions. Asks if this is Shane Hope's last meeting. Shane Hope: States this will be Shane's last meeting and that it has been a pleasure working with the Planning Board. Mike Rosen: Also thanks Shane for their service. Judi Gladstone: Asks if City nominates people for PSRC. Shane Hope: States City does not nominate but would support people volunteering. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Judi Gladstone: Asks about Equity training, and if there is any planned. Shane Hope: Doesn't believe there has been specific equity training for the Planning Board but that there has been training for city staff. States this may be something to consider in the future. Judi Gladstone: Fully supports the idea of equity training for Planning Board. Then asks about what housing policy items will be coming to the Planning Board or if a special workshop is being planned. Shane Hope: Mentions the discussions on housing policy will take place at City Council on June 241n at 4:30 pm. Lists some of the items that may come to Planning Board: detached accessory dwellings, cottage/cluster dwellings, and multi -family design guidelines. States that the challenge for the Council in delving in more deeply to the recommendations from the Housing Commission has primarily been due to their full workload. Mike Rosen: Introduces Legislative Report item. Shane Hope: Presents 2021 legislative session presentation. Talks about various bills and several highlights. Discusses bills that did not pass. States that some of the bills that did not pass related to accessory dwellings that would have required detached or attached accessory dwellings to be allowed throughout single-family zones and not subject to parking requirements. There were also requirements proposed to allow more duplexes and quadruplexes in various areas of single-family zones. There were also some other affordable housing incentive options that did not pass. Mentions House Bill 1099 was a framework for local climate planning that did not pass. It would have required a climate and resiliency element in the comprehensive plan. Suspects it will be back next year. Discusses bills that did pass. House Bill 1050 seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and focused on coolants: refrigerator coolants, freezer coolants, etc. House Bill 1070 allows local governments to capture a portion of the existing state sales tax and use it for certain kinds of housing needs supporting lower -income households. House Bill 1189 allows tax increment financing which could be used for infrastructure improvements like sidewalks, streets, or similar items. House Bill 1220 provides more options for emergency shelters, emergency housing, and coordination with the cities when county housing agencies are siting shelters within cities. P rn 0 co 0 N m a r c am E 0 M a Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a House Bills 1236 and 1277 apply to tenant situations and protects people who are renting. House Bill 1287 is about zero emission vehicles and sets goals for having all new vehicles be electric vehicles (EV) by 2030. Also provides for the Building Code Council to increase their rules about providing EV charging stations. Senate Bill 5022 limits plastic bags and non-compostable containers from restaurants. Senate Bill 5126 addresses ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It includes a cap and invest program and provides for ways that incentivize the reduction fossil fuels. Senate Bill 5235 addresses emergency shelters and housing. Prevents local governments from regulating the number of unrelated persons that could occupy a household. Senate Bill 5253 establishes new programs for ensuring the health of bees and other pollinators and is an educational program. Senate Bill 5287 deals with the multi -family tax incentive program and allows additional years to use it. - As a summary there was little change with growth management bills, modest changes to i housing laws, and climate bills are gaining momentum. a Q Roger Pence: Asked for a copy of the presentation. CD co Shane Hope: Agrees to send presentation. N m Nathan Monroe: Thanks Shane for 10+ years of service then asked about Tax Increment Financing and a r whether the funds would be restricted within certain areas. m E Shane Hope: Confirms it would be limited to specific areas. a Mike Rosen: States there are no public hearings and introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure item. Rob Chave: Introduces Eric Engmann as the new planner working on code updates. Eric Engmann: Introduces himself and provides background experience in planning and code drafting. Introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure topic. States that the meeting will be an introductory look into the components needed for the code and to connect this initiative to the City's larger sustainability efforts. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Discusses the connections between this code amendment and specific Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action Plan, and New Energy Cities Action Plan goals. Most notably the goal for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050. Talks about the sources for greenhouse gases within the City of Edmonds and identified the transportation section as the largest single localized contributor. Talks about the connection between reduced greenhouse gases produced by EVs and the City's future EV goals. He then talks about how vehicle manufacturers are producing more electric vehicle models and mentions the years that many will start producing only electric vehicles. Talks about the fear of not being able to charge vehicles as a key factor limiting EV adoption and indicates 80% of EVs are charged at home or at work. Also, mentions that it is much cheaper to install EV charging infrastructure in new development rather than in retrofits. Provides examples. Discusses key elements needed for the code amendment. The first one is the charging level, how much power goes into this infrastructure. Then the stages or types of infrastructure. Finally, how different uses will have different EV charging infrastructure needs. Talks about the difference between the EV stages: EV capable, EV ready and EV installed. • EV Capable means that the electric panel has the capacity to handle the charging voltage needed and has the initial wiring. Mentions EV Capable does not allow for current EV charging, but means it will be ready for future use. • EV Ready has the panel capacity, the conduit lines, and a plug in the wall. The circuitry is in place to physically charge the car with a portable charger. • EV Installed has the panels in place, conduit lines, circuit lines, and the specialized equipment geared specifically for electric vehicles. It deals with the voltage and shut- off times. It is considered the full, complete package for charging infrastructure. Then talks about the charging levels: Level I, Level II and Level III or fast chargers. • Level I is a 120-volt circuit, similar to what is seen on a typical household outlet. Can charge an EV but takes a long time, average charging time can be from eight to 20 hours. • Level II is the most common charging level, especially for residential use. It runs on a 240-volt circuit which is similar to an oven or dryer outlet. It can fully charge an EV battery in four to eight hours. • Level III, also known as rapid charging, has a 480-volt circuit. This is considered too much for current home usage. It can fully charge an EV battery in 20 to 60 minutes. They are typically found at large commercial sites, electric vehicle dealerships, and along major highways. Mentions the need to separate uses into three categories: single-family, multi -family, and nonresidential uses. Also mentions staff has done a lot of research on other cities and P rn 0 co 0 N m a r c m E a Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a explains how the standards vary. Reiterates the specific items that will be discussed at the next meeting including a draft code amendment and development scenarios. Mike Rosen: Thanks Eric and asked for Planning Board questions Roger Pence: Mentions load management and if that is applicable here. Eric Engmann: Is unsure of the implications. Roger Pence: Asks how people will be charged for the electricity used in multifamily buildings. Eric Engmann: Mentions several options, specifically credit card readers on EV installed infrastructure. Alicia Crank: Asks about the types of costs based on the charging level and whether a consumer should have a preference. Eric Engmann: Mentions the major cost difference are between the stages themselves e.g. ready vs. m capable. The cost of the electricity should be relatively similar amongst charging levels. c Alicia Crank: Talks about the importance in charging levels across the city. Asks if the ones downtown - are Level III. 0 L Eric Engmann: Unsure of downtown but mentions that most are Level II. a Q Rob Chave: Believes city -sponsored ones are Level II. rn 0 co Nathan Monroe: Asks for staff to keep some flexibility in the code because technology is still advancing. Mentions that, since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting standards will be important m as part of remodel work. Asks for staff to consider how this ordinance will apply to a r retrofits. m E Matt Cheung: Asks how much it generally costs to charge an EV battery. a Eric Engmann: States that it generally takes about $4.00 to fully charge an EV battery based on current Washington kilowatt hour costs. Matt Cheung: Asks if the city tracks how often the charging stations are being used. Rob Chave: Mentions that the city would only know about the 5 or 6 public ones and is unsure if that information is tracked. Todd Cloutier: Talks about how this amendment should be "future focused" and not just looking at the technology around today. Wants to be careful not to try to legislate too hard and keep the metrics more flexible. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Judi Gladstone: Also discusses flexibility and understanding what the future trends are. Asks about analysis for different scenarios and mentions examples such as if Level III chargers become preferred. Would like to know what information staff can provide to look at upcoming technology. Eric Engmann: Offers to provide more information on future technology. Mentions the difficulty in assessing future technology trends in the code. States that an option would be to revise the code if the technology does change. Judi Gladstone: Clarifies the desire for different scenarios based on the charging types and levels. Asks if scenarios can account for financial, environmental, and social costs to address equity. Eric Engmann: Agrees to provide more scenarios and to have more conversation about the other topics. Mike Rosen: Agrees with others' statements. Asks for more information about how this effort will tie directly into the city's climate strategy; if there is a specific target for this amendment. Asks about the effectiveness of this amendment since new development will represent a m small amount of Edmonds' future growth. c Eric Engmann: Mentions the Climate Action Plan updates and the effort to find items to "close the gap" - for carbon neutrality. Also acknowledges that Edmonds is mostly built -out but mentions that this amendment will still have an impact. i a Q. Mike Rosen: Sees no other questions and asks if this item will come back to the June 23rd Planning Q Board meeting. CD co Eric Engmann: States that this will be back on June 23rd. Thanks the Board. N m Mike Rosen: Discusses the extended agenda and asks for any comments by Board members. a r c m Judi Gladstone: Mentions that there are several meetings where she will unfortunately be on vacation. E Matt Cheung: In looking at the extended agenda, asks if EV charging regulations will be ready for public Q hearing in two meetings as proposed. Rob Chave: States that this is tentative and can change based on what happens at the next Planning Board meeting. Roger Pence: Asks when the Planning Board will go back to live meetings. Mike Rosen: States there will probably be a hybrid or combination model after the City Council tries it first. Roger Pence: Expresses desire to go back to in -person meetings. Alicia Crank: Asks if there will be a break in Planning Board meetings at some point this summer. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a Mike Rosen: States this is often the case, usually around Labor Day, but it is still to be determined. Alicia Crank: States that the extended agenda looks very heavy all the way into October. Asks to determine any breaks sooner rather than later. Mike Rosen: Suggests picking a meeting where several Board members are going to be absent to determine a break. States that the Vice Chair may want to poll the Planning Board members. Thanks the new members, Judi and Rich, forjoining Planning Board. Closes the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. P CD 0 r N m d r C d E L V a Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 23, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuen Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (Excused) Nathan Monroe (Unexcused) Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order. STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planning Division Eric Engmann, Planning Division Richard Kuen: Reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Rob Chave: Calls roll. (Planning Board responds) Q M N W 0 r N O N m a r c m E R r r Q Mike Rosen: Mentions Alicia Crank has an excused absence and unless Nathan Monroe joins, it will be an unexcused absence. Packet Pg. 13 2.A.b Rob Chave: Introduces staff present. Mike Rosen: Discusses approval of minutes. Has the May 26t" minutes but not the June 9t" minutes. Asks for any changes or concerns with the May 26th minutes or a motion to approve. Matt Cheung: Moves to approve. Mike Rosen: Seconds the motion and asks for discussion. Asks for those in favor by a visual wave (Board Members raise hand). Asks for any opposed, recognizes Judi Gladstone. Judi Gladstone: Mentions that the minutes are 27 pages, too long to read. Mike Rosen: Asks for clarification if Judi Gladstone votes no or wishes to abstain. Judi Gladstone: "Opposes" because of a desire to see them changed. U) Mike Rosen: Notes opposition. Sets agenda. Meeting will start with audience comments. Notes no director or administrative report to review. No public hearings or unfinished business. Notes three items under new business; update on the climate action plan, code amendments on electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and development standards for ° bicycle parking. c L Q Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience to speak. Q Natalie Seitz: Comments on the city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property. N Speaks towards a strategy she believes will be effective to promote private urban forests. o Had discussed equitable strategies at previous council meetings. Tonight, wants to speak r c more toward effective strategies to promote a private urban forest. CN m a States that the recent code amendments to ECC 23.10 do not approach the responsibility of an urban forest as a community burden. Notes that tree planting requirements are E much less than the retention requirements for treed properties. States trees are not in and of themselves critical areas and every property can grow trees. Feels the proposed r Q code continues to create a strong incentive for property owners to remove trees and not plant them. First suggestion is to revise the code and fee structure to equally burden all properties (treed and untreed) with a baseline tree planting requirement. States this can be met through tree retention and a significant tree related development fee. Also states that these fees can then be reduced when preserving existing trees or planting trees above minimum requirements. Finds that this would create strong incentives to plant, maintain, and retain trees during development compared to the current fees and regulations. States that this first suggestion would incentivize the planting and maintenance of trees, be more equitable, and lead to canopy improvements. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.b Second suggestion would create a surface water fee structure that compensates property owners at least equal to the storm water benefit provided by trees. States trees are a third method for managing storm water, not just surface and ground water quality standards. Talks about the health concerns with storm water becoming surface water runoff: treatment for metals/ petroleum, 6PPD leading to Coho salmon die offs. States that infiltrated ground water quality has significantly lower water quality requirements. Finds that infiltration is not always feasible in many cases and can cause drainage issues. States that the third option is trees, which intercept water in the canopy and remove ground water through transpiration. Trees can effectively grow anywhere and can play a key component to addressing additional capacity needs resulting from climate change. Finalizes by saying "properly incentivizing, which means showing property owners on their statement that their surface water fees are significantly lower due to trees on their property, will foster a positive relationship between homeowners and trees rather than the negative relationship the city is currently pursuing." Believes these suggestions, unlike N the city's current approach, are consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Thanks the Board. Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie. Asks for anyone else wishing to speak. 0 76 0 Rob Chave: States Linda Ferkingstad wishes to speak. Q. a Q Linda Ferkingstad: Also wishes to speak about the tree code. Wants to reiterate what she said at yesterday's city council meeting. Reads, "Americans have the right to live our lives with the freedoms N and liberties afforded to us in the US Constitution. We are asking only for the same o freedoms allowed to those who built the homes that you live in in Edmonds, freedom to c divide and build on our property without 100% taxation for the timber and carbon CN footprint of our trees' worth, or even the $2.00 per square foot fee, which would be a $100,000.00 for us to build our homes on our 1.2 acres. Edmonds is forcing us to purchase our trees, our property twice. We purchased it from the owner and now, we have to E purchase the trees from the city before we're allowed to build on our homes." States that the Town of Woodway, where she currently lives, tried this approach about 20 years ago. Mentions Woodway had to completely rewrite their tree code because of infringement on property rights. Hopes Edmonds will look at their tree code as an example. Provides examples of the narrowing of a road to keep a tree growing in the road. Mentions Woodways rules are strong because of prior litigation and mitigation through the Growth Management Act. States it was a Taking Clause per the constitution. Discusses Woodway's tree requirements for developed lots: • Tree removal for development projects shall not exceed 5% of the trees located outside of the areas listed in this section • Trees do not have to be replaced if within the proposed building footprint, within 25 feet of the proposed building footprint, within the footprint of a driveway or pedestrian access, or within utility easements. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 15 2.A.b States Woodway has a limit of how many trees can be taken down and how often. Can take down one significant or exceptional tree (30 inches DBH) every two years. Does not charge owners to take down their own trees. Feels Edmonds has put regulatory takings on property owners. Thanks the Board for the 50% exemption. Hopes to retain 50% of trees on her property but not sure if she can. Doesn't feel like any property owner should be charged to maintain their own property with a fee. Thanks the Board for listening. Mike Rosen: Thanks speaker. Asks if anyone else would like to address the Planning Board. Rob Chave: Confirms there are no other speakers. Mike Rosen: Introduces the climate action plan update item. Kernen Lien: Introduces himself to the new board members. States he will be giving an update on U) 2 climate action planning. Will recap the work done over the last few years, a recap on the 9 open house workshop, and a review of the survey results. 4- 0 Provides a general background of the climate action planning. The mayor's climate c reduction committee, a citizen's group, was responsible for the 2010 climate action plan. Q. The comprehensive plan was updated with a sustainability element for climate protection Q related goals. Lastly, Resolution 1389 established some renewable energy goals and called for updates to the climate action plans. The City of Edmonds hired ESA to help N implement portions of Resolution 1389, including the greenhouse gas inventory. o Edmonds then adopted a tool for monitoring and tracking greenhouse gas emissions. The r c City Council adopted Resolution 1453, which sets a goal for Edmonds to be carbon neutral CN by 2050. a Discusses the results from the greenhouse gas inventory. The City would have to reduce r c E greenhouse gases by 50% in 2030 and 100% by 2050 to meet this City's goals. Identifies 10 trackable strategies that have to do with transportation, energy, and waste. r Q Reviews a graph of the Emission Reduction tools. Shows the business as usual (BAU) emissions, the reductions anticipated by the 10 identified strategies, and the gap that remains to the climate neutrality goals. States the City will miss the target unless something is done and that the focus of the Climate Action Plan is how to close this gap. Mentions the timeline of the climate action plan update: • Kicked off in January 2021, late because of the pandemic • Virtual workshops in February and March • Survey just completed • Climate action plan drafting this summer • More workshops and surveys in the fall • Draft climate action plan anticipated by the year's end Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 16 2.A.b Mike Rosen Judi Gladstone: • Planning Board and City Council review in early 2022 Discusses virtual workshops. Had about 50 attendants each, similar to previous in -person. February open house was primarily informational. Highlighted comments from March are listed below: • All strategies and actions should focus on equitability • Telecommuting as a possible new strategy • Add additional EV charging stations in Edmonds (more EVs) • Building infrastructure that promote biking (lanes, speed limits, education) Videos and Summaries from these meetings are available on the project website (EdmondsClimate.com). Discusses Community Survey. Surveys were available online, postcards, and paper surveys were mailed out. Talks about rate and ways that people responded. Discusses the results of the survey questions. Briefly summarizes Next Steps: CAP drafting, hold targeted stakeholder outreach, have second workshop and survey in late summer/early fall. Asks for any questions. Asks Board Members for questions. Recognizes Judi Gladstone. Interested in the survey results, especially people's perceived barriers. Asks how the key messages will be applied to the work ahead. Asks Kernen Lien for his takeaways from the results. Kernen Lien: States that one interesting finding was that everyone had concerns for climate impacts but no one strategy had really strong support as a definite solution. Another was that respondents felt that everybody is responsible for climate change action, not just the government or businesses. Mike Rosen: Points out that the response rate from paper surveys was twice that of the postcards. Asks staff to consider the cost benefit. Kernen Lien: Also noticed the high return rate for paper surveys. Mike Rosen: Asks to clarify if those who selected "live in Edmonds" and "live and work in Edmonds" are two separate categories. Kernen Lien: Believes this is correct. Mike Rosen: Asks about the respondents who don't live in Edmonds. How that could happen. Kernen Lien: Mentioned there were some outside groups that attended the open house. Also stated that there could be some respondents with Edmonds zip codes but not living within the city limits. a� c 0 76 0 L Q Q Q M N W O r N 0 N m i a r c m E R r Q Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 17 2.A.b Mike Rosen: Suggests removal of those 1S% of the sample size. Strongly suggests emphasizing wellbeing of future generations which, from experience, has always tested number one. Asks if staff provided the list of choices for level of support. Kernen Lien: Confirms that the list of choices is made up of those that the city is tracking. Mike Rosen: Supports and talks about the benefits of telecommuting as an option. Also suggests going directly to employers to provide bus passes or transit passes for employees as incentives. Provides examples and talks about providing incentives to make these actions easy and accessible to people. Thinks of (the solutions) through the filters of behavior and equipment and also likelihood. Would add a filter for likelihood. Kernen Lien: Talks about incentives and discusses the increase in solar installation after incentives were announced. Saw this as an example of incentives working well. Mike Rosen: States that incentives are also a good opportunity for public/private partnerships. Mentions electric mowers as an example. States that government incentives and private incentives could be in place to benefit everybody. Asks if there are any other questions. Thanks Kernen Lien for his time. Mike Rosen: Introduces Eric Engmann to talk about EV charging infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Mentions that this code amendment transitions well from the climate action plan topic. Mentions that the articles and studies in the packet are great sources for information about EV charging infrastructure and how to regulate it in City code. Recaps the last presentation • EV charging infrastructure supports sustainability goals • Demand is growing and manufacturers are switching to EV • Cheaper to install in new development instead of costly retrofits • Three staging levels: EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed • Three charging levels: Level I, Level II (typical for residential), and Level III (rapid charging) • Land uses needed: single-family, multifamily, and non-residential Recaps Planning Board comments at last meeting • Discuss cost implications • Equity considerations • Ease in technology usage • Allowing flexible standards • Future technology considerations • Connections to larger environmental impacts Q M N tO 0 r N O N I m a r c m E R r Q Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 18 2.A.b Mike Rosen Roger Pence Highlights the components of the proposed amendment. Would entail a new chapter in Title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Discusses definitions and the charging levels allowed under each stage type. States that the charging levels will be allowed in all zoning districts and that, based on PB comments, battery exchange stations will be treated as an automotive service station and allowed where they are permitted. Discusses the applicability standards for EV charging infrastructure. States that it would be required as part of new development, additions to existing buildings over 50% improvement, or 50% increase in parking capacity to a building. Highlights the differences between the proposed 50% rule verses the existing non- conformity standards for existing buildings. States that staff recommends using the 50% rule as a simpler and more affective way to ensure existing buildings meet these standards during major renovations or expansion. Provides examples about the differences between the two standards. U) Introduces the specific standards and how they work. Indicates that multiple dwelling units (multifamily) with individual garages would follow the single-family standards. The standards for multifamily and non-residential development would be based on a percentage of the overall parking provided. 0 76 0 Provides a comparative chart for standards in other cities. Talks about some of the Q. differences. Discusses and notes the differences between the recent State Legislative Q Requirements enacted in 2019 and 2021. Also discusses the standards for accessible EV spaces and highlights from other sections of the code. N W 0 Runs through cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact for implementing these c proposed amendments based on analysis done for the City of Denver. Shows costs CN evaluations for different sized multifamily and non-residential development. a r c Mentions the key decisions that will need to be made: m E • Charging level definitions • Permitted locations r • Applicability (non -conforming criteria) Q • Specific standards for Edmonds • Review of the other components Completes the presentation and asks for Board questions. Opens up questions to the Board. Recognizes Roger Pence. States that there is a difference between employment centers and short-term parking, like a grocery store. States that people might not plug in for short periods of time. Asks for staff's reaction. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 19 2.A.b Eric Engmann: Mentions most cities have one standard for nonresidential uses but not all. Agrees that office uses may need more EV charging but does not want to go too low for other non- residential uses. Refers to the need for top -off locations and that demand may change very soon and increase for other non-residential uses. Mentions Edmonds doesn't have too many large buildings so the proposed requirements would, in many cases, only require a few EV installed spaces. Roger Pence: Also suggests that it may be better to have these standards address employee parking first and others later. Judi Gladstone: Likes Roger Pence's point. Asks if the code requirements could be based on number of workers rather than parking spaces. Eric Engmann: States it will need to be based on something more specific. Provides an example of the difference in the number of employees that two businesses of the same use can have. States that these standards are typically done by square footage or number of parking N spaces. c Judi Gladstone: Asks to confirm if the standards can differentiate between different non-residential use types, like retail vs. office. 0 76 Eric Engmann: Confirms this is possible. 0 Q. a Q Rob Chave: States it would be extremely difficult to vary according to retail vs. office. Says there can be different types of non-residential uses moving in and out of a space. N W 0 Judi Gladstone: Asks about the table provided for the cost analysis. Asks if there is alternative analysis, c other than the one being presented. CN m a Eric Engmann: States that staff reviewed many other options and standards. Selected standards that r c staff felt would be appropriate in Edmonds. Mentions it would be difficult to conduct m E analysis for several different alternatives. Staff relies heavily on analysis conducted in larger cities as part of their adoption process. r Q Mike Rosen: Recognizes Matt Cheung. Matt Cheung: Asks if a non -electric vehicle can park in an EV spot or if it would be ticketed or towed. Eric Engmann: States the EV installed spaces would be restricted to EV cars. Matt Cheung: Asks if the code is written so tickets will be issued or if it is a business's choice. Eric Engmann: Provides an example of EV parking in a residential building. The signs will say the spaces are only for EV parking but the enforcement will most likely rely on the building owners. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 20 2.A.b Matt Cheung: Mentions that the city can ticket in an ADA space regardless of whether the business enforces it. Asks if the city code has these restrictions for EV spaces. Eric Engmann: States that the draft EV charging infrastructure code relies on state code for this. It requires specific signage that restricts the EV spaces. Unsure of implications beyond that. Matt Cheung: Asks if parking in an EV space without vehicle charging is a ticketable offense. Eric Engmann: Unsure, but believes this is the case. Mike Rosen: Asks about the term for new buildings on Packet Page 47. States that using the term new building sounds very vague. Eric Engmann: Asks for clarification on the section. States that staff will look at this again. States that simplicity is important in code writing, but it also needs to be understandable. U) Mike Rosen: States that a shed could be a new building and provides another example. c Eric Engmann: Agrees that staff will look at the language. 0 76 Mike Rosen: Asks about the equity and burden between smaller and larger units. 0 Q Eric Engmann: Notes that duplexes or others with individual garages would follow the single-family Q standards so this should account for many small developments. Mentions that there are other codes with multiple tiers for standards, and staff can look at that. N W 0 Mike Rosen: Asks other Board members if they are struggling with the concept of retrofits. Talks about c retrofits, potentially, being driven by market demand and sees them differently. CN m a Judi Gladstone: Mentions a recent upgrade to electrical as part of a kitchen remodel. States that it makes r c sense for EV capable at the same time as the electrical box upgrades. Finds that it is a lot E of extra cost if the improvements have nothing to do with the electrical. States the added cost could prevent somebody from retrofitting their house, possibly for someone to age r Q in place or create multigenerational living. Rob Chave: Talks about the high levels of retrofit, 50% or 75%. Mentions they are big projects not simple additions. Richard Kuen: Mentions these higher retrofit standards are not going to be all encompassing. Is also thinking about scenarios such as aging in place or a younger family. States that the 50% number might be appropriate. Mike Rosen: Concerned with imposing those standards on current homeowners. Wonders if it should be left to market demand. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 21 2.A.b Judi Gladstone: Wonders if the upgrades should be done based on the right opportunity, like a kitchen remodel, and it would be a shame to miss it. Asks if an electrical permit is required to update the electric box. Rob Chave: States that the city contracts out its electrical permitting in the city so it would be difficult to implement. Eric Engmann: Talked with the Building Official about the types of retrofits that would warrant 50% improvements. Mentioned that it would take substantial work to meet this applicability requirement and a major improvement might be a good time to install it. Mentions that since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting will be extremely important. Things like complete renovations or "gutting" of houses would be a good time to require these improvements so they will be available for the next owner. Reminds the Board that a major barrier to EV adoption is charging availability. U) Roger Pence: Asks if the 50% threshold is necessary if an electrical permit is pulled. States that it could be an add on to a project. Matt Cheung: Agrees that it seems like it should be market driven and not burden the current property ° owner. But asks if it is safe to assume that anyone reaching 50% is making significant c improvements. Asks if the 50% improvements would have to be done at one time to Q. a count. Q Eric Engmann: States that adding a timeframe will be in the next version of the code draft, most likely a N one-year period. Provides an example that in a 1 million dollar home, there would need o to be $500,000 worth of improvements to qualify as a retrofit. c N Matt Cheung: Mentions that kitchen improvements won't likely cost 50% of the house value. 50% would I a- need to be several renovation projects or involve flipping a house. m E Eric Engmann: States there could be many scenarios, but it would probably be more than a kitchen renovation. r Q Matt Cheung: Asks if the permits would all be combined. Eric Engmann: States that permits are typically applied for close together, but it depends on the situation. Judi Gladstone: States that 50% doesn't appear to be that much renovation. Reiterates that with many improvements, older electrical boxes need to be replaced. Wonders how much will be caught with the 50% or 75% current definition. Asks if it would be more effective if tied to electrical permits. Rob Chave: States that staff will need to talk with the Building Official since electrical code is not part of city code, but done through the state. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 22 2.A.b Judi Gladstone: Agrees and states that it seems like the city is relinquishing a really important piece of the construction. Mike Rosen: Recognized Richard Kuen. Richard Kuen: Agrees with Judi Gladstone about lost opportunity. Talks about how the key objective of this amendment is to help achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Talks about different scenarios for improvements but asks Board to think back to the objective at hand. Mike Rosen: Mentions Linda has comments in the Q&A. Asks Eric to discuss the staff's questions for the Board. Eric Engmann: States that he hears a few main components that need to be readdressed at the next meeting. Some of the other issues don't seem to be as controversial. U) Asks if there are any issues with the specific charging levels listed in the EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed definitions. States that they are pretty typical from other cities. Mike Rosen: Asks if any Board members take exception to this or move on. 0 76 Eric Engmann: Asks if there is any issue allowing all charging levels (Levels I, II, or III) to be allowed 0 Q. citywide. Also mentions that battery exchange stations would be considered an Q automotive repair use and allowed where they are allowed. M Mike Rosen: Asks if battery exchange stations should be allowed at auto dealers. N o r N O Rob Chave: States that this is a good idea for staff to review. "'i m a Judi Gladstone: Agrees that planning for battery exchange stations is a good idea for the purposes of flexibility and future trends. E Eric Engmann: Asks if there is anything else with the specific standards, besides more about separating r non-residential uses, that the Board wants to see at the next meeting. Q Judi Gladstone: Talks about the comparison with the Denver scenarios, which has 80% EV capable, and believes it would be cheaper. Would like to know more about the difference between EV ready vs. EV capable, including the costs. States that aiming for 100% total EV infrastructure down the road might be more efficient. Eric Engmann: Mentions that EV ready still lets vehicles charge from a portable charger so it gives more flexibility. Agrees that there is a trade off with cost and will provide more information at the next meeting. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 23 2.A.b Rob Chave: States that part of the concern is ownership, especially for multifamily buildings. Would be hard for a tenant to get a building owner to make that investment of an upgrade from EV capable to EV ready. Judi Gladstone: Asks for clarification, that EV capable does not have an outlet. Eric Engmann: Confirms that EV capable only has the behind the wall wiring, no outlet. Rob Chave: Mentions many EVs have portable charging devices that can work with EV ready. EV capable still needs significant steps to charge vehicles. Eric Engmann: States that many cities require 10% of EV spaces to be accessible spaces. Staff may need to create more scenarios to determine the best percentage. Mentions that the draft code language and terminology is similar to the surrounding cities. Much of the language comes from best practices and other codes. Mike Rosen: Thanks staff. Asks if it makes sense for this item to come back one more time before U) °' scheduling a public hearing. Roger Pence: Agrees. 0 76 Mike Rosen: Asks if staff has any issue with presenting this one more time before a public hearing. 0 Q. a Q .. Rob Chave: Agrees to this. M Mike Rosen: Introduces the bicycle parking code amendment. N o r N O Eric Engmann: States that staff will be discussing the goals of this amendment and look at the proposed CN draft. m a States the closest goal is in the Climate Action Plan, Transportation Goal 3. Which seeks r c E to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting active transportation. Having access to bicycles, places to park them, places to use them, sidewalks, all of this is part of this r metric. Q Discusses the difference between short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards. Difference is based on how long they function for and (usually) where they are located. Short-term parking is typically for short trips, located at the front of a building, and is intended for parking less than 4 hours. This is the typical bike parking standard found in most zoning codes. States that long-term parking is important for biking as an alternative form of transportation. It occurs for parking of more than 4 hours and is typically located in a secure location within a building. This standard is seen more often in multifamily residential developments. Employees riding bikes to work also rely on this option. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 24 2.A.b Mentions that single-family is not included because there is typically space to store bicycles there. Mentions the applicability standards would be similar to those discussed for EV charging infrastructure. Would be required for new buildings, major renovations, or parking increases. Would be a choice between the 50% recommendation or the existing non- conforming standards. Discusses the effects of the regulations on different scenarios; small, medium, and large developments. Mentions larger developments would likely use storage rooms or lockers. Talks about other standards: • Proximity to entrances • Minimum sizes • Secure structures • Visibility • Outlets for electric bicycles (E-bikes) • Exceptions to the standards for units with direct outside access and reductions for assisted living • Considering higher standards for certain uses (idea borrowed from Shoreline) Mike Rosen: Asks for comments. Acknowledges Roger Pence. Roger Pence: Mentions the picture of a short-term bike rack. Asks if one "hoop" could count for two bike parking places. Eric Engmann: States this is the case if there was enough room on both sides to meet the minimum size requirements. Roger Pence: Mentions downtown locations and asks if short-term parking located in the public sidewalk could count toward this standard. Eric Engmann: States that improvements typically need to be on private property. Rob Chave: Agrees that, generally speaking, these requirements would take place on private property. Roger Pence: Reiterates that new development would have to provide an off-street or off -the -public sidewalk area for short term bike parking. Eric Engmann: Mentions the new zoning standards for the Community General (CG) zoning district. The buildings are required to build closer to the property line but bike parking still typically occurs onsite near the entrance. Roger Pence: Mentions he is thinking of the BD1 (central downtown) zone. a� c 0 76 0 L Q a Q M N W O r N 0 N I m a r c m E R r Q Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 25 2.A.b Eric Engmann: States that staff can look into allowing special consideration for this area. States that new development should be able to meet this standard but it could be difficult for existing building. Roger Pence: Comments that the Downtown Improvement Association is already installing bike racks on the public sidewalk downtown. Mike Rosen: Comments that he likes the exceptions to require additional bike parking for the 10 examples listed (in the code) but this seems arbitrary and discretionary. Asks if there is something about those uses that could be summarized if staff wants to require more parking there. Eric Engmann: Concedes that this exception can be difficult in code. Asks for more clarification. Mike Rosen: Asks how someone would decide which uses need additional parking. Eric Engmann: States that the code often gives staff discretion to reduce standards. Mentions these uses U) (playfields, libraries, etc.) are ones that typically require more bike parking. Agrees that staff will look at this again. 0 Mike Rosen: States that specificity in these kinds of things is always useful. Was wondering if there was c another way to describe the content of this exception. Asks if there is any other comment. Q. Sees none and thanks staff. Q Eric Engmann: Asks if this item is ready for public hearing. N W 0 Mike Rosen: Confers with the Board. c N Todd Cloutier: Thinks it is ready to go. a Judi Gladstone: Agrees that it is ready. r c E Mike Rosen: Confirms the item is ready for public hearing. r Q Mike Rosen: Introduces the extended agenda. Acknowledges that Council's meeting tomorrow may affect the extended schedule. Rob Chave: Agrees that some things are in flux as the council continues to discuss various things. Mike Rosen: Asks for any specific questions. Acknowledges Roger Pence. Roger Pence: Asks if he can suggest a potential addition. States that the County has published a buildable lands report and includes a section on Edmonds. Has questions about the data and the maps. Would like a briefing on the Edmonds section of the buildable lands report by the author of the technical work. Feels it would be very useful to understand housing Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 26 2.A.b issues. Feels it would be helpful information once the City Council forwards the Housing Commission recommendations. Makes a motion to add this item to the extended agenda. Mike Rosen: Asks for a second. Rob Chave: Confirms that the motion would have the authors come before the Board. States that all staff can do is ask and that Steve Toy (County's Principal Demographer) might be available. Will relay what he says. Roger Pence: Agrees this would be adequate. Rob Chave: States that the report looks pretty straight forward. Todd Cloutier: States that the City could probably explain the impact on Edmonds. N a� Mike Rosen: Asks for any other comments for the good of the order. Judi Gladstone: Thanks the presenters for great information. 0 76 Mike Rosen: Agrees with Judi Gladstone and call the meeting adjourned at 9:15. 0 Q. a Q Roger Pence: Asks about the anticipated schedule for returning to in -person meetings. M Mike Rosen: States that he believes Council will be considering this in July. Asks Rob Chave to confirm. N o r N O Rob Chave: States that it is his understanding that Council wants to see how a hybrid model of in "'i person combined with remote meetings might work. That Council will try this first. States CO that an in -person return is indeterminate at this point. m E Roger Pence: Mentions that in -person Planning Board meetings used to be live on city cable tv. This is still the case with City Council but not for the Planning Board Zoom meetings. Asks if Rob r Chave knows the reason. Q Rob Chave: States that he does not know. Believes that will be part of figuring out the hybrid model. Roger Pence: States that this is unfortunate and that the Board should be apprised of this happening. Mike Rosen: States that it is desirable to allow people to have a choice of live or broadcast options. Wants to serve the community and be transparent and accessible. Asks for any other comments. Adjourns the meeting at 19:18. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 27 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2021 Code Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Bicycle Parking Standards Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History The Planning Board has reviewed the draft bicycle parking code amendment (AMD2021-0001) on June 23, 2021 and scheduled the item for a public hearing Staff Recommendation Make a recommendation on the draft bicycle parking standards in Attachment 1 to the City Council. Narrative This public hearing is for a proposed amendment to create bicycle parking requirements in a new Chapter (17.120) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Bike parking facilities legitimize biking as an important mode of transportation that reduces the number of motor vehicles on the road. Bike parking also requires less space than motor vehicle parking and in many situations allows users to park closer to their destinations. This amendment would assist City's goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as identified in the Climate Action Plan. This amendment would address the bicycle parking needs within the city. Currently, bicycle parking standards are only addressed in the Community General (CG) zoning district and do not apply to city- wide development. The proposed amendment establishes when uses are required to install bicycle parking. These bicycle parking spaces would apply to all multiple dwelling units (multifamily) and non- residential development that is new, substantially damaged or improved, or if a parking lot is expanded by 50 percent or more. The requirements are separated into short-term and long-term parking standards to address the different bicycle parking needs for a development. Short-term parking is intended for parking lasting less than four hours and is typically located outside a development and near the entrance. This is commonly seen at business or commercial sites and used when running errands or making shorter trips. Long-term parking is intended for parking lasting four or more hours. It is primarily used by residents or employees of a development. Long-term parking is typically found within a building site such as a garage or storage room. Differentiating these bicycle parking requirements meets the different needs of the bicycle user and reduces the barriers to using this form of transportation. Updates since June 23, 2021 Planning Board Meeting There are four primary updates to the draft code since the last PB meeting: Packet Pg. 28 6.A a) Creation of a definition subsection to contain the definitions specific to this proposed chapter b) Creation of a calculations subsection that specifically applies to this proposed chapter c) Amended the applicability standards, as discussed below d) Removed the proposed exception that would have required higher minimum standards for specific types of uses (practicality issues) During the Planning Board meeting on June 23, 2021, two points of discussion were raised that need further discussion at the public hearing. These points of discussion are: a) The applicability standards for existing developments to comply with the regulations, and b) Whether publicly available bicycle parking (specifically located in the downtown area) could be used instead of the proposed short-term parking standards. Applicability Standards The discussions for applicability standards occurred during the EV charging infrastructure amendment discussion but apply to this item as well. Staff's recommendation is to use what is generally called the 50% rule for improvements. This means that if improvements to an existing development increase by 50%, then the development would need to come into compliance with the bicycle parking standards. This is different than the general non -conforming use/structure requirements of the code, listed in Chapter 17.40 ECDC. Chapter 17.40 ECDC generally requires existing development to comply with current regulations when improvements or damage exceed 75% of the structure. Staff finds that the so called 50% rule would be appropriate to use for bicycle parking requirements to allow these facilities to be considered during major renovations to a property. Since the last meeting, staff has refined this provision to use the same language used for Special Flood Hazard Areas, Chapter 19.07 ECDC. This section uses the language Substantial Damage and Substantial Improvement to define how and when the 50% improvement rule would apply. In talking with the Building Official, staff agrees that this is a sufficient method to monitor and require these bicycle parking regulations. If the Building Division staff identify an application that appears close to meeting this 50% threshold, they would ask for a breakdown of the costs using a specialized form that is completed by the builder or architect. An example of this calculation is attached (Attachment 3). Reduction or Exemption of Short -Term Bicycle Parking in Downtown It was suggested that the short-term parking standards could be reduced or waived in the downtown area if on -street (sidewalk) bicycle parking spaces are available nearby. The idea being, that if there is plenty of on -street bicycle parking around then other short-term bike parking won't be needed. This could be listed as an exception and based on the zoning district (e.g. BD-1) and the distance from the development site to the on -street bike parking. This suggestion does have some merit, but staff finds that the general desire for more bicycle parking, especially in an area like downtown, would warrant the extra short-term bicycle parking. The current on - street bicycle parking could also be removed or relocated at a future time. Action Needed Packet Pg. 29 6.A This action is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board will review the proposed code language and make a recommendation to City Council. Attachments: 1) Draft Code Amendment 2) Staff Presentation (Draft) 3) Applicability Calculation Example Attachments: Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment Attachment 2- Draft Presentation Attachment 3- Applicability Calculation Example Packet Pg. 30 6.A.a Chapter 17.120 Bicycle Parking Facilities A. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide adequate and safe facilities for the parking and storage of bicycles, and to encourage alternative forms of transportation. B. Definitions. 1. Bicycle Parking- means the space one bicycle takes up when locked to a bicycle rack or similar device. 2. Long-term bicycle parking- means bicycle parking or storage anticipated to be at a building site for four or more hours. 3. Short-term bicycle parking- means bicycle parking or storage anticipated to be at a building site for less than four hours. 4. Substantial damage —for the purposes of this chapter 17.120 ECDC, substantial damages means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the structure before the damage occurred. 5. Substantial improvement- for the purposes of this chapter 17.120 ECDC, substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a primary structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the primary structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. C. Applicability. Development for each of the land uses identified in this Chapter 17.120 ECDC shall be required to provide bicycle parking facilities when one of the following occurs: 1. A new development; 2. Substantial damage or substantial improvement is made to an existing development within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or 3. The parking capacity of an existing development or parking facility is increased by 50 percent or more of the total parking spaces provided. D. Short -Term Bicycle Parking. 1. Requirements. Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Table 17.120.A. Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 31 6.A.a Table 17.120.A: Short -Term Bicvcle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units 1 per 10 dwelling units; not less than 2 spaces Non-residential uses 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces 2. Installation of Short -Term Bicycle Parking. Short-term bicycle parking shall comply with all of the following: a. Required to be visible from a building's entrance, except it can be provided at locations not visible from the main entrance when directional signage is provided at a building entrance; b. Required to be located at the same grade as the sidewalk or at a location reachable by ramp or accessible route; c. Adequate illumination of the bicycle parking surface shall be provided; d. Required to have an area of not less than 18 inches wide, 60 inches long, and 48 inches high for each bicycle; e. Required to be provided with a rack or other facility for locking or securing each bicycle; f. The rack or other locking feature shall be permanently attached to concrete or other comparable material; and g. The rack or other locking feature shall be designed to accommodate the use of U-locks or similar devices approved for bicycle security. E. Long -Term Bicycle Parking. 1. Requirements. Long-term bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Table 17.120.13. Table 17.120.B: Long -Term Bicvcle Parking Requirements Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units' 0.75 per unit Non-residential uses 1 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than 2 spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages or ground floor units with direct outdoor access are exempt from this requirement. 2. Installation of Long -Term Bicycle Parking. Long-term bicycle parking shall comply with all of the following: a. Required to be located on the same site as the building; b. Required to be located inside the building, such as a vehicle parking garage or other secure common area, except it can be located outside the building if located within 300 feet of the Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.a building's main or employee entrance and provides permanent cover including, but not limited to, roof overhang, awning, or bicycle storage lockers; c. Adequate illumination of the bicycle parking surface shall be provided; Required to have an area of not less than 18 inches wide, 60 inches long, and 48 inches high for each bicycle; e. At least one electrical outlet shall be available for the use of electric -assisted bicycle charging in each area where a group of long-term bicycle parking spaces is located. Required to be provided with a permanent rack, locker, or other facility for locking or securing each bicycle. Up to 50 percent of the racks may be located on walls. Alternative bicycle parking configurations and designs such as double decker lift assisted racks or bicycle parking in dedicated storage areas may be approved by the Development Services Director if it is determined that these alternative configurations provide adequate access, are easy to use, and allow a bike to be securely locked. F. Calculations. 1. Fractions. For the purposes of this chapter 17.120 ECDC, calculations will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Different Uses on Same Site. The requirement for different uses on the same site is calculated as the sum of all requirements for the individual uses. G. Exceptions. The Development Services Director may authorize a reduction in bicycle parking where the housing is specifically intended for assisted living or other specialized facilities where the Director finds that the targeted population is less likely to use bicycles. 16.6n_n3n Site development standards — Design. (CG Zoning District) 6. Bicycle Storage Spaces. See Chapter 17.120 ECDC for parking standards relating to bicycle parking facilities. , ene hie-yele StE)Fage space feF each resideRtial unit und-e-F 700 SquaFe feet and twe bicycle steFage Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a sterage racks, leckers, er ether secure space te -ar-r-e-M.rner-late sheltered, safe, and Athppyki- requiFed; that bieyele by feF yihmr-h pFevided, ene er mere seeLiFe racks, useable visiteFs, a� at least fe ur hirs.,, les i pFevided within, the fr.,r,t Seth- CL of the r eFt" � Y L R IL V ci m L O L R C R cd E d E Q d O U Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 34 A Ir T 3icycle Na it PC -Dr- C-C)ci OF I " E10 d 6.A.b Tonight's Agenda: 7/14/2021 �Alkzz lop Review of Potential Bicycle Parking Regulations 1) Recap of last meeting, for Public Hearing 2) Review Draft Amendment 3) Motion on City Council Transmittal Bile Parking Ties to Major Sustainability Goals 7 w Community Sustainability Element Use both long-term and strategic planning tools to tie short Policy AA term actions and land use decisions to long-term sustainability goals. City land use policies and decision criteria should reflect and support sustainability goals and priorities. Community Sustainability Element Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and Policy B.3 transportation options that reduce GHG emissions. Goal Carbon Neutral by 2050 TR-3 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by promoting active transportation. 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 37 6.A.b Created a Definitions Subsection �m Updated Applicability for 50% Improvements in Existing Development a Created a Calculations Subsection 0 N L a Removed Exception that could Require Greater Bike o Parking Standards for Certain Uses Minor Clarifications or Corrections Packet Pg. 38 6.A.b Proposing New Chapter in Title 17 for Bicycle Parking and Storage 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 39 Differences between Short -Term and Long -Term Bicycle Parking Short Term Parking Less than 4-hour parking Parked at Bike Rack Near Primary Entrances Higher Need with Non -Residential Use 116 P5 FA:A L . qr x 1 a ; Photo: Alta Planning + Design Long Term Parking More than 4-hour parking (overnight) Parked in secure on -premise space Higher Need with Multifamily Residential Use Photo: Alta Planning + De 7/14/2021 Photo Source: 7v7 i 6.A.b (Proposed) Short -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements • Type of Use Multiple Dwelling Units Non -Residential Ah Minimum Number of Spaces Required 1 per 10 dwelling units 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces 7D • IWft 7I ' 'j 0 . 0 Packet Pg. 41 6.A.b (Proposed) Long -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements Type of Use Multiple Dwelling Units' Non -Residential Minimum Number of Spaces Required 0.75 per unit 1 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than 2 spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages or those ground floor units with direct outdoor access are exempt from this requirement. 70 • Packet Pg. 42 Visibility & Illumination Proximity to Entrances (Short -Term) Accessibility Minimum Area Requirements (18" by 60") :11rlli• Ere =122 Secure Structures Electric Outlets (Long -Term) Accommodations for Wall Mountings (Long -Term Exception for Assisted Living or Similar Use i1o[dril[d 10 Multifamily Units �+.ww.r� rFr• .p:. I 116.J_N Spaces Ji a ,: flM7 _ IFF FF Flll f �I III •.'-�`J tat i! � 7/14/2021 6.A.b Standard Short -Term Spaces Long Term Spaces i --MF-.--O &C f T No 2 around 2 Short Term Spaces Long -Term Spaces xampl Short -Term Spaces 16 EV Ready Spaces 13 3-5 5 2-3 m L 0 U) _ E _ E a d 0 U 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 45 Applicability Bicycle Parking would be required when... 1. A new development or new off-street parking facility; 2. Existing Development- Substantial Damage or Substantial Improvement (50% rule) occurs within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or 3. 50%increase in parking capacity (based on total parking spaces) 7/14/2021 Applicability (cont.) Two Options for Requiring Upgrades to Existing Buildings Option A: 50% Rule Substantial Damage (as defined) Substantial Improvement (as defined) Occurs within a One Year Period Determined by the Building Official Option B: 75% of replacement cost Use existing non -conforming provisions in 17.40.020: (Shall comply) If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost... Several exceptions for Historic Buildings and Residential Buildings 7/14/2021 LkDoucadiury (co Replacement test of existing home fi37 Haw was the value determined? 1821 SF X S350/SF Component Value of Existing Component Percentage removed Replacement cost of removed component Notes Foundation $7f,4414 D 12%ofconstruction cost,includmexcsvutinmbackfiH Floor Framing 539,2M 20 7,644 %of comcnLction cost Floor Insulation $6,370 140 1370 1% of consuution cnst Wall Framing $70,070 30 21,021 11 % of construclion cost Walllnsulation 12,740 IN 12,740 ofconstruciioncLm Siding 38,220 100 38,220 11/aofconstmctioncvst Roof Framing $31,850 IN 31,850 %afcans[ruction cost Attic Insulation S6,370 100 6,370 1Yo of cans[nuLlon umt Windows $25,480 IN 25,480 %ofconstnwtioncost Doors 12,740 104 12,740 % of construiii+m cos[ Plumbing 50,960 100 54196U 1/Gofco"tnwtioncwt Electrical 50,964) 100 50,960 %ofcons[ractirnscost H VAC $50,960 100 5OX0 Yo of caastnLc ion cast Drywall 25,480 100 25,480 % of constnLction cast Cabinets S31,850 109 31,850 %ofconstruction,Cos[ Painting, Flooring and Finishes $63,700 100 53,7m 1WoofronstrucLioncost Deck other S44,590 100 S25,4130 % of eons[r"Lion oust, (1wring & oLher) Total $637,00 S461.825 1 WYO % of tots removed 2.5°Io Percentage of Removed equals 'TotaI ofWumn4 divided by Full Rep lacementcost equals 72.5D t - Packet Pg. 48 Applicability Standards Findings: 0 50% rule would lead to more Bicycle Parking improvements • Would occur during other significant repair/improvements • Uses methodology currently reviewed by Building Division • Exact standards in place for Special Flood Hazard areas, Ch.1 Staff Recommendation: • Support the Applicability Standards in the current Draft 7/14/2021 Discussion on Possible Exception Possibility of reducing short-term parking in Downtown when near public on -street bike parking Could create an exception for non-residential uses in downtown - BD-1 when located within a certain distance (300 feet) of public bike parking Issue: Public bike parking can change and isn't reserved for a specific use Staff Recommendation: Require consistent city-wide bike parking standards, as proposed in Draft 711 4/2021 6.A.b Next Steps Decisions on items: Short -Term and Long -Term Standards Applicability Standards Exceptions Other Comments on Current Draft Discussion of Transmittal to Council .1 �-w %; - T ■ m E Q 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 51 pr- .�Wbk wa in Packet Pg. 52 Permit# 6.A.c Address: Home Owner: Contractor: This form may be used to help establish the percentage of demolition work performed to an existing home in the course of a remodel. Once demolition has met or exceeded 75% of the value of the existing home's replacement cost, the structure will be required to be rebuilt to the standards of new const r uction . Replacement cost of existing home$ 637,000 How was the value determined? 1821 SF X $350/SF REVU N Mar 10 DEPART Component Value of Existing Component Percentage removed Replacement cost of removed component Notes Foundation 1$76,440 10 1$0 112% of construction cost, includes excavation/back Floor Framing 1$38,220 20 1$7,644 of 000structioa oost Floor Insulation 1S6,370 100 N.T3 % of construction cost Wall Framing 1$70,070 30 1$21,021 1%ofconstructioncost Wall Insulation 1$12,740 100 1$12,740 % of construction cost Skiing 1$ 38,220 100 )!; 220 6% of construction cost Roof Framing 1$31,850 100 1$31,850 5% of construction cost Attic Insulation 1$6,370 100 M.1 70 1%ofconstructioncost Windows 1$25,480 100 1$25,480 % of construction cost Doors 1$12,740 100 1$12,740 2% of construction cost Plumbing 1$50,960 100 1$50,960 8% of construction cost Electrical 1$50,960 100 1$50,960 8% of construction cost HVAC 1$50,960 100 1$50,960 8% of construction cost Drywall 1$25,480 100 1$25,480 % of construction cost Cabinets 1$31,850 100 1$31,850 5% of construction cost Painting, Flooring and Finishes $63,700 100 $63,700 l0%ofconstruction cost Deck Other $44,590 100 $25,480 7% of construction cost, (roofing & other) Total $637,000 $461,825 100% % of total removed 72.5% Percentage of Removed equals 'Total of Column 4 divided by Full Replacement cost' equals 72.50 % Owner Date Contractor Date Packet Pg. 53 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2021 Code Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History This is a continuation of Planning Board discussions from June 9 and June 23, 2021 for the EV charging infrastructure code amendment (AMD2021-0002). The first meeting provided an introductory look at the topic and the second meeting focused on the proposed standards. This proposed code amendment is intended to align with and support the City's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals. Staff Recommendation Discuss proposed code amendment and schedule a public hearing. Narrative The City of Edmonds is proposing a new Chapter to Title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) related to EV charging infrastructure. These regulations cover a variety of topics important to regulating this infrastructure for new and significantly updated development. Staff has provided the draft code amendment that includes the markups of changes since the June 23rd meeting (Attachment 1). These markups generally entail minor or cleanup revisions unless noted. A copy of the draft presentation for tonight's meeting is also provided (Attachment 2). At the last planning board meeting, staff presented the proposed amendment. Based on those discussions, there are several topics that need to be readdressed and expanded upon in this meeting. These items can be summarized into two main topics: applicability standards and the appropriate ratios (EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed). Applicability Standards Subsection 17.115.040.A provides the scenarios where EV charging infrastructure would be required. The components for new development or expanded parking lots were generally agreed upon. However, there was some debate about the provision relating to existing development. Staff's recommendation is to use what is generally called the 50% rule for improvements. This means that if improvements to an existing development increase either the area or the value by 50%, then the development would need to come into compliance with the EV standards. This is different than the general non -conforming use/structure requirements of the code, listed in Chapter 17.40 ECDC. Chapter 17.40 ECDC generally requires existing development to comply with current regulations when Packet Pg. 54 7.A improvements or damage exceed 75% of the structure. Staff finds that the so called 50% rule would be appropriate to use for EV charging infrastructure requirements. It would save the development money in the long run by avoiding the added cost of retrofits when EV demand is at its highest and provide easier access to the charging stations. Since the last meeting, staff has refined this provision to utilize the same language used for Special Flood Hazard areas, Chapter 19.07 ECDC. This section uses the language Substantial Damage and Substantial Improvement to define how and when the 50% improvement rule would apply. In talking with the Building Official, staff agrees that this is a sufficient method to monitor and require these EV charging infrastructure improvements. When the Building Division staff identify an application that appears close to meeting this 50% threshold, they would ask for a breakdown of the costs using a specialized form that is completed by the builder or architect. An example of this calculation is included in this packet (Attachment 3). The Planning Board also discussed requiring EV charging infrastructure to be installed when an electrical permit is applied for. The idea being that it makes since to require the EV investment at the same time other electrical work is done. After further discussion, staff does not believe this would be practical from an implementation standpoint. One reason being that electrical permits are contracted through an outside agency, and it would be difficult to require additional provisions above and beyond the conventional review of the electrical permit. Appropriate Ratios Identifying the appropriate ratios between EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed were also a point of discussion. Staff will provide further analysis into the pros and cons of each of these stage classifications as well as show more examples to help with reaching the final recommendations. The current proposal is shown below. Table 17.115.040: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Requirements Type of Use Number of EV Capable Parking Spaces Number of EV Ready Parking Spaces Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Single family dwelling units' N/A 1 per dwelling unit N/A Multiple dwelling units' 20% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Non-residential uses 20% of parking spaces 20% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: For the purposes of this section, those multiple dwelling units with individual garages will follow the requirements for single family dwelling units. Differentiating between Office and Other Non -Residential Uses In discussing the non-residential use standards, it was suggested to separate non-residential uses between office uses and other non-residential uses. This coincides with staff information that most EV charging is done at home or at work. Staff will explore this option with the Planning Board and discuss some of the pros and cons of this approach. Action Needed Packet Pg. 55 7.A This action is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board will review the proposed code language and make a recommendation to City Council. A public hearing by the Planning Board will be required before this item can be transmitted to City Council for review. Attachments: 1) Draft Code Amendment (markup) 2) Staff Presentation (Draft) 3) Applicability Calculation Example Attachments: Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment (Markup) Attachment 2- Draft Presentation Attachment 3- Applicability Calculation Example Packet Pg. 56 7.A.a Chapter 17.115 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE 17.115.010 Intent and purpose. 17.115.020 Definitions. 17.115.030 Permitted locations. 17.115.040 Required facilities. 17.115.050 General statio 19.115.060 Accessible elei 3-7.11r�.070 Chargingand . 17.115.080-070 Signag 17.115.010 Intent and purpose. Q ` O It is the intent of these development r lati to en g se and viability of electric vehicles as p they have been identified as a soluti nergy ind dence, r air, and significantly lower V greenhouse gas emissions. Q. The is inst 7 purpose of this chapter to ens effective of electric vehicle charging stations and to expedite the establishment of a conve cost-effective electric vehicle charging infrastructure that such a sition necessitates. +-� O I d 17.115.020 Definitions. 13 C A. Battery charging station- means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries within electric vehicles, which meet or exceed a any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.28 RCW and RCW 19.27.540. O B. Battery exchange station- means a facility that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable V battery to enter a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged battery44Fewg4 which meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth Commented [EEt]: Removed to allow more flexit f by Chapter 19.27 RCW and RCW 19.27.540. the use r C C. Charging level- means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric d z vehicle's battery is recharged. Levels I, II, and III are defined by the electrical output, per the following specifications: tvo a Page 1 of 8 t t� O r r a Packet Pg. 57 7.A.a 1. Level I- considered slow charging and operates on a fifteen to twenty amp breaker on a one hundred twenty volt AC circuit. 2. Level II- considered medium charging and operates on a forty to one hundred amp breaker on a two hundred eight or two hundred forty volt AC circuit. 3. Level III- considered fast or rapid charging and operates on a sixty amp or higher breaker on a four hundred eighty volt or higher three phase circuit with special grounding equipment. D. Designated accessible parking space- means an accessible parking space required by WAC 51-50- 005 and designated for the exclusive use of parking g hicles,with a S*Disabled Parking Permit. E. Electric vehicle or "EV"- means any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off -board source, that is stored on board for motive purpose. F. Electric Vehicle Capable or "EV Capable"- means a parking space that has listed an install panel capacity and conduit (raceway) and electrical capacity (breaker space) allocated to accommodate the future build -out of an electric vehicle charging station with Level II or Level III charging circuits. Commented [EE2]: Allows Level ul as part of EV C G. Electric vehicle charging station- means a public or private parking space that is served by battery charging station equipment that has as i1wimary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to i a battery or of nergy storage device in an electric vehicle. H. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure- means st es, machinery, and equipment necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including bu not limited to battery charging stations, rapid chargin ations, and battery exchangetations. I. Ele hicle installed or "EV Installed""- means a fully installed electric vehicle charging station for Level gel III charging lev J. Electric vehi parking space- m any marked parking space that identifies the use to be exclusively for the parking of an ele ric vehicle. K. Electric vehicle ready or "EV ready"- means a parking space that is designed and constructed to include a fully -wired circuit with a Level II or (Level III lectric vehicle charging receptacle outlet or -- Commented [EE3]: Allows Level ul as part of EV A termination point, including conduit and wiring and the electrical service capacity necessary to serve the receptable, that allows for future installation of an electrical vehicle charging station. L. Electric vehicle supply equipment or "EVSE"- see electric vehicle charging station. M. Non-residential use- for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, a non-residential use means any primary use that is not a residential use such as, but not limited to, business uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, or public facility uses. Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 58 7.A.a N. Rapid charging station- means a Level III electric vehicle charging station that allows for faster recharging of electric vehicle batteries through higher power levels. 0. Substantial damage — for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the structure before the damage occurred P. Substantial improvement- for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a primary structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the primary structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. 17.115.030 Permitted locations. Electric vehicle charging stations and battery exchange stations are permitted as lis be A. Level I, Level II, and Level III electric vehicle charging stations. An electric vehicle ging station equipped with Level I, Level II, or Level III charging equipment is allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts. IL L B. Battery exchange stations. Commented [EE4]: Uses clearer definitions for 5( to require improvements in existing development. automotive sales use. Battery exchange stations are allowed inlroning districts where automotive Commented [EES]: Included battery exchange sta sales and automobile servicEOstations are permitted and according to the regulations for those uses accessory to automotive sales, per last PB meeting. set forth in the specifi%; district. 17.115.040 Required facilities. A. Applicability. Development for each of the land uses identified in Table 17.115.040 shall be required to provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure when one of the following occurs. 1. A new b"'' r new off-street parking facility ; e4; e+ 2. Substantial damage or substantial improvements to an existing building -development is made within a one-year period as determined by the Building Official:; Page 3 of 8 Commented [EE6]: Used existing 50% rule langua found in Flood Plain Ordinance Chapter 19.07 and s parameters for the review and final decision. Packet Pg. 59 7.A.a 3. The parking capacity of an existing bu" tsedevelopment or parking facility is increased by 50 percent or more of the total parking spaces provided. B. Standards. Table 17.115.040 lists the minimum number or percentage of electric vehicle charging infrastructure required by type of use. Table 17.115.040: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Requirements Type of Use Number of EV Capable Parking Spaces Number of EV Ready Parking Spaces Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Single family dwelling units' N/A 1 per dwelling unit N/A Multiple dwelling units' 20% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces INon-residential uses 20% of parking spaces 20% of parking spaces 1 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: For the purposes of this section, those multiple dwelling units with individual garages will follow th equirements for single family dwelling units. C. Calculations. 1. Fractions. For the purposes hapter 17.115 ECDC, calculations will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. + -0 I 2. Inc US' Iculati I EV installed, EV ready, and EV capable spaces are to be included in the ca forth number of parking spaces, as provided by the applicable chapter of the Edmon ommunity Development Code. 3. Uses Not Specified. Any use not listed in Table 17.115.040 must meet the requirements of the most similar listed use, as determined by the Development Services Director. 4. Different Uses on the Same Development Site. The requirement for different uses on the same development site is calculated as the sum of all requirements for the individual uses. For cases where a building on aWger development site requires EV charging infrastructure per this Chapter 17.115 ECDC but the remainder of the development site does not, only the parking for that specific building or improved area will require compliance with this Chapter 17.115 ECDC. S. For the purposes of Table 17.115.040, a portion or all of a lesser requirement for EV charging infrastructure can be substituted with one of a higher requirement (e.g. EV capable replaced with EV ready, EV ready replaced with EV installed, or EV capable replaced with EV installed) so long at the total minimum number of EV parking spaces required in Table 17.115.040 remains the same. For example, a non-residential use could increase the amount of EV ready parking spaces from 20% to 30%, reduce the amount of EV capable parking spaces from 20% to 10%, Page 4 of 8 [C.....ted [EE7]: PB discussed separating office quirements from other non-residential uses. Packet Pg. 60 7.A.a and keep the same amount of EV installed spaces (10%). This example would be permitted because a portion of the lower requirement (EV capable) was substituted for a higher requirement (EV ready), and the overall minimum number of EV parking spaces (50%) would remain the same. 17.115.050 General station requirements. A. Size. A standard size parking space or compact parking space as permitted in Chapter 18.95 will be used for an electric vehicle charging station where such a station is required or planned, except for required accessible electric vehicle parking spaces as listed in ECDC 17.115.60. B. Installation and Equipment. The charging station installation and equipment will be consistent with rules and regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 19.27.540 and electric vehicle charging infrastructure requirements, and with applicable regulations under the City's building code and fire code, Title 19. C. Location, Design, and Maintenance. Where provided, parking for lectric vehicle char#ng purposes will meet the following standards: 1. Clearance. Charging station equipme�mounted on pedestals, light posts, bollards or other devices shall be a minimum of 24 inc clear from the face of curb. 2. Charging Station Equipment. Charging station outlets and connector devices will be no less than 36 inches or no higher than 48 inches from the top of surface where mounted, and will contain a retraction device or a place to hang permanent cords and connectors sufficiently above the ground or paved surface. 3. Charging Station Equipment Protection. When the electric vehicle charging station space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face eid charging equipment, adequate equipment protection such as wheel stops or bollards can be used. 4. Maintenance. Charging station equipment will be maintained, including the functioning of the charging equipment. A phone number or other contact information will be provided on the charging station equipment for reporting when the equipment is not functioning, or other problems are encountered. D. Data to be available. To allow for maintenance and notification, the owners of any private new electric vehicle infrastructure station that will be publicly available shall provide information on the station's geographic location, date of installation, equipment type and model, and owner contact information. E. Time limits. Time limits maybe placed on the number of hours that an electric vehicle is allowed to charge, prohibiting indefinite charging or parking. If applicable, warnings will be posted to alert Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 61 7.A.a charging station users about hours of use and possible actions affecting electric vehicle charging stations that are not being used according to posted rules. F. Location. Placement of a single electric vehicle charging station is preferred at the beginning or end stall on a block face. G. Reserved EV Parking Spaces. A. —Electric vehicle charging stations, where provided for public useare reserved for parking and charging of electric vehicles only, except as otherwise provided by this 1 17.115.060 Accessible electric vehicle charging stations. A. Where electric vehicle charging facilities are proved in parking lots and parking garages, excluding single-family dwelling units and those multiple dwelling units with individual garages, accessible electric vehicle charging stations will be provided according to the following ratio: A minimum of ten percent of parking space requiring electric vehicle charging infrastructure as required in ECDC 17.115.040, rounded to the next whole number, must be designated accessible parking spaces. The electric vehicle charging infrastructure may also serve adjacent parking spaces not designated as accessible parking spaces. Commented [EE8]: Merged this standard under g station requirements and simplified the language. B. Accessible electric vehicle charging stations should be located in close proximity to the primary or employ trance of a buildiniacility anrJ,ehall be connected to a barrier -free accessible route of travel. -14 ig and • _ -- Commented [EE9]: Merged under 17.115.050 any removed item (B) 17.115.090-070 Signage. Signage for each IEV installed kharging station space will comply with the following: -- Commented [EEtO]: Clearly identifies these requ are for EV Installed only. A. Electric vehicle signage must be posted in a clear and conspicuous manner, pursuant to RCW 46.08.185; and Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 62 7.A.a B. Signage must be posted that indicates the space is only to be used for electric vehicle charging purposes. Days and hours of operation must be included if time limits or tow -away provisions are to be enforced. 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design. (CG Zoning District) Electric vehicle charging stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. ^^^ RF PARFe ..I..^tr46 Vehi .I^ ,.haFg;^^ Stat,^^S . t be ^ „;a^a least 10 perGent of the Fequired residential paFl(ing stalls. in addition, e0thpr additional shall be pFevided. PAF this subseetien, "plaRRed eapaeity" FneaRs site design and eenStFU6tiAR that suppert potential .. ar-tival fi-t-ure electric. ehiel^ GhaF.i^^ stations 16.110.020 Site development standards. (Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District) F. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. 17.50.020 Parking space requirements. D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 63 7.A.a See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. 21.90.012 Service Station, Automobiles. An automobile station means a business that provides for any or all of the following: A. The sale of gasoline, diesel or other fuels used for the propulsion of motor vehicles, when such products are delivered directly into the fuel tanks of automobiles. Battery exchange stations that enable electric vehicles to swap batteries as defined in ECDC 17.115.020 are also considered an automobile service station. Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 64 uric o4W/� Ak ., 11 D GlIfld oi Io eo 009 0 d 7.A.b Am m m •L u 0 w r c m E c m E a m 0 U L-A Tonight's Agenda: Review of Draft Amendment 1) Overview of Changes from Last Draft 2) Discuss Mix of EV Charging Standards in Table a 3) Review Applicability Standards 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 66 Ah 0 -,A- *ilk k 44. Jk -01 PO 4f -Wk 7. A. b_ 0 i 'o -4 ).- I Packet Pg. 67 ,dL , a 7.A.b Included Level III Charging in EV Capable and EV Ready Definitions .L Updated Applicability for 50% Improvements in W Existing Development E E a 0 U Allow Battery Exchange Stations as part of Auto Sale o 0 L L Clarify EV Parking Restrictions only apply to EV Installed Spaces Q E Minor Clarifications or Corrections a Packet Pg. 68 l7r, z 4k L -WN 0- . 7 7.A.b A.b Packet Pg. 69 "IL ,- , Pros and Cons of Each EV Stage Component EV Capable Pro Initial wiring complete Electrical panel/room sized to accommodate future need Invasive work still required EVs can't charge o EV Ready Pro "Back -of -House" work complete Allows portable EV charging Con Lack of EV charging awareness Difficult to control/monitor usage 1 19 # 0 Kio EV Install Pro 7.A.b Easy to control/monitor usage Provides clear indication that space available for EV charging Con Most expensive to install Limits ability for non-EVs to use the parking space .L :.i d W c� G E a O U c O Cn 0 N C O E Q a 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 70 N/A 20% of parking spaces 20% of parking spaces 1 per dwelling unit 40% of parking spaces 20% of parking spaces N/A 10% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages shall follow the requirements for single family dwelling units Packet Pg. 71 LO N E N ry N Ln LL T U W N N ry 01-1 Progress SWEEP SOU7HWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT Municipality. International • im& r Building Code (IBA} f 'I Elf -Ready space per 5% EV-Installed 15% Elf -Ready, 5% Elf -Installed, 10 Elf -Ready, Denver C0 2019 nternationaI dwelling unit 80 Elf -Capable ID% Elf- apable Revenue code (I RC) i F:V-RF-ady sp;ic•c, rw,r 541� Flf-In�fAIPd 10111h FV-Ro-;idy, A FV-IrtsFall-Rd, IDOA Flf-Rp-my, Boulder 019 IBC J I R dwelling u n A 40 Elf -Capable ( 5+ spaces) 10 Elf -Ca pable ( 5+ spaces) 1 Elf -Ready space per 5 EVAnstalled, 10% Elf -Ready, 5 EVAnstaIled, 10 Elf -Rudy, Avon 2,)21 0 24' 9 iBC ! IRC dwelling unlit 15% Ell -Capable (7+ spaces) 15 Elf- a pable (10+ spaces) Fort Collins '-o Elf -Capable space pc:; 10EV-Capable dwelling unit 1% EV-Installed (increiases by 11 E1f-Ready space per 2% Elf -Installed, 10 Elf -Ready 1 % every 5 years), 10% Elf - Madison WI 2021 ;Di,-. .}{:'.,-.. dwelling unit (increases by 10 every 5 years) Ready (increases by 10% every 5 years) San Jose 2019 Ordinance 1 Elf -Ready space per 10% Elf -Installed, 0% Elf- 10 Ell -Installed, 40 Ell- dwfelln i-Y ui lit 11 EV-Rudy space per Ready, 70% Ell-Capat,le capabl" % Elf -Installed, 5% Elf -Ready �# Louis M� 2�'I �rdinanc� IBC f 1R dwelling unit (increases to 10% in 2025) 2°14 Elf -Installed, S° Ell -Ready 2024 IBC Interna 021 - % Elf -Installed, 18% Ell -Ready Elf -Installed, 8% Elf -Capable proposed) tional 7/1 4/2021 Source: EPA Webinar Presentation 3/24/21 Slide by: Matt Frommer, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) IPacket Pg. 72 7.A.b • :121d r: 20% of parking spaces EV .... - 20% of parking spaces 80% of parking spaces Capable 70% of parking spaces r 7 Ready 40% of parking spaces EV -.. 1 parking space 15% of parking spaces ME&b E3=W 20% of parking spaces CD �L ci d 10% of parking spaces CD a CD EV -. o 0 N/A 5% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces r L A Packet Pg. 73 7.A.b Multifamily Standard Comparison Findings: • Denver and San Jose have higher overall EV charging requirement (100%) • Edmonds proposal has higher percentage of EV Ready and EV Installed • Edmonds proposal has a higher upfront cost but avoids costly retrofits. Supports larger adoption of EV without needing additional building improvements Staff Recommendation: • Support current proposal for Multifamily Standards 7/14/2021 *Tel 9:T :unr. 20% of parking spaces 1 parking space 10% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces a = age] O's I DIM 20% of parking spaces EV .. 1 parking space 10% of parking spaces N/A • 10% of parking spaces N/A 5% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Packet Pg. 75 7.A.b Non -Residential Standard Comparison Findings: • Denver and has a lower overall EV charging requirement (25%) • San Jose has the same overall requirement (50%) but no EV Ready requirement • Possible issues with requiring EV Ready standards for Non -Residential • Most use the same standard for all non-residential types Staff Recommendation: Consider adjusting proposed EV Ready Standards, others remain the same 7/14/2021 Applicability EV Charging Infrastructure would be required when... 1. A new development or new off-street parking facility; 2. Existing Development- Substantial Damage or Substantial Improvement (50% rule) occurs within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or 3. 50%increase in parking capacity (based on total parking spaces) 7/14/2021 Applicability (cont.) Two Options for Requiring Upgrades to Existing Buildings Option A: 50% Rule Substantial Damage (as defined) Substantial Improvement (as defined) Occurs within a One Year Period Determined by the Building Official Option B: 75% of replacement cost Use existing non -conforming provisions in 17.40.020: (Shall comply) If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost... Several exceptions for Historic Buildings and Residential Buildings 7/14/2021 ��ITi�:li • Replacement east of existing home fi37 Haw was the value determined? 1821 SF X S350/SF Component Value of Existing Component Percentage removed Replacement cost of removed component Notes Foundation $7f,4414 D 12%ofconstruction cost,includmexcsvutinmbackfiH Floor Framing 539,2M 20 7,644 %of comcnLction cost Floor Insulation $6,370 140 1370 1% of consuution cnst Wall Framing $70,070 30 21,021 11 % of construclion cost Walllnsulation 12,740 IN 12,740 ofconstruciioncLm Siding 38,220 100 38,220 11/aofconstmctioncvst Roof Framing $31,850 l00 31,850 %afcans[raction cost Attic Insulation 637D 100 6,370 1Yo of cans[nuLlon umt Windows $25,480 IN 25,480 %ofconstnwtioncost Doors 12,740 104 12,740 % of construiii+m cos[ Plumbing 50,960 100 54196U 1/Gofco"tnwtioncwt Electrical 50,964) 100 50,960 %ofcons[ractirnscost H VAC $50,960 100 5.0'%0 % of caastnLc ion cast Drywall 25,480 100 25,480 96 of constnLction cast Cabinets S31,850 149 S31,850 %ofconstruction,Cos[ Painting, Flooring and Finishes $63,700 100 S53,7M 1WoofconstrucLioncost Deck other S44,590 100 S25,4130 % of construcLion Oust, (Turing & oLher) Total $637,00 S461.825 I WYO % of tots removed 2.5°Io Percentage of Removed equals 'TotaI ofColumn4 divided by Full Rep lacementcosf equals22.50 % Q Packet Pg. 79 Applicability (cont.) Requiring EV Improvements during specific Electrical Permits • Creative approach suggested to require EV Improvements when other electrical work is being done • Would be difficult to enforce- electric permits contracted outside the city • Unique/Unexpected approach for homeowners and contractors • Creates situations where costs could be significantly increased- walls, floors, ceilings could need repair to accommodate EV charging infra. 7.A.b 7/14/2021 Applicability Standards Findings: 0 50% rule would lead to more EV charging infrastructure improvements • Would occur during other significant repair/improvements • Uses methodology currently reviewed by Building Division • Exact standards in place for Special Flood Hazard areas, Ch.19.07 ECDC Staff Recommendation: • Support the Applicability Standards in the current Draft 7/14/2021 7.A.b Next Steps Decisions on items: Multifamily Standards Non -Residential Standards Applicability Standards Other Comments on Current Draft Discussion of Public Hearing 7/14/2021 Packet Pg. 82 Questions? Eric Engmann, AICP Senior Planner I City of Edmonds eric.enaman n@edmondswa.aov (425) 997-9541 711 4/2021 7.A.b Packet Pg. 83 Ad Permit# Address: Home Owner: Contractor: This form may be used to help establish the percentage of demolition work performed to an existing home in the course of a remodel. Once demolition has met or exceeded 75% of the value of the existing home's replacement cost, the structure will be required to be rebuilt to the standards of new const r uction . Replacement cost of existing home$ 637,000 How was the value determined? 1821 SF X $350/SF 7.A.c REVU N Mar 10 DEPART Component Value of Existing Component Percentage removed Replacement cost of removed component Notes Foundation 1$76,440 10 1$0 112% of construction cost, includes excavation/back Floor Framing 1$38,220 20 1$7,644 of 000structioa oost Floor Insulation 1S6,370 100 IS6J10 % of construction cost Wall Framing 1$70,070 30 1$21,021 1%ofconstructioncost Wall Insulation 1$12,740 100 1$12,740 % of construction cost Skiing 1$ 38,220 100 108 220 6% of construction cost Roof Framing 1$31,850 100 1$31,850 5% of construction cost Attic Insulation 1$6,370 100 M.1 70 1%ofconstructioncost Windows 1$25,480 100 1$25,480 % of construction cost Doors 1$12,740 100 1$12,740 2% of construction cost Plumbing 1$50,960 100 1$50,960 8% of construction cost Electrical 1$50,960 100 1$50,960 8% of construction cost HVAC 1$50,960 100 1$50,960 8% of construction cost Drywall 1$25,480 100 1$25,480 % of construction cost Cabinets 1$31,850 100 1$31,850 5% of construction cost Painting, Flooring and Finishes $63,700 100 $63,700 l0%ofconstruction cost Deck Other $44,590 100 $25,480 7% of construction cost, (roofing & other) Total $637,000 $461,825 100% % of total removed 72.5% Percentage of Removed equals 'Total of Column 4 divided by Full Replacement cost' equals 72.50 % Owner Date Contractor Date Packet Pg. 84 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2021 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Discussion Extended Agenda Narrative Extended Agenda attached Attachments: 07-14-2021 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 85 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLANKNO BOARD Extended Agenda July 14, 2021 Meeting Item rune, LVL1 June 1. Climate Action Plan and Outreach update 23 2. Review of draft EV Charging regulations and standards 3. Introduction of Bicycle storage code options iuiv. zuzi July 1. Review of EV Charging regulations and standards 14 2. Public Hearing on proposed Code Amendment establishing standards for Bicycle Parking July 1. (Tentative) Tree programs and regulations: discussion on issues 28 and code options for short-term review, including public outreach efforts (e.g. Heritage Trees) 2. (Tentative) Housing issues and code development overview / update August, Lull August 1. Public Hearing on EV Charging regulations and standards 11 2. (Tentative) Potential Code Amendments addressing sidewalk standards August 1. (Tentative) Tree programs and regulations: discussion on issues 25 and code options for short-term review, including public outreach efforts (e.g. Heritage Trees) September, 2021 a Packet Pg. 86 items ana liates are subject i 9.A.a o change September 1. Climate Action Plan and Outreach review and update 8 2. (Tentative) Potential Code Amendments addressing sidewalk standards September 1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) 22 [Next update on November 10t'] October, 2021 October 1. TBD 13 2 October 1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) 27 [Next update on November 10th] a+ Q Packet Pg. 87 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP 2021 2. Climate Action Plan update and public outreach 3. Housing policies and implementation (incl ADU regs) 4. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan 5. Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis 6. Subdivision code updates 7. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 8. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners) 9. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates 10. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates 11. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates 3. Joint meeting with City Council — April or as needed 4. Development Activity Report 5. r Q Packet Pg. 88