2021-08-11 Planning Board PacketOp E D
o Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
s71. ,Hv� REGULAR MEETING
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
AUGUST 11, 2021, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/95351960968?pwd=akREUIN1dnVGRG53RmliUlIVRHhpZz09
Meeting ID: 953 5196 0968. Password: 681028.
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
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
August 11, 2021
Page 1
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
August 11, 2021
Page 2
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/11/2021
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Michelle Martin
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve meeting minutes from the July 14th meeting.
Narrative
July 14th draft meeting minutes attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft minutes
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
July 14, 2021
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
U)
m
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
c
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 i
the land and water. Q-
Q.
Q
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Matt Cheung Eric Engmann, Planning Division E
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence p`
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (excused)
Todd Cloutier
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuen
Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Asks
Rob Chave for roll call.
Rob Chave: Does roll call.
Mike Rosen: States Judy Gladstone, Richard Kuen, Alicia Crank, and Todd Cloutier have excused
absences.
Mike Rosen: Mentions two past meeting minutes to approve. Starts with June 9. Asks for changes or
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
concerns (hears none) and asks for motion to approve.
Nathan Monroe: Makes Motion to approve.
Roger Pence: Seconds.
Mike Rosen: Asks for all in favor.
Group Aye.
Mike Rosen: Continues with June 23. Asks for changes or concerns (hears none) and asks for motion
to approve.
Nathan Monroe: Makes motion. in
m
Mike Rosen: Seconds and asks for all in favor.
4-
0
Group: Aye.
0
L
Mike Rosen: Announces the agenda. Audience comment, then public hearing for bicycle parking a
standards code amendment, then under unfinished business continue discussions from Q
June 9 and June 23 on electric vehicle charging infrastructure code amendment, then
review extended agenda. Asks if anyone in audience wishes to speak.
(Appears audience member Natalie Seitz is having microphone issues)
Eric Engmann: Introduces public hearing for potential bicycle parking code amendment. Recaps the
discussion from the June 23 meeting.
Mike Rosen: Indicates Natalie Seitz has solved microphone issues and wishes to speak for public
comments. Pauses public hearing.
Natalie Seitz: Apologizes for technical difficulties. Wishes to comment on city's intent to regulate the
maintenance of trees on private property. Likes seeing public outreach for tree programs
and regulations on the extended agenda for July 28. Recommends using the 2017 Urban
Tree Canopy Assessment to target outreach to those communities that will be impacted
by the city's tree programs and regulation efforts as well as ask the Diversity Commission
to evaluate the disproportionate amount Highway 99 communities will pay under the tree
ordinance for benefits that are diverted outside those communities.
States that there are lots of topics that she has not yet been able to cover in comments
to council and the planning board, including implementation of Right Tree, Right Place
and the role of the recently approved tree planner, SEPA or the lack thereof, and land use,
and the realities of enforcement in relation to privacy, equity, and takings claims. States
she offered to meet with the city council to discuss concerns in a format that is longer
than three minutes and extends that invitation to the planning board. Hopes to
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Mike Rosen
Eric Engmann
summarize her past comments to the city council and planning board for the benefit of
the new planning board members.
Talks about climate change and the effect of the existing emergency ordinance and the
upcoming consideration of the permanent ordinance. States climate change is likely to
exacerbate extreme heat events like the one a few weeks ago and is part of a long term
trend of hotter, drier summers. Also states native tree species encouraged by the current
code are likely to decline and die off in the coming years.
Mentions Seattle's master arborers have identified that if soil is dry near the trees 4 inches
below the surface, that the trees should be watered lightly for about an hour every week.
Says drought or dry and hot conditions is correlated with limb failure during the summer
or upon the first wind event and branch fall creates a hazard to both people and property.
States the result of the emergency ordinance is an implicit requirement for property
owners to maintain trees above 24 inches or live with existing and increasing hazards in
coming years. States that the city is not going to pay for her water bill for the days leading
up to and the weeks following the last heat event or maintenance as things get worse.
States the city made these costs and hazards required for a portion of her property with
the emergency ordinance and they are a current reality for portions of the city annexed
in the '60s, '90s, and SR 99 Corridor. Hopes that the planning board thoughtfully considers
the burdens and hazards that the city is imposing on overburdened and other less
developed communities and states that the city's narrow focus on preserving the private
urban forest in its current location misses the reality of climate change.
Thanks the board and apologizes for the interruption of the presentation.
Thanks Natalie Seitz and asks Eric Engmann to continue where he left off with the
presentation.
Continues where he left off. States the main changes since the last draft.
• Created a definition section
• Updated the 50% rule to use existing code language for substantially improved and
substantially damages
• Created a calculations section
• Removed exception option to allow City to set minimum standards above what is
stated in the code (without specific requirements)
• Updated minor Schriever's errors
Explains the differences between short-term and long-term bicycle parking and how they
are used. Reiterated that these standards would apply to multifamily and non-residential
development.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Then explained the proposed standards. One short-term (multifamily) space per 10
dwelling units. Short-term nonresidential parking requires one per twelve parking spaces,
with no less than two spaces. For long-term multifamily parking it is 0.75 per unit. For
long-term nonresidential, it would be one per 25,000 square feet of floor area, not less
than two spaces. Explains the footnote that multifamily units with individual garages and
those with ground floor access directly outside of the development are exempt from
these requirements.
Briefly mentions the rest of the requirements and mentions the exception for assisted
living and similar uses. States that he spoke with the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group
and showed them a few of the standards. Mentions some minor language recommended
to be added by Public Works for the short-term and long-term standards.
Talks about the applicability standards and how the new 50 percent rule would work and v,
where the new language, using the defined terms substantial improvement and
m
substantial damage, comes from. Also compares the proposed language to the other non- S
conforming standards in the code. Mentions that the work would need to take place over -
a 1-year period and the final decision would be made by the Building Official.
0
L
Asks the Board to consider the proposed standards, the updated applicability standards a
and any other comments on the current draft. Also, asks the Board to consider transmittal Q
to City Council.
Mike Rosen: Opens up the public hearing. Asks if anyone in the audience wishes to speak.
Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience and can speak if she wishes.
Ms. Seitz: States she hasn't reviewed this in detail. States one of the major impacts of all of those
bicycle sharing programs is ADA accessibility and making sure there is ADA accessible
pedestrian access.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie Seitz and, understanding that there are no other people wishing to
participate, closes the public hearing portion.
Nathan Monroe: Asks if the short-term bicycle and the long-term bicycle, is governed by PROWAG or
ADAG.
Eric Engmann: Unsure. Asks if it refers to bike parking in the right-of-way.
Nathan Monroe: Asks about bicycle parking on the fringe of the right of way, it would be accessible to our
right of way and wonders what building code governs, PROWAG or ADAG?
Eric Engmann: Unsure.
Nathan Monroe: Imagines the Building Department will sort that out. Has four questions to ask.
Has some pause about the assisted living exception and notes that building uses change.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Asks why assisted living was carved out.
Eric Engmann: States this is standard for bike parking standards and done in other cities. This
acknowledges that some use might required less bike parking.
Nathan Monroe: States his concern is that building uses change often as the needs of the city change.
Mentions assisted living now might become condos or apartments later and this could
lead to insufficient infrastructure. Discusses caveat to have the space now but not
necessarily use it as such.
Has another question about electrical outlet distances. Would like to see the average
extension length included, whatever it may be. Also mentions the lighting required in
Section F and that there ware no specific lumen requirements. Worried about the code
simply using the term lighting, and that developers can twist those words. Lastly, agrees
in
that the 50% applicability rule seems appropriate.
c
Eric Engmann: Mentions that staff discussed using specific lumens in earlier drafts. In talking with Public
-
Works and the Building Official, it was felt that lumens were hard to specify. Mentions
that it can be difficult if codes are too specific to allow for different scenarios. Mentions
i
this is also why no specific distance was used for electrical outlets. States they were left
a
out for some flexibility. Q
Nathan Monroe: States he seems the point with lumens, but feels that average length of an electrical bike
plug is a known quantity. Suggests the Board direct staff to include a specific electrical
outlet distance.
Mike Rosen: Discusses the applicability options. Asks if it is the consensus on using the 50% rule.
Doesn't hear pushback so assumes there is consensus on 50%. Mentions Nathan Monroe
suggests there be a specific plug-in (distance) number based, asks if this is a reasonable
approach.
Nathan Monroe: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung or Roger Pence have any concerns.
Roger Pence: Observes that most electrical bikes have demountable batteries that riders take up to
their living quarters to charge them up. Unsure how much demand there is for charging
at the bike rack.
Mike Rosen: Asks if there is any downside of putting this in the standards.
Roger Pence: Has no objection, just pointing out fact.
Mike Rosen: Reiterates what he assumes is the consensus of the group. Ponders if it is reasonable to
mention a certain lumen to address the brightness of a surface. Asks if that is a reasonable
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
approach.
Nathan Monroe: Asks if this is more like performance criteria.
Mike Rosen: States the standard could be based on brightness of the room and not how it is done.
Rob Chave: Mentions that bicycle parking can be provided in many different kinds of circumstances,
sometimes within parking areas and other in personal storage units. Mentions that it is
not a uniform thing.
Nathan Monroe: Clarifies that short-term parking would be more public.
Rob Chave: Agrees.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions that for a safety and usability aspect, it should be well lit. States the current
m
language seems a little ambiguous.
4-
0
Eric Engmann: Mentions the current language states it requires adequate illumination. Mentions that
there are a lot of different scenarios to consider.
0
L
Q
Q
Nathan Monroe: Asks if the code addresses safety, specifically if it must be in an easily accessible safe area.
Q
N
N
Eric Engmann: Confirms. States that for short-term parking it needs to be near the building entrance
c
unless specifically assigned to a different location. For long-term parking, it is typically E
where people live so it doesn't need the same sort of signage.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe about his recommendation on the lighting.
Nathan Monroe: States he is nervous from a builder's standpoint and acknowledges this is a minor issue.
Mentions that the more standalone and performance criteria included the better. Defers
to staff but mentions that he wanted to bring it up.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that this was specifically discusses with the Building Official and Public works,
the consensus was switching to the current language.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe if he has a specific recommendation.
Nathan Monroe: States that he is okay with adding the electrical (distance) language and not including the
lumen language.
Eric Engmann: Agrees that the electrical distance can be added.
Mike Rosen: Brings up the assisted living exception. Asks if Eric Engmann has concern with that change.
Eric Engmann: Clarifies that the Board's amendment would require Senior living to comply.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: States that they could still use it for other purposes, but it would be available.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that there are considerations or scenarios where there may be use for some
exceptions, but it is up to the Board.
Mike Rosen: Asks Roger Pence and Matt Cheung if they have any opinion. Reiterates staff's comment
that if Nathan Monroe has a strong opinion, then they will honor it.
Nathan Monroe: States he thinks it makes the most sense to future proof our infrastructure.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make the change and brings up the proposed ADA standards that
was discussed. Asks for the thoughts of the Board.
Nathan Monroe: States that if it is inside of a building, it's already got to honor ADAG, which is the building v,
code for accessibility and if it's outside, it's PROWAG if it's public right of way. States that
m
the criteria already exists in other parts of the code and doesn't think it needs to be
reiterated. 4-
0
Eric Engmann: Mentions that following ADA requirements is already part of the overall code language.
0
a
0.
Mike Rosen: Mentions that staff had recommended adding two additional components to short-term
Q
and long-term parking installation requirements. Asks if anyone has any concerns. Hears
none.
r
0
Asks if Eric Engmann has any other discussion points.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that Roger Pence had brought up whether there should be an exception to the
short-term parking requirement in downtown if there is on -street parking nearby.
Mike Rosen: Asks Roger Pence for his opinion.
Roger Pence: States he was thinking about downtown where businesses and buildings are close
together. Mentions the Board ought to be encouraging combined parking both
automobiles and bicycles. States this approach seems logical.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for his thought. .
Nathan Monroe: Mentions this would mostly affect retrofits. Rhetorically asks who can use the on -street
bike parking and how it would be used for multiple buildings.
Roger Pence: States that logic would have the different building owners cooperating on a joint use
facility. Concerned about how the short-term bike parking on private property would
work; who could use it.
Mike Rosen: States he appreciates that kind of thinking. Asks Eric Engmann if there is any other
direction needed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Eric Engmann: Mentions that was it.
Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anything else to add or change. States that he thinks the Board is looking
for a motion to send to Council.
Nathan Monroe: Confirms that the update includes the electrical outlet distance component and removing
the senior living exception.
Mike Rosen: Agrees and mentions the two additions by staff.
Nathan Monroe: Moves that this, with those modifications, be sent to Council.
Matt Cheung: Seconds. in
m
Mike Rosen: Asks for any discussion. Asks for all those in favor say aye.
4-
0
Group: Aye.
0
L
Mike Rosen: Asks if anybody is opposed. a
Q
States that hearing none, the motion passes unanimously.
r
0
c
Eric Engmann: Introduces continuation of EV charging infrastructure potential code amendment. States E
it will be focused on the changes from the last draft which are
• The mix of EV charging standards in the table. pL
• The applicability standard. r
Also mentions that there are a few changes to the draft since the last meeting. They are:
• Included Level 3 charging into the definition for EV capable and EV ready- for the sake
of flexibility
• Updated the 50% rule language- now uses substantial damage and substantial
improvement in the definitions
• Clarifies parking restrictions will only apply to EV Installed spaces
• Minor clarifications and corrections
States one of the big topics from the last meeting had to do with the mix of standards
that were proposed.
Highlights (and reads slides) of the pros and cons for each of the EV staging types (EV
Capable, EV Ready, EV Installed.
Highlights the specific proposal. Mentions Board seemed comfortable with single family
proposal, which also includes multifamily with individual garages.
Discusses multiple dwelling unit (Multifamily) proposal. 20% EV capable, 40% EV ready,
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
and 10% EV installed. Discusses nonresidential proposal. 20% EV capable, 20% EV ready,
and 10% EV installed. Mentions, for multifamily, basically, 70% of the spaces would have
to have some level of capability and then, for nonresidential, it would be 50%. Mentions
that the list of many different standards was shown. Mentions that, at the last meeting,
the Board was talking about 100% and if 100% (total requirement) is appropriate.
Discusses comparisons between Denver, San Jose and staff's proposals. Mentions that
requiring more EV ready would allow a building to transition easier to EV installed at a
later date. Highlights that Denver and San Jose have a higher overall standard, 100%, but
staffs proposal would require a higher percentage of EV ready and EV installed spaces.
Mentions this would have a higher upfront cost but would be cheaper than later retrofits.
Mentions staff feels that the multifamily proposal from the last meeting is still
appropriate.
For non-residential, staff shows the comparisons for the same cities (Denver and San
Jose). Mentions that they have much less EV ready requirements. Mentions staff took a
look at this again and changed their recommendation from the last meeting. It would now
require 40% EV capable and 10% installed. Stated that EV ready may be difficult to
accommodate in a nonresidential parking lot.
Mentions the updates to the 50% rule that was also discussed in the bike parking public
hearing. States that for existing buildings, substantial damage and substantial
improvement would apply. Also states that this standard would apply if it occurs within a
one-year period and it's determined by the building official. Mentions the 50%
requirement would be pretty sizable and gives examples.
Also mentions that it would be very difficult for EV upgrades to be made at the time of
electrical permits. States that the electrical permits are contracted outside of the city.
States that there still might be wall work to run wires through the ceiling or floors. States
that this was a great idea but staff is not recommending making that change.
States that staff would like to hear more about the Board's thoughts on the multifamily
standards, the nonresidential standards, and those applicability standards.
Mike Rosen: States that the Board should take these issues one at a time and opens discussion
Eric Engmann: Reiterates the proposed multifamily standards but acknowledges that there are different
options.
Mike Rosen: States that staff mentioned many buildings in Edmonds are smaller but mentions the
Apollo Project, which is 251 units. Asks if the proposal means 175 out of the 251 spaces
would need some level of EV infrastructure.
Eric Engmann: Affirms
Mike Rosen: Asks the other Board members about their thoughts.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
Matt Cheung: Asks to look at the multifamily presentation slide of other cities. States that San Jose has
10% installed but the others are 5% or below.
Eric Engmann: States that these are just a few of the cities, but agrees that those are the ones listed on
the slide.
Matt Cheung: States that EV ready should be sufficient for most people, especially residential when
charging overnight. States that it seems like EV installed for residential isn't as important
compared to commercial where maybe EV installed is more important. Also says for non-
residential, it seems like EVC installed is more important that EV ready.
Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issue in order. Asks Matt Cheung Cheung if the would like the board to
consider as alternatives to the current proposal.
Matt Cheung:States he would probably say EV installed at 5% and then EV read feels 40% is pretty
+'
p Y Y Y, p Y �
high. Mentions the current proposal has one of the highest EV installed and EV ready
percentages. States that if Edmonds wants to stand out, then the EV ready percentages c
make sense.
0
L
Mike Rosen: Asks Matt Cheung what numbers is he recommending, 20/40/5. Q-
Q.
Q
Matt Cheung: States he doesn't have much opinion on EV capable but that number could go up. States U)
that the EV ready numbers proposed are higher than other cities.
Summarizes that he would probabably just lean on dropping the 10% to 5% on the EV
installed and keep the other ones the same or increasing EV capable.
Mike Rosen: Asks for other Board members feelings about changing the EV installed percentages.
Nathan Monroe: Asks to confirm multiple development means multifamily.
Eric Engmann: Confirms, states this is how it is defined in the code.
Nathan Monroe: States that he doesn't see why we should build any parking space that doesn't have at
least EV capable. States he is in favor of bringing the EV capable up enough to sum it out
to 100% and there is no situation in the future by which electric vehicles don't have a role
to play.
Mike Rosen: Restates this to mean 55% EV capable, 45% EV ready, and 5% EV installed to get to 100%.
Nathan Monroe: States that he'd prefer higher percentages on the higher end, but he'll accept it.
Mike Rosen: Asks for Roger Pence's opinion.
Roger Pence: Asks about the EV capable pros and cons from the presentation. States he doesn't think
EV capable will require invasive work. States that it will only require cutting a hole in the
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
wall and put a box on it. Asks for clarification.
Eric Engmann: States that is his personal summary of it and mentions the raceway wiring could be further
away from the wall to get to the outlet.
Roger Pence: States that he envisions EV capable meaning that there's wire in the wall that goes to the
individual parking spot and then, dead ends in a box on the wall with a blank cover on it.
And then, to upgrade that to EV ready, an electrician comes out, unscrews the blank, puts
in a socket. States he thinks we should define EV capable as meaning the wire goes to the
parking spots and then, blanks off.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that he is worried about creating a definition that is unique to Edmonds for this
type of technology. States that the definition is set up in state law and international
building code. v,
m
Rob Chave: States that the City would want to use industry standards as much as possible.
4-
0
Nathan Monroe: Asks for clarification about the EV capable definition.
0
L
Eric Engmann: States that the definitions does not define where the wiring stops but that it does require a
raceway wiring. Q
Nathan Monroe: States that they're not going to run a 5-foot wire out of the panel and stop. They're going
to take to about where they think it should go and it doesn't cost any more money. States
that he doesn't think it's invasive to go from EV capable to EV ready.
Mike Rosen: Asks if Roger Pence wants to discuss this further.
Roger Pence: Sates that he made his point and happy to let it go at that.
Mike Rosen: States there are two parts of the discussion, but unsure if they are reliant on the other.
Nathan Monroe recommends going to 100% for total percentage. Asks Matt Cheung for
his thoughts.
Matt Cheung: States that he likes this in principle. Provides a scenarios and states that doesn't know if
100% is realistic. Also asks if the EV installed infrastructure would only work for one space.
Eric Engmann: States that there are multiple options available, they also work for two spaces.
Matt Cheung: Asks if the max would be two spaces, could there be one serving four spaces.
Eric Engmann: States that he hasn't seen one like that, but that technology could change.
Matt Cheung: Asks about the cost of EV installed.
Eric Engmann: States that staffs analysis showed it would be about $4,300.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
Matt Cheung: States that he feels having an outlet (EV ready) should suffice. States that he is converned
about EV installed in multifamily and likes EV ready.
Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issues one at a time. Checks to see if 100% for multifamily is appropriate
and states that Matt Cheung Cheung's pushback is that it might not be possible and that
an alternative would be to go to a lower number.
Nathan Monroe: States that he has built some parking garages and that it is possible. States that you could
run conduit anywhere and that it isn't that expensive.
Mike Rosen: States that he hears the majority consensus is to change the overall multifamily number
to 100%. Asks for the Board to raise their hand to confirm.
(Mike Rosen and Nathan Monroe raise their hands).
c
States that they are split. c
Roger Pence: States that he is split too. i
a
Q.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions he'll bring it up again at the next meeting and it can be discussed in a bigger Q
group.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to reflect this as an option.
Eric Engmann: Confirms.
Mike Rosen: Mentions that the second point is the one raised by Matt Cheung. That he would prefer
the EV installed percentage reduced to 5%. States that Nathan Monroe would like to see
it kept at 10% and asks Roger Pence Pence's opinion.
Roger Pence: States that he would like to hear from developers, contractors, and people that build this
stuff. States that he would like to invite one or more to the public hearing to have some
input from people with real world working knowledge of the subject.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make this 5% EV installed proposal a discussion item. Asks if he
could reach out to people in the industry and ask them to participate; if nothing else,
report on what they said.
Roger Pence: States that he feels he needs more information.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann if there is more information needed.
Eric Engmann: Thanks the Board and asks how the Board felt about amending the nonresidential
standards to 40% EV capable and 10% EV installed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung would like to finish his thought on this subject.
Matt Cheung: Discusses it out loud then states the more EV capable makes sense. States that it may
allow the spaces to go directly from EV capable to EV installed and thinks that commercial
units may not want the exposed outlets in EV ready. Thinks that the EV capable number
could be higher.
Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Matt Cheung would like the EV capable number to be higher.
Matt Cheung: States that if there was one to change, he would probably increase capable.
Mike Rosen: Asks if anyone else has a preference.
Nathan Monroe: States that he would like it to be 100% and once you build it, you don't unbuild it. in
States that it would be such a small amount of money to spend now to future proof
everything down the road. Doesn't see why you wouldn't at least put the conduit in the
ground and pull the wire and get it ready for eventual use. c
Mike Rosen: Asks about a scenario: if a Home Depot goes up, would we want wire underneath all of i
the spaces? 0-
Nathan Monroe: Reiterates that it is better to have the ability to wire every space without having to tear
up the parking lot.
c
E
Mike Rosen: Asks if the rest of the Board feels the number should add up to 100 percent, mostly from
EV capable. o
Matt Cheung: States he doesn't feel it has to be set at 100% and discusses a hesitancy with requiring
every spot to have EV charging infrastructure. Mentions it may be nice to hear from
others in the industry.
Mike Rosen: Summarizes Matt Cheung's discussion and that he would like to hear from the industry.
Asks Eric Engmann to reach out to people in the industry for guidance and encourage
people to talk with the Board. Asks Matt Cheung if he would like to pencil in 100 percent
for now.
Matt Cheung: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for clarification on the term wire or conduit, whether that should
be called out.
Nathan Monroe: States that builders will put conduit in surface parking lots. Surmises that it would be up
to the Building Official. Asks if Eric Engmann has a feeling on this.
Eric Engmann: Pulls up the definition in the draft. Mentions the definition is fairly broad.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 16
2.A.a
Nathan Monroe: States caution with the comments from developers. Mentions they would probably not
want to do it. Asks to be clear what the Board is asking. Would like to ask them about the
costs of installing it now verses the later cost.
Eric Engmann: Refers back to the EV capacity question, states that it talks about the capacity and conduit,
raceway, and breaker space. Reiterates that the language is rather broad.
Mike Rosen: States that the Board has a tentative recommendation for staff.
Eric Engmann: States that previous discussion also covered separating different nonresidential
categories. Mentions staff felt it would be better to keep the category broader and that
most other codes also merge non-residential into one category.
Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board has any push back to staff's recommendation. v,
m
Nathan Monroe: Asks if the other cities previously discussed, San Jose and Denver, make a qualification for
mega shopping centers. Agrees that it could be difficult for them to meet higher o
standards.
0
L
Eric Engmann: States that larger development is why the percentages are lower. States that he doesn't a
think any non-residential standards exceeded 50% for total EV charging infrastructure. Q
N
N
Nathan Monroe: Mentions he was considering office space with 15 or 20 parking spaces. States that a
c
different number for big commercial spaces may be needed.
Eric Engmann: Asked if the Board would like to see options for different non-residential sizes.
Nathan Monroe: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board would like to have further discussions on this during the hearing
meeting.
Rob Chave: States that staff usually puts the options out there, advertise, and let people come and
give feedback. Mentions that the Board can't insist that people come ahead of time.
Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Rob Chave's recommendation would be to move forward, book the
hearing, and have the things discussed tonight as options.
Rob Chave: Agrees and mentions the hearing won't happen for another month.
Mike Rosen: Agrees.
Rob Chave: Mentions staff is already reaching out to people in the development community, including
the Master Builders, to make them away of what the city is considering. States that if they
are concerned, they will show up.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 17
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann if there is anything else he would like the Board to consider.
Eric Engmann: Asks if the Board is comfortable with the updates to the applicability 50% rule.
Mike Rosen: Checks with the Board and mentions that everyone is good with those standards.
Eric Engmann: Thanks the Board and mentions that the next meeting will focus on the standards and
what the appropriate numbers should be.
Mike Rosen: States that there is no new business and that the Board will discuss the extended agenda.
Talks about upcoming vacations of the Board members. Asks Rob Chave if he will miss the
July 28th and August 11th meetings.
Rob Chave: States he will be gone for the August 25th meeting. in
m
Mike Rosen: Mentions Roger Pence will miss the September 8th meeting.
4-
0
Roger Pence: States he could be available by Zoom.
0
L
Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board wants to take one of those meetings off. a
Q
Nathan Monroe: States he's not sure how good they're going to do without Rob Chave here.
Rob Chave: States Eric Engmann will do fine.
Mike Rosen: Asks the Board if there is any feeling about taking a meeting off or keep going.
Nathan Monroe: States that he thinks the Board has a lot on their plate and doesn't want to lose rhythm.
Mentions missed meetings may throw things off but that he could also appreciate a
summer break.
Mike Rosen: States that he is good moving forward and asks Roger Pence if he is too.
Roger Pence: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks Matt Cheung his opinion.
Matt Cheung: States he can go either way.
Mike Rosen: States that, unless Rob Chave has any concerns, that the Board would just keep going.
Rob Chave: States that there may be a time going forward where staff isn't ready to present and that
may be the time to take the meeting off.
Mike Rosen: Agrees and discusses the extended agenda. Asks if there are any concerns.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 18
2.A.a
Rob Chave: States he has one modification. States they may be able to have a presentation on
Buildable Lands on August 11th.
Roger Pence: Mentions the big box on the last page titled Pending 2021 and that it looks like an awful
lot of work. States he is a little concerned about what the Board does with each of those,
how many can be handled, and when.
Mike Rosen: States that the PROS plan is the one pretty well scheduled out.
Roger Pence: Asks about the neighborhood center plans and implementation and the subdivision code
update. States that it looks like a formidable list of titles.
Rob Chave: Mentions that a lot of these are things we don't want to forget about but they're not
going to addressed in the short term. v,
m
Mike Rosen: Asks if it might make sense to say they are in 2022, on the horizon.
4-
0
Rob Chave: Mentions they may be getting to the point where everyone starts thinking about 2022.
0
L
Mike Rosen: States they are moving into comments for the good of the order. Mentions Roger Pence a
has something to add. Q
Roger Pence: Mentions the lack of people for the public hearing and the only speaker was about trees.
Asks about the outreach done, other than the legal notice and the fine print of the
Edmonds Herald. Doesn't recall any news releases in My Edmonds News. Would like to
talk more about community engagement.
States that the Board should have a plan for public hearing that engages the community,
informs, or at least puts out more notice.
Nathan Monroe: Recommends adding this topic to the July 28th agenda; how to increase public support or
public engagement. Suggests Roger Pence can bring the suggestion to the group with
some action items. Mentions he'd like to discuss it more.
Mike Rosen: Agrees.
Roger Pence: States the Board could come up with a plan or proposal to help begin the discussion.
States they could talk about what a better public communication plan might look like.
Mike Rosen: States that this should be added to the July 28th agenda, and they will ask that the
outreach person participate. Mentions that Roger Pence and himself will serve as a task
force to try to come up with some initial recommendations as a starting place for that
discussion.
Roger Pence: Agrees and thinks Alicia Crank will have some thoughts on this too.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 16
Packet Pg. 19
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: Thanks the Board and asks if there is any comments for the good of the order.
Matt Cheung: Talks about being proactive in communications as opposed to waiting for someone else
to show interest in coming here.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions that the Board should run these thoughts through council. States that they are
somewhat victims of our own success. States that the Board needs to make sure they're
highlighting the important topics and not all the topics.
States that for EV and bike parking is a chance for Edmonds to be bold and at the
forefront. Would like the Board to be really cognizant about this and that it is a chance
for it to be low dollar, low cost, with a lot of impact down the road.
Mike Rosen: Thanks everyone and adjourns the meeting at 8:56.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 20
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/11/2021
Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program
Staff Lead: Steve Toy, Snohomish County Principal Demographer
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
This is a presentation from Steve Toy, Snohomish County Principal Demographer, on the County's
Buildable Lands Program.
Staff Recommendation
This is an overview of the program; no action is required.
Narrative
Mr. Toy will give a short overview presentation on the program and a summary for Edmonds.
Attachment 1 provides a link to information on the County's website about the Buildable Lands
Program.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Link to Snohomish County Buildable Lands Website
Packet Pg. 21
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/11/2021
Public Hearing on Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
The Planning Board has reviewed the EV charging infrastructure code amendment (AMD2021-0002) on
June 9, June 23, and July 14, 2021, and scheduled the item for a public hearing.
Staff began these discussions with the Planning Board by showing the connections between the EV
charging infrastructure recommendations and specific city goals. These goals include Comprehensive
Plan and Climate Action Plan policies that encourage EV usage and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The Climate Action Plan also sets a goal for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050. Staff also
provided information that showed the GHG impact of passenger vehicles and the extreme net pollution
differences between gasoline and electric vehicles.
Staff then provided data about the growth in EV demand and how vehicle manufacturers are switching
to EV production. Staff also highlighted the challenges to EV adoption: concerns with finding locations to
charge the vehicles and the retrofit costs associated with installing the infrastructure. All this
information highlighted the need of the proposed amendment.
Staff then introduced the three most important components of the amendment:
Charging Levels (Level I, II, and III)
Staging Levels (EV Capable, EV Ready, and EV Installed)
Use Types (Single-family, Multifamily, Non -Residential)
Each of these components were discussed and, when needed, added as definitions to the proposed
amendment. More information about these topics can be found in staff's presentation to the Planning
Board on June 9, 2021.
In the following sessions, staff focused on the proposed amendment language. Items like definitions and
general requirements were discussed. However, the primary point of discussion has been focused on
two main components:
1) When should the EV Infrastructure be required in renovated or updated development, and
2) The specific standards for multifamily and non-residential development
These two topics are discussed in the narrative section of this memo.
Staff Recommendation
Packet Pg. 22
6.A
Make a recommendation on the draft EV Charging Infrastructure code amendment in Attachment 1 to
the City Council.
Narrative
Please review Attachment 3 which contains a staff memo discussing various issues regarding the
proposal.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Code Amendment
Attachment 2: Draft Presentation
Attachment 3: EV Memo 8.11.21
Packet Pg. 23
6.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 station requirements.
19.115.060 Accessible electric vehicle charging stations.
17.115.070 Signage.
17.115.010 Intent and purpose.
It is the intent of these development regulations to encourage the use and viability of electric vehicles as
they have been identified as a solution to energy independence, cleaner air, and significantly lower
greenhouse gas emissions.
The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the effective installation of electric vehicle charging stations and
to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle charging infrastructure that
such a transition necessitates.
17.115.020 Definitions.
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
any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.28 RCW and RCW 19.27.540.
B. Battery exchange station- means a facility that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable
battery to enter a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged battery, which
meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.27 RCW and
RCW 19.27.540.
C. Charging level- means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric
vehicle's battery is recharged. Levels I, II, and III are defined by the electrical output, per the
following specifications:
1. Level I- considered slow charging and operates on a fifteen to twenty amp breaker on a one
hundred twenty volt AC circuit.
8/11/2021 Page 1 of 8
Packet Pg. 24
6.A.a
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 vehicles with a State 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
G. Electric vehicle charging station- means a public or private parking space that is served by battery
charging station equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by
conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle.
H. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure- means structures, machinery, and equipment necessary and
integral to support an electric vehicle, including but not limited to battery charging stations, rapid
charging stations, and battery exchange stations.
I. Electric vehicle installed or "EV Installed"- means a fully installed electric vehicle charging station for
Level II or Level III charging levels.
J. Electric vehicle parking space- means any marked parking space that identifies the use to be
exclusively for the parking of an electric 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 electric vehicle charging receptacle outlet or
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.
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.
8/11/2021 Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 25
6.A.a
O. 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 listed below:
A. Level I, Level II, and Level III electric vehicle charging stations. An electric vehicle charging station
equipped with Level I, Level II, or Level III charging equipment is allowed as an accessory use in all
zoning districts.
B. Battery exchange stations. Battery exchange stations are considered a primary or accessory use as
part of an automobile service station as defined in ECDC 21.90.12 and an accessory use to an
automotive sales use. Battery exchange stations are allowed in all zoning districts where automotive
sales and automobile service stations are permitted and according to the regulations for those uses
set forth in the specific zoning 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 development or new off-street parking facility;
2. Substantial damage or substantial improvements to an existing development is made 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.
B. Standards.
Table 17.115.040 lists the minimum number or percentage of electric vehicle charging infrastructure
required by type of use.
8/11/2021 Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 26
6.A.a
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
40% of parking spaces
0% 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.
C. Calculations.
1. Fractions. For the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, calculations will be rounded up to the
nearest whole number.
2. Inclusion in Parking Calculations. All EV installed, EV ready, and EV capable spaces are to be
included in the calculation for the number of parking spaces, as provided by the applicable
chapter of the Edmonds Community 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 a larger 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.
5. 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%,
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.
8/11/2021 Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 27
6.A.a
17.115.050 General station requirements.
A. Size. A standard size parking space or reduced width, "compact," parking space as permitted in
Chapter 18.95 ECDC 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.
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 electric vehicle charging purposes
will meet the following standards:
1. Clearance. Charging station equipment mounted on pedestals, light posts, bollards or other
devices shall be a minimum of 24 inches 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 and 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
charging station users about hours of use and possible actions affecting electric vehicle charging
stations that are not being used according to posted rules.
8/11/2021 Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 28
6.A.a
F. Location. Placement of a single electric vehicle charging station is preferred at the beginning or end
parking space on a row of parking.
G. Reserved EV Parking Spaces. Electric vehicle charging stations, where provided for public use, are
reserved for parking and charging of electric vehicles only, except as otherwise provided by this
chapter.
17.115.060 Accessible electric vehicle charging stations.
A. Where electric vehicle charging facilities are provided 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 {^"GWORg ratio -as identified in
Table 17.115.060 below.
Table 17.115.060: Accessible Electric Vehicle Charing Station Requirements.
Number of EV Installed
Minimum Number of Accessible
Charging Stations
EV Installed Charging Stations
5-25
1
25 - 50
2
50 - 75
3
- lUU
parking `pac . The electric vehicle charging infrastructure may also serve adjacent parking spaces
not designated as accessible parking spaces.
B. Accessible electric vehicle charging stations should be located in close proximity to the primary or
employee entrance of a building or facility and shall be connected to a barrier -free accessible route
of travel.
17.115.070 Signage.
Signage for each EV installed charging station space will comply with the following:
A. Electric vehicle signage must be posted in a clear and conspicuous manner, pursuant to RCW
46.08.185; and
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.
8/11/2021 Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 29
6.A.a
16.60.030
Site development standards — Design. (CG Zoning District)
5. Electric vehicle charging stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric
vehicle (EV) chareine infrastructure. One OF ^I^,.trie wehiele ,.hareine stations must he i3 ided
"PlaRRed Gapaeity"
i eempliantN%
16.110.020
Site development standards. (Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District)
See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parkin
astructure Parking Standards.
standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) ch
17.50.010
Off-street parking required.
17.50.020
Parking space requirements.
D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards.
infrastructure.
See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
8/11/2021
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 30
6.A.a
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.
8/11/2021 Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 31
�cAri vicr
11
OF
ED
\O
1� t S9
0
d
6.A.b
Tonight's Agenda: 1) Public Hearing Discussion
�L
2
:.i
Alk � a
0
(L
2) Review of EV Charging Infrastructure Need
0
N
r
3) Review of Proposed Code Amendment
w
4) Finalizing Multifamily and Non -Residential Standard!
E
5) Possible Transmittal to City Council
8/11/2021
Packet Pg. 33
-jN *14
* "
6.A.b
66
LU
0
ADL 0
a.
.0
T- MC
T-
T-
. Ir
L-40-
J-14, ; 9
Packet Pg. 34
,dL
EV Ties to Major Sustainability Goals
Transportation Element Policy 6.22 Encourage and promote the use of EV charging
stations ... including standards for new
developments that provide parking facilities
Transportation Element Policy 6.23 Position Edmonds to respond to technical innovation,
such as EVs ...
Community Sustainability Element
Policy B.3
LmmaTeACtionTiN
Goal
TR-5
Policy Initiative Action 3C
Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and
transportation options that reduce GHG emissions
Carbon Neutral by 2050
Promote Electric Vehicles and other low -carbon vehicles
Electrification of the Transportation System. Shifting the
transportation fuel source from fossil to clean electricity
(including) charging stations ... for multifamily construction
6.A.b
8/11/2021
Packet Pg. 35
Sources of Edmond 9 s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions'
Local Sector -Based Emissions
Transportation Sector Emissions
1 2017 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory
8/11/2021
12000
10000
_N
U
s
N
8000
O
OL
cn
6000
O
r
4000
D
Q
2000
N
Washington Annual GHG Emissions by �
Vehicle Type
Gasoline Hybrid
Vehicle Type
Plug-in Hybrid All Electric
Source: afdc.energy.gov State Averages for Washington
8/11/2021
Growth in EV Demand
Electric Vehicle Goals In Climate Action Plan
15000
12000
•111
3000
E:1911:3
367
0
15,000
2017 2021 2035 2050
8/11/2021
Growth in EV Options
• Number of options and models are increasing
• Battery technology continues to improve
• Many auto companies moving to all -electric vehicles
Company Pledge Year
Jaguar All Electric 2025
Toyota All Electric or Hybrid 2025
Volvo All Electric 2030
GM All Electric
Honda All Electric 2040
Ford Carbon Neutral 2050
: � 1
8/11/2021
Remaining Barriers
Largest concern for people considering buying EVs is...
Finding Locations to Charge Vehicles
80% of EVs are charged at home or at work
Also require convenient locations to "top off"
Need charging stations at new development
to help meet current and future demand 41
EMELSource D- . - . - Global Auto Consumer Study
OW
8/11/2021
Remaining Barriers
Much cheaper and easier to install at time of construction thantc
Additional Retrofit Costs
• Upgrading electrical service panels
• Demolition and repair of parking spaces
• Breaking and repairing walls
• Longer conduit lines (parking not near electrical panels)
• Permit Costs (separate from those in building construction)
8/11/2021
1
0-
1$� Packet Pg. 42
Decisions for ECDC Code Amendment
Which staging levels should be required by
use type? (capable, ready, installed)
Should the different charging levels be
allowed citywide? (Levels I, II, or III)
Identifying an appropriate ratio of EV charging
stations per parking space, by use type.
(Single -Family, Multifamily, non-residential, etc.)
8/1 1 /2021
Proposing New Chapter in
EV Charging Infrastructure
Intent and
Purpose
Definitions
General
Station
Requirements
Accessible
Title 17 for
Permitted
Locations
Charging
Stations
8/1 1 /2021
Definitions
Describe the key components (what EV is, the EV components, and where
• Follow Best Practices, Other Codes, and Accepted Definitions
• Describes Charging Levels (voltage for Level I, II, and III)
• Describe Stage Levels (EV Capable, EV Ready, and EV Installed)
Note: Staging types require specific charging levels to meet the definition:
8/1 112021
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)
8/11/2021
*iiT
Ah
17.115.040.0 Calculations for Station Requirements-
Covers- Multiple Uses, Fractions, Adjusting Percentages, etc.
Language based on existing ECDC and Other Cities
17.115.050 General Station Standards
Covers- Parking Size, Installation, Station Location, Time limits, etc.
Language based closely on Other Cities and Best Practices
i 17.115.080 Signage
Covers- Basic signage requirements
Simplified to rely on State and National EV Signage Standards
8/11/2021
1
0-
Packet Pg. 48
Stages or "Types" of EV Charging Infrastructure L
EV Capable
• Electrical Panel Capacity &
• Conduit for future use
EV Ready
Electrical Panel Capacity, Conduit &
Circuit for Charging
EV Installed
Electrical Panel Capacity, Conduit, Circuit &
Specialized Equipment for Charging
8/11/2021
Pros and Cons of Each EV Stage Component
EV Capable
Pro
Initial wiring complete
Electrical panel/room sized
to accommodate future need
Additional work still required
EVs can't charge
8/11/2021
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
6.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
a
Packet Pg. 50
Cost Assumptio
Cost Estimates for EV Parking
tLeuirement
rassructure
EV Capable $300 per space
EV Ready $1,300 per space
https://www.swenergy.orq/transportatoin/electric-vehicles/buiIdinq-codes#resources
1
Level 1 $300 - $1.500
Level 2 $400 - $6,500 $3,000
Level 3 (Fast Charger) $10,000 - $40,000
Source: afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publications/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf
Costs Associated With Non -Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (energy.gov)
Cost Estimates for Edmonds Scenarios ,
EV Capable
EV Ready
EV Installed
EV Capable
EV Ready
EV Installed
$300 per space
$1,300 per space
$4,300 per space
�0r_trr_trx=mom
$2,500 per space
$6,300 per space
$9,300 per space
Packet Pg. 51
6.A.b
!rrOTDT*=Ah 4 0 :rd re'"Ore
N/A
1 per dwelling unit
N/A
20%
of parking
spaces
40%
of parking spaces
10%
of
parking
spaces
40%
of parking
spaces
N/A
10%
of
parking
spaces
Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages shall follow the requirements for single family dwelling units
Packet Pg. 52
.L
V
_d
W
L
0
E.
E.
0
0
0)
i
�L
cc
U_
Z
3
a
c
0
L
a
w
CU
0
N
C
d
E
t
U
a
w
E
U
fC
w
w
Q
Multifamil�Options —Planning Board
0 0 0 PB's'!
Stage Percentages of himm
EV Stage
Parking Spaces
1
Percentages of
Parking Spaces
Component A: 5% EV Installed
Component B: 100% Overall EV/
Increase EV Capable
6.A.b
�L
8/11/2021
6.A.b
Non-Residen
EV Staae
tial Opti
� ar ng Spaces IJ
ons — Planning Board
.. •
EV Stage
3M,
First 20 Spaces*
+ Spaces*
Asterisks: PB did not make specific suggestions/recommendations
Component A: 100% Overall EV
Component B: Create a Tiered System
based on # of parking spaces
8/11/2021
6.A.b
Updated Accessible EV Standards
New Table in Accessible EV Section
Minimum Number of
Number of EV Installed
Charging Stations Accessible EV Installed
a
Charqinq Stations
5-25
25 - 50
50 - 75
75-100
• Update fits real world scenarios better
• Fasierfor people to understand
')implified from Denver's Example
0
MW r.
Staff
Requests
Planning
Board
Dec40 40
isions
on:
1. Selecting Multifamily EV Standards
2. Selecting Non -Residential EV Standards
3. Updated Accessible EV Recommendation
4.Overall Code Amendment
S. Transmittal to City Council
8/11/2021
Questions?
Eric Engmann, AICP
Senior Planner I City of Edmonds
eric.enaman n@edmondswa.aov
(425) 997-9541
8/1 1 /2021
Packet Pg. 57
A
6.A.c
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/11/2021
Code Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board has reviewed the EV charging infrastructure code amendment (AMD2021-0002) on
June 9, June 23, and July 14, 2021, and scheduled the item for a public hearing.
Staff began these discussions with the Planning Board by showing the connections between the EV
charging infrastructure recommendations and specific city goals. These goals include Comprehensive
Plan and Climate Action Plan policies that encourage EV usage and reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The Climate Action Plan also sets a goal for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050. Staff also
provided information that showed the GHG impact of passenger vehicles and the extreme net pollution
differences between gasoline and electric vehicles.
Staff then provided data about the growth in EV demand and how vehicle manufacturers are switching
m
to EV production. Staff also highlighted the challenges to EV adoption: concerns with finding locations to =
charge the vehicles and the retrofit costs associated with installing the infrastructure. All this
information highlighted the need of the proposed amendment. a
N
Staff then introduced the three most important components of the amendment: r
• Charging Levels (Level I, II, and III) 00
0
• Staging Levels (EV Capable, EV Ready, and EV Installed) E
m
• Use Types (Single-family, Multifamily, Non -Residential)
Each of these components were discussed and, when needed, added as definitions to the proposed >
w
amendment. More information about these topics can be found in staff's presentation to the Planning M
Board on June 9, 2021.
In the following sessions, staff focused on the proposed amendment language. Items like definitions and
general requirements were discussed. However, the primary point of discussion has been focused on
two main components:
1) When should the EV Infrastructure be required in renovated or updated development, and
2) The specific standards for multifamily and non-residential development
These two topics are discussed in the narrative section of this memo.
Packet Pg. 58
6.A.c
Staff Recommendation
Make a recommendation on the draft EV Charging Infrastructure code amendment in Attachment 1 to
the City Council.
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. This amendment covers a variety of topics important
to regulating this infrastructure in new and substantially updated development. Staff has provided the
draft code amendment (Attachment 1), that includes markups since the July 14th meeting. 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).
Based on previous discussions, options for multifamily and non-residential development standards will
be the focus of tonight's meeting. Applicability standards and accessible EV parking standards will also
be discussed.
Applicability Standards
At the last meeting, the Board agreed to staff's recommendation is to use what is generally called the
50% rule for improvements. The amendment uses the terms "Substantial Damage" and "Substantial
Improvement" to define how and when the 50% improvement rule would apply to existing
development.
Amended Accessible EV Parking Standards
Staff has also updated the proposed standards for accessible EV charging stations in the draft code,
17.115.060 ECDC. Staff has used the model in Denver's EV code to set up a tiered system for requiring r
accessible parking spaces. This means that the number of accessible parking spaces that meet the
00
American Disability Act (ADA) standards would be based on the number of EV Installed parking spaces E
provided. Originally, staff recommended 10% of all EV spaces to meet accessibility standards, but the
practicality and real -world scenarios makes this difficult to achieve.
Appropriate Ratios
Identifying the appropriate ratios between EV Capable, EV Ready, and EV Installed has been a major
point of discussion. This is the central element of the code amendment; how many EV spaces are
needed and what is the appropriate percentages of EV staging types.
The two remaining issues are listed below.
Packet Pg. 59
6.A.c
1) Selecting Multiple Dwelling Unit (Multifamily) EV Standards
Staff has proposed requiring 70% of the overall multifamily parking spaces to have some level of EV
charging infrastructure. Staff selected this percentage by identifying the future need for EV charging but
also recognizing that not all vehicles will likely convert to EV usage.
Staff's Multifamily Proposal
Number of EV Capable
Parking Spaces
Number of EV Ready
Parking Spaces
Number of EV Installed
Parking Spaces
Overall Percentage of
EV Parking Spaces
20% of parking spaces
40% of parking spaces
10% of parking spaces
70% of parking spaces
At the July 14th meeting, the Planning Board discussed increasing the overall percentage of EV parking
spaces from 70% to 100%. This would ensure that all multifamily parking spaces would have some form
of EV charging infrastructure available. The reason given was that it is easier to include EV infrastructure
during construction rather than waiting for costly future retrofits. It also acknowledges the need for
sustainability and meeting Climate Action Plan goals.
The other recommendation at the July 14th meeting was to reduce the EV Installed percentage from 10%
to 5%. This would reduce the number of spaces that would be restricted to "EV only" usage and reduce
the cost of the EV Installed equipment.
Planning Board's Multifamily Proposal
Number of EV Capable
Parking Spaces
Number of EV Ready
Parking Spaces
Number of EV Installed
Parking Spaces
Overall Percentage of
EV Parking Spaces
55% of parking spaces
40% of parking spaces
5% of parking spaces
100% of parking spaces
Staff's Multifamily Standards Finding: There are several examples of cities that have adopted 100%
total EV capacity for multifamily development. The difference is that the other cities tend to have a
lower percentage of EV Ready and EV Installed parking space requirements. In reviewing the cost a
analysis difference between staff's recommendation and the initial suggestions from Planning Board, N
the PB option would become cheaper for larger parking lots. This is primarily because of the reduced EV r
Installed parking space costs. For multifamily development with approximately 20 spaces or less, staff's 00
proposal would be cheaper or similar in price. o
E
m
The major consideration between the two multifamily options, would be thinking about the initial usage >
and financial impacts vs. the long-term EV needs and trends. �!!
2) Selecting Non -Residential EV Standards
The Planning Board has also discussed the appropriate non-residential standards in the last few
meetings. Staff has recommended a proposal that would require 50% of the overall spaces to have some
form of EV charging infrastructure in place. Staff still believes that this is a progressive and effective
strategy to increase EV usage rather than creating a higher overall percentage. Staff recognizes that a
portion of users will want EV charging at non-residential development, but it will be less significant than
in residential development.
Packet Pg. 60
6.A.c
Staff's Non -Residential Proposal
Number of EV Capable
Parking Spaces
Number of EV Ready
Parking Spaces
Number of EV Installed
Parking Spaces
Overall Percentage of
EV Parking Spaces
40% of parking spaces
0% of parking spaces
10% of parking spaces
50% of parking spaces
At the July 14th meeting, the Planning Board discussed increasing the overall percentage for non-
residential uses from 50% to 100%. This would ensure that all parking spaces would have some form of
EV charging infrastructure available. The other discussion was to create two tiers of non-residential
standards. The discussion centered around a desire for smaller developments to have 100% EV
infrastructure but acknowledges that large commercial buildings and shopping centers may not need
the same requirement.
The Planning Board has not indicated specific recommendations for several of the standards but asked
to discuss it further at the public hearing. Staff has created a table of the Planning Board's general
recommendations for discussion purposes.
Planning Board's Non -Residential Discussion
Standard by
Number of EV
Number of EV
Number of EV
Overall Percentage
Number of
Capable Parking
Ready Parking
Installed Parking
of EV Parking
Parking Spaces
Spaces
Spaces
Spaces
Spaces
First 20 parking
90% of parking
0% of parking
10% of parking
100% of parking
spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces
After first 20
40% of parking
0% of parking
10% of parking
50% of parking
parking spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces
Note: The Planning Board did not recommend specific percentages
Staff's Non -Residential Standards Finding: Staff has not identified another example of a city requiring
100% EV parking for non-residential uses. In reviewing the cost analysis difference between staffs
recommendation and the initial suggestions from Planning Board, the PB option would be approximately
27% more expensive for the first 20 parking requirement. The reason is the increased number of EV ry
Capable spaces needed to achieve 100% overall EV capacity.
00
0
Staff finds that this will create an increased burden on smaller non-residential developments and m
recommends utilizing staff's proposal. Although the idea of 100% EV capacity is ideal, there are still 2
practical realities and scenarios in non-residential development that warrant the lower (yet still w
progressive) standards.
M
Action Needed
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 (markup)
Packet Pg. 61
6.A.c
2) Staff Presentation (Draft)
a
Packet Pg. 62
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/11/2021
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
The Extended Agenda is typically reviewed and discussed at each meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Review of Extended Agenda items.
Narrative
Extended Agenda attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 63
�y0,0 EDV
o Items and Dates are subject to change
pLAKIMFW� BOARD
Extended Agenda
August 11, 2021
Meeting Item
August, LUL1
August 1. Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program
11 2. Public Hearing on EV Charging regulations and standards
3. Continued Planning Board discussion on public outreach
August 1. Potential Cancellation for Labor Day holiday...
25
5epiemper. LUL1
September
8
September
22
October, 2021
1. Climate Action Plan and Outreach review and update
2. (Tentative) Overview of Potential Code Amendments addressing
Multifamily Design Standards: Discussion on issues and code
options, including public outreach efforts
1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan)
[Next update on November 10th]
2. (Tentative) Continuation of Overview of Potential Code
Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards: Discussion
on issues and code options, including public outreach efforts
October 1. (Tentative) Tree programs and regulations: discussion on issues
13 and code options for short-term review, including public outreach
efforts (e.g. Heritage Trees)
Packet Pg. 64
items ana vates are
9.A.a
o change
October 1. (Tentative) Continuation of Overview of Potential Code
27 Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards:
Discussion on issues and code options, including public
outreach efforts
2.
November, 2021
November 1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan)
10 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report
November 3. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan)
24 [Next update on November 1011]
4. (Tentative) Continuation of Overview of Potential Code
Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards: Discussion
on issues and code options, including public outreach efforts
a
Packet Pg. 65
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2 Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2021-2022 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
.r
a
Packet Pg. 66