The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-08-25 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, August 25, 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 # 5734) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the minutes from 7/14 and 7/28. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: July 14, 2021 minutes (PDF) • Attachment 2: July 28, 2021 minutes (PDF) Planning Board Page 1 Printed 812012021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda August 25, 2021 3. Announcement of Agenda 4. Audience Comments 5. Administrative Reports 6. Public Hearings 7. Unfinished Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5747) Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure 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 has scheduled the item for a public hearing on September 8, 2021. Staff Recommendation Make a recommendation on the draft EV Charging Infrastructure code amendment in Attachment 1 to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment (PDF) • Attachment 2- Draft Presentation (PDF) • Attachment 3-Supplemental Narrative (PDF) A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5746) Planning Board Discussion on Outreach Background/History Continuation of Planning Board discussions from 7/28. Staff Recommendation N/A A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5750) Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure 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 has scheduled the item for a public hearing on September 8, 2021. Staff Recommendation Make a recommendation on the draft EV Charging Infrastructure code amendment in Attachment 1 to the City Council. Planning Board Page 2 Printed 812012021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda August 25, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment (PDF) • Attachment 2- Draft Presentation (PDF) • Attachment 3-Supplemental Narrative (PDF) D. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5746) Planning Board Discussion on Outreach Background/History Continuation of Planning Board discussions from 7/28. Staff Recommendation N/A 8. New Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5748) Code Amendment Webpage Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A 9. Planning Board Extended Agenda A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5744) Extended Agenda 8/25 Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review the Extended Agenda. ATTACHMENTS: • 08-25-2021 PB Extended Agenda (PDF) 10. Planning Board Chair Comments 11. Planning Board Member Comments 12. Adjournment Planning Board Page 3 Printed 812012021 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/25/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Michelle Martin Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the minutes from 7/14 and 7/28. Narrative Meeting minutes attached. Attachments: Attachment 1: July 14, 2021 minutes Attachment 2: July 28, 2021 minutes Packet Pg. 4 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. 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 Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (excused) Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuen STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division 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. 5 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. Mike Rosen: Seconds and asks for all in favor. Group: Aye. Mike Rosen: Announces the agenda. Audience comment, then public hearing for bicycle parking standards code amendment, then under unfinished business continue discussions from 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. 6 2.A.a 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. Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie Seitz and asks Eric Engmann to continue where he left off with the presentation. Eric Engmann: 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. 7 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 where the new language, using the defined terms substantial improvement and substantial damage, comes from. Also compares the proposed language to the other non- 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. Asks the Board to consider the proposed standards, the updated applicability standards and any other comments on the current draft. Also, asks the Board to consider transmittal 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. 8 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 that the 50% applicability rule seems appropriate. 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 this is also why no specific distance was used for electrical outlets. States they were left out for some flexibility. 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. 9 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 language seems a little ambiguous. Eric Engmann: Mentions the current language states it requires adequate illumination. Mentions that there are a lot of different scenarios to consider. Nathan Monroe: Asks if the code addresses safety, specifically if it must be in an easily accessible safe area Eric Engmann: Confirms. States that for short-term parking it needs to be near the building entrance unless specifically assigned to a different location. For long-term parking, it is typically 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. 10 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 code for accessibility and if it's outside, it's PROWAG if it's public right of way. States that the criteria already exists in other parts of the code and doesn't think it needs to be reiterated. Eric Engmann: Mentions that following ADA requirements is already part of the overall code language Mike Rosen: Mentions that staff had recommended adding two additional components to short-term and long-term parking installation requirements. Asks if anyone has any concerns. Hears none. 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. 11 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. Mike Rosen: Asks for any discussion. Asks for all those in favor say aye. Group: Aye. Mike Rosen: Asks if anybody is opposed. States that hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Eric Engmann: Introduces continuation of EV charging infrastructure potential code amendment. States it will be focused on the changes from the last draft which are • The mix of EV charging standards in the table. • The applicability standard. 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. 12 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. E Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 13 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 ready, feels 40% is pretty 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 make sense. Mike Rosen: Asks Matt Cheung what numbers is he recommending, 20/40/5. Matt Cheung: States he doesn't have much opinion on EV capable but that number could go up. States 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 E Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 14 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. Rob Chave: States that the City would want to use industry standards as much as possible. o IE Nathan Monroe: Asks for clarification about the EV capable definition. a Q. Eric Engmann: States that the definitions does not define where the wiring stops but that it does require Q raceway wiring. N r Nathan Monroe: States that they're not going to run a 5-foot wire out of the panel and stop. They're going E to take to about where they think it should go and it doesn't cost any more money. States o that he doesn't think it's invasive to go from EV capable to EV ready. N 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. 15 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). States that they are split. Roger Pence: States that he is split too. Nathan Monroe: Mentions he'll bring it up again at the next meeting and it can be discussed in a bigger 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. 16 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. 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. Mike Rosen: Asks about a scenario: if a Home Depot goes up, would we want wire underneath all of the spaces? Nathan Monroe: Reiterates that it is better to have the ability to wire every space without having to tear up the parking lot. Mike Rosen: Asks if the rest of the Board feels the number should add up to 100 percent, mostly from EV capable. 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. 17 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. 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 standards. Eric Engmann: States that larger development is why the percentages are lower. States that he doesn't think any non-residential standards exceeded 50% for total EV charging infrastructure. Nathan Monroe: Mentions he was considering office space with 15 or 20 parking spaces. States that a 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. 18 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. Mike Rosen: Mentions Roger Pence will miss the September 8th meeting. Roger Pence: States he could be available by Zoom. Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board wants to take one of those meetings off. 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. 19 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. Mike Rosen: Asks if it might make sense to say they are in 2022, on the horizon. Rob Chave: Mentions they may be getting to the point where everyone starts thinking about 2022. Mike Rosen: States they are moving into comments for the good of the order. Mentions Roger Pence has something to add. 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. 20 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. 21 2.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom July 28, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Richard Kuehn Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe Todd Cloutier (Excused) Judi Gladstone (Excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls the meeting to order. Reads the Land Acknowledgement. Asks Rob Chave for a roll call. Rob Chave: Completes roll call. Mike Rosen: Mentions both Judi and Todd have excused absences. Announces the agenda. Asks Rob Chave for any audience comments. Rob Chave: Mentions there are two individuals in the audience. Packet Pg. 22 2.A.b Mike McCausland: Thanks the board and states he has condensed his presentation to three minutes. Mentions this does not allow him to address all his facts and concerns. It concerns a rain garden proposed at his property and would affect his ability to subdivide or, at the least, add a rear facing driveway to his property. I am a property owner at 548 Third Avenue North in Edmonds. My east property line runs along Sixth Avenue North and the west property line runs along Third Avenue North. The city of Edmonds Public Works Department is planning to install a storm water rain garden along my property line on Sixth Avenue North. I am opposed to this rain garden and believe my rights as a property owner are being compromised as well as taken advantage of. I have discussed my opposition to this rain garden and subdividing my property with the Edmonds City Council, Public Works Department, and the Planning Department. No resolution has been received. There is no process I can find to formally address my opposition. Therefore, I am here to address my opposition and concerns with planning board. The proposed rain garden takes away development opportunity for my property and the ability to add a driveway entrance to my property off of Sixth Avenue North. The lot size of my property is approximately 11,640 square feet. Current zoning for my property is single family RS-6 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. In accordance with the Growth Management Act and optimum economic land use, my property lends itself well to be subdivided into two lots for two single family homes to be built even if under the minimum square foot requirement by 360 square feet. I have recently hired a land surveyor to address on the exact square footage of my property. Taking away the ability to reasonably install a driveway takes away the feasibility of subdividing. If subdividing my property were not allowed, what if I wanted to install a garage in my backyard, which would be permitted with current zoning and/or what if I wanted to build an accessible dwelling unit, which I know the planning board is considering? The rain garden and inability to feasibly install a driveway still impacts my property rights. Through correspondence with Public Works, I've been advised that I may still be able to install a driveway via a bridge built in the right away over the rain garden or with offsetting mitigation at my expense. Can you see me building a bridge out in the right of way? I don't think so. Why is the city not responsible for this accommodation and why would any expense be my responsibility since the city is building something that impacts my property? The rain garden will block existing access to my property and my neighbors' at existing fence gate entrances on Sixth Avenue North. Per correspondence with Public Works, I've been advised that they will consider in their design and they should be able to provide a pedestrian walkway space to my gate but not ADA accessible, which they say would be at my expense. Any walkway installed should be ADA accessible to meet the ADA Accessibility Act as would be required by the city of Edmonds for any private contractor or developer. Why is the city not responsible to meet ADA requirements and why would any expense be my responsibility since the city is building something that impacts my property? Thank you for your time and consideration Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 23 2.A.b Mike Rosen Roger Pence Rob Chave Natalie Seitz of my opposition to this proposed rain garden. I am requesting your support to address the Planning Department and Public Works to not install the proposed rain garden and allow me to subdivide my property and install a driveway to access my property off of Sixth Avenue North. If there is a way I can discuss and address my concerns with the board, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks Mike McCausland. Encourages him to submit any additional comments to make on the record to Rob Chave. Mentions he heard Mike McCausland's presentation at City Council, drove by the property, and acknowledges the situation is as described. Mentions Natalie Seitz is also in the audience. Thanks the board for the outreach discussions on the agenda. Focuses her discussions on the equity of the city's tree and environmental regulations. I'm commenting tonight on planning for public outreach since I understand that that's the only new business for discussion tonight. I'd also like to speak a little bit more towards equity as well. I'd like to start by acknowledging and thanking the planning board and staff for the concepts for consideration document. I greatly appreciate it. My education, professional, and personal experience have led me to have some very strong opinions of environmental regulations, including those surrounding trees. It will likely not surprise you that when someone like me is on the market for a house, I check the critical areas, drainage complaints, and other public sources of information before putting in a bid. My house in Edmonds has no critical areas or easements. However, it does have trees. And so, I called the city planning, the engineering section on November 7, 2019, to ask about regulations. And the city informed me that there are no regulations surrounding trees on private property and mentioned nothing of the regulatory effort underway. I'm bringing this up because I want the group to understand that a wave of anxiety came over me when I received the notice from Mr. Lien about the emergency ordinance. Hadn't I called? And since then, I've been attending every planning board and city council meeting save one due to travel to express my concerns. Three minute chunks to discuss the trees and how they relate to existing regulatory environment, private property rights, enforcement, public health, climate change, SEPA, storm water. I did this because I have no other choice to participate in this process, which, to me, seems very opaque. I'm extremely supportive of the city creating outreach and communication plans for all of its regulatory efforts and potentially having that plan approved by the mayor or council president before moving forward for each effort. I would also like the city to consider planning processes that do not engage the planning board as, certainly, there were some code amendments recently that I know did not go through your group. Patterns of empowerment and disenfranchisement and that even if people do not comment, they should still receive basic city services. Traditional media outreach does not work anymore. People do not consume news from a common local source anymore. Although it initially E Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 24 2.A.b seemed creepy to me, the geofencing to place outreach ads, it does appear to be effective at reaching geographically defined audiences. And I know that more municipal governments have been using that. The information provider to stakeholders should also be an important consideration to help inform the discussion. Discussions should be informed. And information should be evaluated for bias. With regard to equity, I provided a specific list of city decisions that bias the parks planning process towards inequitable and, I believe, institutionally racist results. That list is over five pages long. One of the parts of it identified that public outreach for the 2016 PROS plan was very disproportionately focused on the bowl, which I believe very much impacted the outcomes of that planning process. Five of the six community intercept events were held in the bowl. So, to me, there was not a lot of effort put towards providing in person outreach events to other areas of the city. And I think that very much led to a second community park being built in the downtown corridor within the service area of an existing community park being City Park while lots of other areas of the city don't have those resources. For years, the city has been redirecting funds from the SR99 commercial corridor to downtown neighborhoods failing to invest in the SR99 community and address the critical and social and public health issues created by the roadway. The concentrated public investment in downtown neighborhoods has resulted in lots of parks, sidewalks, and public infrastructure with ready access to downtown Seattle via the Sounder Train, which is ideal for growth. And I ask those that would potentially be angry at that suggestion that I just don't think it's fair to take the commercial and residential taxes from the SR99 "moneymaking machine corridor" as it's referred to by some members of the council, for the benefit of the bowl and then, expect the SR99 corridor to absorb growth. I know I was over three minutes but thank you. And thank you for your service. Mike Rosen: Addresses the new business. In several previous meetings, we have talked increasing engagement and have further talked about that in a number of different ways that it's not just butts in seats. It needs to be meaningful engagement that people need to have the opportunity to participate and it needs to be in a meaningful way. It also needs to be using opportunities that are convenient to them and not necessarily to the sponsoring organization. So, you have to show up at this building at this time on this day isn't necessarily convenient for participation. And even if you have those opportunities, if people don't know about them, if you aren't expressing those at places where people look for that kind of information then, we, too, are failing. So, we have expressed that in a way saying we can do better and we should do better. And the idea was it is not always necessarily to do but it ours to perhaps inform and try to influence. And so, that is the spirit in which we're advancing this conversation. And also, in the way of as opposed to saying here is everything that's wrong, I think the tone in the voice is here is what success looks like. Here are the things we believe to be true and hold valuable. And here are the ways that we think we can do it. So, I hope that our discussion can be in that spirit. So, you have many pages in front of you. And as you know, Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 25 2.A.b this is part of my professional background. And I realize that what I found myself doing was putting in, personally, an awful lot of emphasis on the values that drive engagement because I believe the how should be led by the what. And so, these value statements are intended to try to build a universal language and a culture around these values. So, that's why there are so many. And granted, I believe there are too many and they can probably be consolidated. But it is intended to say as a starting place for here are a lot of things that I believe to be true to make what is good public engagement. So, then there is how do we do it. What are the tools? What is the tool chest? And then, there is the how do we make people aware of it. And so, those are probably three different units. And it might be good to just, if you've had the opportunity to review it, it might make sense for us to just go around and people can just do a brain dump on any overarching comments that they have or any notes that they have just to get those out. And then, we can go back and perhaps dig through pieces of it and talk about next steps. Does that make sense as a process? Yeah, Alicia. Alicia Crank: Thank you. I'm glad that this is finally coming to us as a focus discussion topic. It's one of those be careful what you wish for because it's not as easy as one may think it is. And I was surprised that it was only eight pages to be honest because I think what that's indicative of is that we all take in information differently. And you can post everything everywhere and someone will still miss it if they're not looking for it. How many times have be driven by a business every single day and didn't know it was there until we were looking for it? How many times have we seen a certain billboard that's been there but until you've, actually stopped and look at it you see that it's there? So, I think one of the things we should keep in mind is that no matter what our best efforts are, you're not going to hit everybody everywhere. Like set ourselves up for success but also realize that, again, you're not going to catch everybody everywhere. It's just the nature of the best. I was a communications major myself. And the first thing I learned in high school as a communications major, my high school as, actually, the only one in the city of Detroit that had a radio and TV studio. So, I was editing reel to reels in sophomore year. One of the things we learned is that you have to communicate your point in three different ways. The same point three times in three different ways to try to make sure that most of the people in the audience got what you were trying to say because some people are visual, some people are anecdotal, and some people are methodical in their thinking and capturing information. So, I think that's one important point to think about as we're trying to put information out there. Not everyone gets the information the same way. I think the other point is that we just have to be careful with how we're trying to communicate things. I think that, unfortunately, in the city right now, there is a problem with communication. And sometimes, some of those criticisms are that communications are slanted a certain way as well. So, we have to really be cognizant. And I'm thinking about something you just said, Board Member Rosen, about influence. It's like we have to be really careful with that because that could come and bite us in the butt if someone feels like we're trying to steer something a certain way as opposed to putting the information out there and letting Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 26 2.A.b people absorb it and process it to come to the conclusion they want as opposed to something that we may want or one of us individually. Not to say that you would do that but that is, unfortunately, a pitfall that we can fall into collectively or individually when trying to share information out about what we're doing. And I think we've all been guilty of that on some level in some places. But it's extremely difficult and you have to be focused in putting information out there that is general and allowing people to come to the wrong conclusion. Another one of the things we've talked about repeatedly in the past is how do we as individual board members utilize our own social portals to be able to communicate out what's happening with planning board, again, without falling into that pitfall of being slighting on opinion or being judgmental in a certain way. And I think I've, personally, have done a fairly good job of it. And I think we're all members of different social media groups where we have the opportunity to do that. And I would encourage us, as always, to be able to share that information ahead of time in whatever public forums that we may belong to. And finally, if I had to say I had one solid suggestion, even though the concept of portals is not very popular right now, I think that my dream would be that there is one kind of comment portal on the city's website kind of like when you go to an airline website or something like that and you go to contact us and you can pick the department that you want to send a comment to that there would be this one place where someone could pick the board or commission that they want to send a message to without having to search each and every board and commission page to find out what the appropriate email is for that. And there is a way to collect that information ahead of time and be able to pull from it and create a report that could come to us as board members prior to a meeting that we could all look at and that the public could look at as well. Obviously, that would be a matter of public record. So, maybe to do something like that. I think we just have to make it easy once we put it out there for people to be able to give feedback. If we make people work to try to find how to give their feedback, they're going to give up and it's just going to make them more upset. It would make me upset if I had to do that for every single group, which is what we have to do right now. But if we could create that aspect of a portal that could collect all of that information for all of the boards and commissions, even city council maybe that's just all in one place just to make it easy for the average person who doesn't have as much time as some of us do to be as involved in city engagement than anybody else. I think we have to take us out of the picture and think about the average person, people that have full time jobs and activities and everything else. They're not sitting in council meetings all of the time. They're not sitting at board meetings all of the time. They don't have the time to do it. So, how do we create a user friendly engagement tool to be able to do that? We're not going to be able to hit all of the points. We're not going to be able to hit everything. But I think if we start simple but effective that would be good. E Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 27 2.A.b The other caveat I have to that is I know that there have been a few people that have used one of the recent portal situations. And they came to find out that there wasn't an automated response that came with it to say we received your feedback or any kind of processing number to refer back to it. I would strongly suggest changing that immediately. And if we do end up doing something like this for all of the boards and commissions for people to be able to give their feedback that there should be some kind of automated response that comes back so at least you know it was received and it didn't just go into a black hole of information if that makes sense. So, I think whatever we cover tonight, we're not going to cover everything. But I'm hoping that if we can come up with some kind of simple, relatively easy from existing infrastructure opportunities to start to grow from, I think that would be a success in itself instead of trying to build something from scratch and being super ambitious and not meeting expectation. That's it. Richard Kuehn: I'll just go ahead and just share with you guys some of the things that I highlighted or wrote down as I was looking at this. And shockingly, it's a lot similar to what Alicia mentioned already. One of the things that I wrote down or highlighted, I guess, from part of this was strive for the environment of no surprises. And I highlighted that because that's really important. But I put a big question mark by it meaning can we, actually, get there. And to Alicia's point, we're not going to be able to fix everything. We're not going to be able to get to everybody. And it's not going to be to how everybody wants to get their information. But I think striving for that is something that we can do and keeping that in mind as we're doing this is really important. And then, I also wrote down information first. That's the most important part with this kind of to Alicia's point and some points that I read in here. Not to steer ideals but information should be the key. And I wrote down also I'm a big decision tree guy. So, what I do is try to find the information and it's like those old Hardy Boys books. Choose your own adventure type thing. If you want to contact the planning board, in one page, let's have here are the issues. Planning board, city council. And it goes to an email box just to make things easy for folks that will utilize that venue for that way of contacting. The easier we can make it will help with transparency and will help with a lot of the issues, I think, that not only we're dealing with with our city but just a lot of places throughout the country right now. Those are the main things that I wrote down and highlighted. I'll add some other stuff as I'm going through my papers here. But those were the main points I was looking at. Roger Pence: I got a lot to say on this. And to begin with, I would distinguish between communication and engagement. Yes, it's great and I love Alicia's suggestion for an all world portal that people can send their inquiries and information into the city of Edmonds and have it routed to the right agency or people and have it responded to. That's great and would be, I'm sure, very helpful to us in planning board. To me, the next step beyond communication is engagement where there is a back and forth with people. It's especially important when there is a lot of misinformation and, frankly, ignorance out there in the community on a particular issue that we might be dealing with at some point. I can think Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 28 2.A.b of the housing conversations that we'll be having at the point when the city tosses one or more of those to us. It needs to be a cycle. It needs to be going back and forth with people to respond to their questions, identify areas where they may be misinformed, and try and provide the right information in an honest way that they can digest. At Sound Transit, my experience there as a community outreach guy, that's really what we did in a lot of respects, especially early on in the project when people didn't have a good idea on with light rail really was and what it would look like, how it would affect the communities through which we were planning it. And we had to go around and around with a lot of people to bring them up to speed with the subject matter. And I could discuss later tools that can be helpful in doing that. But the bottom line, it's often an iterative process that we're looking at. Matt Cheung: Just a couple of thoughts. Going off a little bit of what Alicia started out with by saying was that we can try as much as we want to try to disseminate all of the information and we still can never cover everybody. Partly, I don't think it's necessarily our fault. I think there are also some people that just may not care. And you could try to communicate in every way. You could have social media. You could be trying to send them fliers. At the end of the day, they just may not be interested. Sometimes, you look at some of our news sites and you look at how many views are, actually — on articles that are, actually, fairly important to our city. Maybe a lot could be 1,000. We have 40,000 people in our city so a lot of people are not even interested in some of the big issues that are going on in our city. So, I think it's just being mindful that we can try a lot of different efforts. At the end of the day, people may not be interested. So, I think try to focus on targeting to the people who, actually, do care and if they want to be interested and engaged, find the best ways to communicate with those people. Every issue is going to be different. Some issue is going to be different. You take an issue like personal property trees, all of a sudden, lots of people are going to get really involved. If you talk about something about parks, people can get involved with that. Talk about zoning, probably not that much. So, I know it can be discouraging at our public hearings when only one or two people show up. But the fact is a lot of people may just not care and they're not going to want to weigh in. And so, not getting —just using that as a barometer for that. We're not communicating effectively about the public hearing. I think, in some cases, people may just not be interested in participating in those conversations. I don't want to discourage us from trying to go out of our way to publicize as much as we can but just to be also realistic that we don't always deal with the most interesting topics. And I think some topics are going to be that we're going to want to really focus on more than others. And I think it comes down to whether or not people, actually, want to listen or if it affects them. Roger Pence: I need to respond to Matt on that. It's one thing for citizens to decline to be involved in a subject that does not interest them. But it's another thing to not be involved in a subject because they don't know about it or they've never heard about it. My peak with the Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 29 2.A.b notification process for public hearings is that it is confined to a little, legal ad in fine print in arguably legalese language published in the Everett Herald. And I can pretty much guarantee that the number of people in the city of Edmonds who, actually, see those ads and read them and make a decision on whether or not to be involved based on what they read in a little, legal ad, it's vanishingly small number. It would lead me to make steps and I've outlined some of them in my notes at the bottom of Mike's document. We really do need to take at least some basic steps to put that information in front of the people in the city of Edmonds using avenues that they — places where they are likely to encounter that information. They're far more likely to be scanning The Beacon or My Edmonds News about subjects of interest that they may be interested in than they are the legal ads in the Everett Herald. Anyway, I just want to put that out there. People can decline to participate all they want but it should be based on at least some awareness of the thing they are declining to participate in. Matt Cheung: And I get that. I guess just want to reaffirm is that we can put it in My Edmonds News. At most, you might get 400 or 500 people seeing it. And even that, they may not still want to show up. There are a lot of topics that — we can go overboard about how to try to make sure all 40,000 people in our city hear about something. But being realistic, a lot of people may just not care. Roger Pence: That's quite true. But I think if we put it out there in several different media — I know one place that I go to or I should say I want to go to find out about events and activities in city hall in the city of Edmonds is the online calendar. Go to their website. Look at their calendar. Well, they've got a new calendar function under their new website organization. They just have declined or failed to populate it with any information such as our meeting tonight. There is a fairly small list of places where information ought to be findable. And yes, we can't get everybody to see everything but if we get the information posted on at least a few of the areas where people go for information, it can't hurt and I expect it would help. It would at least leave people with an awareness that the information was there if they wanted to — it was findable. The problem now is we're not very findable. Richard Kuehn: I was just going to bring up a couple of things. 1.) 1 wasn't aware of that information being in the Everett Herald. I told that to my wife and she got a chuckle and she said it makes probably more sense to have it in the Seattle Times, honestly, than the Everett Herald. So, and I think part of what I think that Matt's saying, too, is we're not going to hit everybody. We can't ensure that we get all of the information to all of our 40,000 residents. There is no way. But I think what we need to try to do, to Roger's point, is give them the ability to in multiple avenues and multiple places have access to that. What they do with it is their own issue. I think we need to be careful of seeing their silence as something as they don't care. It might be something they care about really, really wholeheartedly. But people don't care until they do. Whether it's something that affects them and then, they start caring more and then, they're going to become more involved. But I think that we have to be careful in not seeing action or hearing silence from constituents and not allowing that to say well, we E Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 30 2.A.b shouldn't try to get this out in multiple different avenues because I've talked to many, many different people whether it's on Facebook groups or Twitter or My Edmonds News or The Beacon, wherever, they see a snippet of information and they're like oh, I didn't know that was going on. So, we talk about it. So, just try to give them the best opportunity to have that information at their fingertips if they want to find it. Roger Pence: One of the problems with this whole thing is that we often, we, the global we, when there is something going on and somebody really wanted to know and they complain about not finding out, about not knowing about the issue. And if all of that we can do is say, "Well, we published a legal notice in the Everett Herald," which is our minimum legal requirement apparently, if that's all we can tell them about how we tried to inform them of this project, this issue, whatever that is, obviously, lame and unsatisfactory. If we tell them that we published it in My Edmonds News, it was on the front page of the city website, it was on the city website calendar, if we are able to give them three or four locations where that information was put out in a findable way, they're far more apt to go away feeling good about the project and the people running it. Richard Kuehn: Real quick to that point, I think that it then also takes away the whole lack of transparency. I think by showing the want to try to get it out to as many people in different ways as possible, being transparent as you can, whether or not you hit everybody or not is a different situation. Mike Rosen: So, first, everything you guys have been talking about is true. People aren't necessarily proactively looking, that it's relevant to me when it's relevant to me. We don't get information from the same place or in the same way. People will always be at different stages in the discussion. It's like I'm on Page 1 and other people are way down. Their ability to comprehend or get stuck in denial, anger, arguing, depression, and acceptance. All of that is true. That, to me, just means those are the rules of the game. That's our starting place. Thatjust says these are the things that are true and that is our reality. Now, how do we deal with it? And it should not be the public's burden to have to look hard or to participate. That is our burden to make it easy for them. And they can choose. So, if I were to go to a happy place, people would say yeah, I was aware that was going on. And yes, I did know that I have the opportunity to participate and how I could do that. If I did participate, I felt that it was a meaningful engagement. I understood how the decision was going to be made. I recognize that I'm not always going to get what I want in the world. I trust the decision makers and the process. And I accept the decision. That, to me, through a sound process as opposed to where we are now and examples of it over and over again lead to the kinds of things that you've all given examples of. Alicia Crank: I would say I totally agree with everything Mike just said. And I love everything that everyone has shared so far. I have to be the Debbie downer here because there are a couple of things I want to hit on, which is I like the list that was put together and I appreciate what Roger submitted as well and what everyone has said tonight. This is the idealistic list. Now, we've got to think realism. And there are resources that have to be implemented for all of these ideas, right. And so, I look at these eight pages of suggestions Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 31 2.A.b and ideas and thoughts and I'm thinking that's at least two full time people that would have to ideally implement all of these things. And media also isn't free. So, there is a cost factor into that as well. So, whatever we end up recommending to council to be able to do should be somewhat centered around what resources would have to be deployed to be able to do that. And I almost have to imagine that, especially right now, there is an overstretched shortage of people that are doing jobs across the board whether it's at our favorite restaurant, grocery store, wherever you go, everyone is shorthanded. And I'm sure that city staff, you don't have to answer, but I'm sure that city staff currently is also managing a lot within this pseudo remote society that we're in right now. So, I think even in the best of circumstances when we think about what we want to recommend that it would be prudent for us to keep in mind what resources it would take to forward on whatever ideas we have. And it would be slightly irresponsible to send a large wish list that would make council and/or the mayor — I know. I just have to say it. I'm working on budget season at my job right now. I have to think about these things right now. I have to think about what is it I want to do versus what do I have the resources to, actually, do. And so, I just want us to make sure that we are being realistic within the optimism of what we're trying to offer because I think what we want to do and convey is something to be helpful and not something to be burdensome because I don't think anyone wants to adopt anything that would create burden as opposed to something that would be helpful and thus worth the extra work. So, that's the only thing I would ask for us in theory to keep in mind is that even with the things that we have listed right now outside of what we talked about, I'm looking at two full time positions to implement all of those things that we've put there. Not to say that we're going to do all of it, even though in an ideal world, yes. I just want us to be mindful and realistic. And I believe in building blocks. I believe in starting with something that can be grown upon and expanded over time. But what are the kind of simple-ish things that we could suggest to get the ball rolling that could then increase and grow as resources and time allows us to do? Mike Rosen: I would like to offer just maybe a friendly amendment to that. Certainly, a box around it's got to be real to the resources and not all the things on the list are equally effective or equally costly. And they aren't necessarily always connected. My further amendment is that not all efforts have the same burden of resources. So, the PROS plan will be doing multiple surveys, multiple public meetings, and multiple languages. And they have the resources to do that. We don't have that kind of budget to notify the public about a hearing. So, I guess I'm suggesting that we don't apply the same measurement... Alicia Crank: Across the board. Mike Rosen: Right. Like the Housing Commission put out 22 memos, had 4 public meetings, did 4 surveys. That was a lot of outreach. So, that would be my only amendment, let's be realistic to the resources but they should match the project. Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 32 2.A.b Alicia Crank: I accept that friendly amendment. And what I really wanted to say is that whatever we end up moving forward to council, that we somehow couch it with the knowledge that we know this is a larger undertaking. We will also understand that maybe only certain things could be done, but we'll welcome those things that can be done. Mike Rosen: So, let me see where I think we have consensus in concept. One of the concepts is that we don't send eight pages. Another is that we seem to have consensus around the concept of phases. That's not the way Alicia positioned it but we sort of build. And as a part of that, we would say what we believe is at the minimum that would be the most effective. So, please start here and then, here is how we think it ought to be phased. That we would do that also perhaps recognizing different levels that for things like the PROS plan or the Housing Commission or the exercise that the civic park went through or even the connector went through that here are the things with projects like that that we believe would have the most value in terms of engagement. The guiding principles and values that we apply are things that we believe to be true no matter what you're doing and that those should be there. There is something that many of you said, that people join at different times and with different levels of information and they're rarely on the same page at the same time. So, that is one of the challenges. And I think that has been one of the sand traps of previous experiences. And so, Roger, you had some experiences with how to manage that specific process or problem of people entering at different times and being on different pages all at the same time. And I'm wondering if you might draft some lessons learned or recommendations just to help overcome that that we could include. Roger Pence: Yes. I can do that. I keep coming back to one particular open house format that we did often. And I found it very effective. And I can outline that in 45 seconds here. And that is 1.) these, of course, were face to face and not online. And so, we were dealing with a normal environment. But we, obviously, invite the world and all of our mailing lists and all of our advertising and public awareness avenues. People come into the room, into the hall, sign in, give us their email address so they can get on the project list. Every project and our planning board as a project should have a mailing list, people that want to find out about what we're doing. And they should get notification before every meeting to make sure they have an opportunity to get on the list for project communications. The first part of the open house format is the displays around the room staffed with knowledge of people so that people come with questions and issues about a project. They can often go to the resource in the room around the edge and get answers to their questions. They can also network with other people. We have people that love to know what other people in the neighborhood are thinking about a given issue. When I was a neighborhood activist that was one of the things that I appreciated the most was being able to identify people on my side if it was a controversial issue. We have that first basic step. Then, we convene and have seats in the middle. Everybody sits down and listens to a presentation by the project manager. Ten or fifteen minutes, Power Point or whatever to give everybody the common knowledge where the project is at that point and then, Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 33 2.A.b take questions in plenary session so I can hear what my neighbor across the street or down the street is thinking or what their concerns are. And people often have common questions or issues. And if they can raise those in plenary session that can be extremely helpful. Then, at the end, we go back to the open house format. People have a question that didn't want to stand up in the group and ask it, they can go back to the resource people around. And every example I can think of where we did that, no matter what the level of controversy, people left calm and informed about the project and if not feeling warm and fuzzy, at least accepting. And I think that was a very effective tool. I could see it happening similarly with the housing issues that, hopefully, at some point after election day will come before the planning board so that we can avoid the kind of anger and concern we were hearing last night at city council. I was there for the first two hours of that. And it was very negative. And of course, that's not the format where you can go back and forth and answer people's fears. But we may have some folks come to the planning board on one or more of these housing issues. And we would be far better able to respond in an open house format than we would be probably in our own public hearing as their first encounter with one of those 15 issues. Mike Rosen: So, I would argue that what happened at city hall is the poster example of failure and everything we are trying to do would, hopefully if successfully done, mitigate that kind of an experience. I would also ask — and I agree with you and I've sold many of those public meetings. And I do think it is a good venue. However, there are many things it does not do. The single biggest fear people have is public embarrassment and talking in front of public. That environment is not conducive. It still means you have to come to this place at this time on this day. And that is not at all what we're talking about. And you'll notice in the list I did recommend there are some amazing online public engagement where it sort of replicates the public meeting kind of thing. And people can post notes or see things or comment or look at variations and vote and blah, blah, blah. So, and technology also is another form of allowing people to do it at 2:00 in the morning from their bed. But I agree with you. When you can sit in front of somebody and ask a question calmly and be respected that is how the world changes. Friend to friend, face to face. So, if you do have thoughts though, Roger, that you could jot down on the people not entering the same place and being on different pages all of the time that does not solve that problem. So, if you have thoughts about that, it would be helpful. Other things people want to weigh in on? Richard, Matt, Alicia. Richard Kuehn: I think, Mike, you hit on something important. And that's having flexibility because not everybody, like you were just talking about, has the time or ability to meet at a certain place at a certain time whether they have young kids, whether they're disabled, a myriad of different reasons. And I think that with everything that we've gone through here with COVID, it's showing I don't know if it's more engagement or more opportunities or engagement for more people, potentially. Now, whether or not they take us up on it or take the time to do it might be a different situation. But I think that having as much E Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 34 2.A.b flexibility as we can will, hopefully, allow us to be able to touch more of those 40,000 people throughout here. So, just keeping that in mind. Mike Rosen: Another question I have is, that one of the things that social media and COVID together and separately is that it's easy to hate when you're using social media and those kinds of platform. And it's harder to do that face to face. But it becomes normalized based on all sorts of people who are exhibiting that behavior. And I'm wondering if, in this conversation, other than modeling the behavior and doing good training on how to lower the temperature, how we can insert that very thing into it that there is respect. That there is, ultimately, respect. At PRR, we train all of our outreach workers and say you have to not care what somebody looks like, sounds like, or smells like. You need to listen. And so, how do we insert that into this. Alicia. Alicia Crank: I hate to say it. I feel like the most effective way is to model it. I think about what my public engagement looks like on various levels. And what I know and sometimes I don't like it but it's the reality is that when I say something publicly, I'm not just representing myself. I'm representing who I work for. I don't have a family. But if I had a family, I would be representing my family and who they are. And I also represent any organization that I'm tied to. And I think that gets lost for certain people who lean into the hate side or the disgruntled side of things is I think they can forget that they're not in a bubble. And I just think that we have to try to — it's painful sometimes. And trust me. I have to bite my tongue a lot. But I have to remember that I'm not a lone entity. Whatever I do and say, I'm also going to be known for my work at my nonprofit. I'm going to be known as someone who is serving on different boards and commissions, including this one. And so, I have to be cognizant of whatever I say and do that it doesn't reflect poorly on those organizations. And so, we have to model it. That's, unfortunately, the best way to do it and maybe the easiest way but also to maybe every once in a while remind people that they are not a lone entity, even those that are retired. They still represent a group or an organization that they're tied to or just their family. And there are some people that are just not going to care. And we can't legislate behavior is one of the things I like to tell people. And I wish we could but we can't. I think the best way is to just try to be individual examples of that and understand that — hopefully, people will mirror what you do. And if they are mirroring what you do and you don't like it, you have to ask yourself what are you doing that is not what you like because maybe there is something you need to change about yourself. So, as idealistically as I would like to think of oh, we could just tell people this and that and they'll get it, unfortunately, the best way is personal modeling. And it's the easiest but, frankly, sometimes it's the hardest. Roger Pence: Mike, I would appreciate hearing from Eric and Rob. We've got staff here with some history and insights in this subject. Since they're here and having watched this for the last hour, they may have some useful things to add to the conversation. Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 35 2.A.b Mike Rosen: Thanks, Roger. Pretend that we start every meeting by saying don't wait to be invited to participate. We assume you're attached at the hip. And in many cases, your thoughts and opinions are way more important than ours and better informed. So, I apologize for having never said that. And Roger, I appreciate you doing that. Eric, please, your thoughts. Eric Engmann: Thank you very much. This is a great discussion. And I want to say first and foremost, I think it's so important that engagement is part of this process. Inclusivity and equity is so important in what we do. And so, as planners, it's frustrating to us when we want to have a discussion and you want to have this information out there; it can be difficult sometimes. So, I read through the entire packet and I think they're great tools. And I think more and more cities are starting to come together and realize that the baseline of just putting it into a paper is not the right way. Personally, I think the way that it would be helpful to have this go forward is set it up into two folds. c First, look at it as, what is the baseline. What do we want to see in all cases going 2 forward? Whether it's a website, web page, or social media. What would we like to see o for all cases across the boards, small project, medium project, large project? One of the > things I've done in other cities, is we take a look at rating projects not by quality or a importance. but by the level of outreach that we think we need to do for those projects. Q If we do an omnibus clean up bill, we want to make sure that people know about it or N have the ability to know about it. But that's a lot different than the tree or housing issues. Being able to scale that up, and knowing that we're going to scale it up, could work. In Bellevue, we essentially called them Levels 1, 2, and 3. E Not levels based on importance, but how we rated them as far as the level of outreach needed. I guess the last piece I would say is I really appreciated the comment that Alicia made, too, that it's tough. We're in a smaller city. We have a planning staff of bout seven or eight. We wear a bunch of different hats, so please keep that in mind with this topic. Rob Chave: As has been said, every project has a level of effort that's allocated to it. The challenge is always, do we have the right level of effort or the right level of funding available for that particular project. Sometimes, we do. Sometimes, we go full on, do newsletters, workshops, like Roger was talking about. We do and have done those in the past. But we can't do it with everything. What I found, is we are lacking in basic resources like knowledge of various media outlets. For example, I don't think we know very well about what people over in the Korean community or in the 99 community; do they have particular outlets or ways that they get information that we're not tuned into. And that's one of the things the city is talking about at different levels of trying to pull or find out some of those resources and do a better job of getting information out to them. I think there are several things that do on a regular basis. Every agenda on the planning board gets distributed to all of the news outlets that we know of. My Edmonds News gets it, The Beacon gets it. So, because those agendas also include the hearings, the papers are getting that stuff. What we're not doing is putting out a specific display ad or something Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 36 2.A.b else that we pay for to get in those orbits. So, maybe that's something we have to do more about. But like Alicia pointed out, you'd have to figure out what your budget is, how much time there is available, all of those things. So, it's not that we don't try to get information out there. It may not necessarily always be the right or the best way. Also, on the website, there are a number of things. There is a public notice section. It's under public involvement. And the hearing notices for both the EV charging are there and the bicycle parking. Those notices are, actually, on the website as public hearing notices, not just in the agendas. Let me share my screen. It's interesting because there is something available on the website that I don't think people utilize too much. Anyway, if you go to the city website at the main level of menus, there is a section called I Want To. And prominent listed in there is, Contact a City Department. And if you go there, there is a large list of all the city departments, different email addresses. There are other sections in I Want To that explain different services. It's a wealth of information. And I'm not sure why it isn't used more but it may just be that it's not very prominently noted. Roger Pence: Rob, a lot of the problem, that was not improved with the new website, is how to navigate to those very informative sections that you allude to. There should be a direct link from the home page to those critically important areas you point out. There is a calendar section with all of the dates of the month on it. And the standard things like board and commission meetings aren't there. Maybe that's just because the calendar is new or revamped from before. And it will take them a while to figure out how to put information on it. The point is that having information on the web isn't very helpful if you can't find it, if you can't get to it. And that's been my frustration as a semi naive user, which I think corresponds to the level of a whole lot of people in the world and the city. We shouldn't have to be techies to figure out how to find the information on the website. It should be direct and simple and logical. And when you enter planning board in the search box, it should take you to the planning board page and not to a list of documents that just happen to have the words planning and board in them buried somewhere. Rob Chave: And it reinforces the point that everybody searches for information differently. And trying to design something that handles all of those different ways people try to access information is the challenge. I don't think anyone has quite figured out exactly what that calendar should contain because- do we want to repeat everything? —there is an access portal or point to all of the boards and commissions, agendas, etc. If you're replicating all of that stuff in the calendar manually, I don't know. It takes a lot of people time to... Roger Pence: All it needs is the planning board meets tonight. And you click on it and then, you go to the detail page. You don't have to cram all of the detail into one little two square inch calendar. Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 37 2.A.b Mike Rosen: And I would also argue that, as you just pointed out, Roger, you're sort of demonstrating that you, too, search for information differently than others. You proactively want to know what's going on. Whereas, I don't know that somebody should have to go to the website every week to say I wonder if the council is talking about trees, because that's an unfair burden. So, I think what you're talking about, those kinds of things should be available. But I think we also have to, as we identify who is going to be affected by this, who is going to have an opinion, and how do we find those people? Rob Chave: I will say the things that Eric and I have been talking about is creating a code update page that lists the various code update projects that are going on and trying to assemble notification lists and all of that sort of thing. I think one of the reasons that hasn't been done before is we could never keep it up. We just didn't have the staffing for it. But now that Eric is here, we have someone dedicated to doing code updates. And we may have the opportunity now to do things a little differently. The trouble is sometimes you're darned if you do, darned if you don't because if we create a code update page and there is some minor update that isn't there, people are going to wonder... why wasn't that on the code update page? Or something that doesn't go to the planning board, why wasn't that on the code update page? So we have to define very carefully what's going to be there and what's going to be tracked. Mike Rosen: So, for next steps, I'd like to revise the document based on all of this input and bring it back to this group for review and revision in hopes that we would get it to a place that we would feel comfortable making it sort of a here is a formal recommendation from the planning board. Rob, just to validate, we cannot have that exchange prior to the next meeting where I would send a draft and people could send me their comments to that draft because wouldn't that qualify as a meeting if we're doing it through emails? Rob Chave: You don't want to do it that way. You could send it to Michelle and I and ask us to circulate it. And if anybody had comments to send them back to us and then, we could distribute those via BCC to the board just for information purposes. And then, all of that could be assembled for the next meeting. So, the public would see exactly what the exchanges were, who was saying what comments, etc. Because what you don't want to have is a flow of information that, ultimately, isn't public. Mike Rosen: Perfect. Thank you for that. I like that a lot. So, please anticipate that will be happening where I will send to Rob and Michelle a revised draft asking for input. Just remember that what you send back through them as will my document be on the record. And then, I'll try to revise that to get it into the packet for the next meeting as a revised. Eric. Eric Engmann: I just know, for me, the way that I work with things and this is completely up to you is how it's set up because I like that it's a list of all of the possible tools that are on there. And I like that it included those things, especially the ones that break down the components. That's a great tool that's there. If I were to look at this, if you were sending this to me, having it broken down by topic on what we'd like to see as the baseline and how you'd E Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 38 2.A.b want to set it up for larger projects. It's just a suggestion, but I think that might be kind of helpful. Mike Rosen: Yeah. And I think others on this call have this as an expectation of what they'll be seeing. So, I will totally do that. And I do think there is content that does have value like that visual chart, too. Why are we trying to engage? Is it just to share information? Is it to roll up our sleeves on the same side of the table? So, I think that stuff has value but it might be more valuable in an appendix as a way to package it differently so it's not just this total stuff. So, I will try to make it more consumable as well. But yeah, I think that the structure of the specific ideas totally should do it. And I like the way you gave the Bellevue example, the levels of 1, 2, and 3. Eric Engmann: And if I can just make one more plug, too. It's hard for me to build community relationships as the new guy. So, if you all have any contacts or people that you know that would like to hear code amendments, I would really appreciate if you would send them 2 my way. That's another way of getting this to move forward. o 1E Matt Cheung: I like that leveled approach, too. I thought that was a pretty cool thing because I don't a think that every single topic needs a full force of media blitz. Do we have anything like Q that right now? Any way of categorizing that? I know, Rob, you said that there are some N issues that we spend more time publicizing than others. But is there an official: this is a topic that's going to be a Class 3? As Eric said, they'll, actually, just label it. This is a Level 1,2,or3. E Rob Chave: No. It's project by project. It isn't this is Level 3 and we're going to do it this way. It's not a stock process. Each one is designed separately, independently. But it's also based on experience. So, we know that in the past, we've done XYZ on this level or this level of effort for this type of project. So, it's not written down as such but it's similar. Matt Cheung: If it was something that we were able to weigh in on and say this is a topic that we're going to be dealing with like say trees, we would immediately all say Level 3. And maybe it would indicate just to emphasize to the people who are going to be doing the publicity that the board feels that this is a very important topic that maybe it wasn't something that the planning commission thought they were going to publicize. But we want to do more than just the bare minimum on this specific topic. Like maybe EV charging. Maybe that, actually, is going to be a really significant topic that we think the community is going to want to get involved in. I don't know. Alicia Crank: One last thing. I would say that I do like the leveling idea, too. I would say that with whatever we end up landing on to send for that recommendation, I would like there to be an accessibility lean into it as well. Again, whether it's one, two, three, four, five that there has to be something that allows for people that can't physically be somewhere to attend or to, for whatever reasons, just to kind of make sure. I think we always knew that that was an issue. But BC, before COVID, no one did anything about it. If it wasn't broke, don't fix it necessarily. But COVID forced us to be virtual and, eventually, hybrid. And one of the, for lack of a better word, good things that came out of this pandemic is that it Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 39 2.A.b allowed a lot of people who were not engaged before to be engaged, especially from home because they couldn't physically get anywhere. So, I think however we decide to message things or what we suggest to message things is that we need to have that accessibility aspect, that accessibility lens to it for whatever that reason is. It doesn't have to be a disability but just not being able to physically access, to physically be somewhere because of life circumstances whatever that may be. So, I would hate to lose the increased engagement that has happened during the past 16 months because people were shut in at home and didn't have distractions so they had more time to pay attention to what's happening in their neighborhood and in their city government. I would hate for us to go backwards as a city and take a good chunk of that accessibility away. Mike Rosen: I really appreciate you saying that out loud. And it's unfortunate that we live in a time that we still need to. Really an important message. I'll share one anecdote of reaching some populations. We would hire people who lived in the neighborhoods and communities we were trying to reach out to who knew people in those communities and spoke the language and had relationships with them. And in some cases, we were trying to reach people who were not necessarily comfortable approaching that that was not culturally necessarily acceptable. So, we would give away things that were very attractive to children. And so, the children would run over for the free gift and the parents would come chasing after them, which would then allow the conversation to take place. But it was knowing your audience and overcoming those barriers. That's an example of one of the approaches that we used to get into a community and have face to face conversations. Asks if there is anything more to add. Asks about comments for the good of the order Roger Pence: The Department of Corrections is proposing a work release facility behind the Ranch 99 Market right on the edge of the city of Mount Lake Terrace. The location is, actually, a few feet over the city line in Mount Lake Terrace. But the access point is off of 99 on the street that runs on the northside of Ranch 99. Anyway, there is a big condo complex right there. And it's been written up in My Edmonds News. It's generating some interest and some controversy. And I'm just bringing it to everyone's attention. And Mike, you're on some advisory panel or something involved with that. And if you have anything to add, we don't need to dwell on this. It's not something that the city of Edmonds necessarily — I don't know that we have any approval process or veto on it. But, clearly, Edmonds citizens are concerned. Mike Rosen: There is a very sophisticated process. And there are several of these in the state. Some are located in residential neighborhoods, some in areas more like this. City of Edmonds has been involved. The police chief in the past has participated and now there is another member of the police force who is participating and members from all over the county and city representatives and council members. But there are lots of reasons that these things can be rejected and many things that even have to be possible to even get it on the list to consider. And that's where they are now. Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 40 2.A.b Before we even engage in a conversation that is meaningful, does this thing even meet the criteria? And that's sort of the stage it's at now. And they're still identifying and reaching out to, literally, every city and government in Snohomish County to identify opportunities. People will have opinions about it and so tracking it from the stages early on makes sense. Asks Alicia Crank if she has anything for the good of the order. Alicia Crank: I have a couple of things. August 3 is National Night Out. And you may have heard that the Police Department has asked neighborhoods to put on their own kind of gathering and parties for National Night Out Against Violence. And so, I'm helping to host one on the Seaview neighborhood at Seaview Park. So, to have people utilize our local parks to get to know each other as a community. So, I'm looking forward to helping plan for that. And I hope that others will do the same thing in their neighborhoods whether it's at their local park or open space area that they can socially distance but also engage with their fellow neighbors. So, I will definitely advocate for people to do that because I know there is a lot of stuff happening on August 3 but that's a good one to do. The second one is that you may have read that United Airlines will cease flying out of Paine Field Airport. I'm not on the airport commission. Actually, it's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm fairly certain that Alaska is just going to increase their services, which I'm excited about and just kind of keep that in mind. Try to think bigger picture here. And, again, I, literally, just flew in last night into Paine Field Airport at midnight. But as those flights continue and to have later arrivals into Everett, there is an economic development opportunity that's there as well because people are going to look for hotels or whatever that are in this area. Not just Everett, but Lynnwood and Edmonds. So, that's something to think about what might happen to our local economy with the increase of flights. And it was a full flight, let me tell you, both ways. So, there is definitely something to look out for to see what happens in our local areas as that happens as well as the increase of Sound Transit's link extension into Snohomish county. Mike Rosen: Thanks Alicia, asks for any other comments. Mike Rosen: Adjourns the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. E Planning Board Minutes July 28, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 41 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/25/2021 Amendment to Provide Development Standards for Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann 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 has scheduled the item for a public hearing on September 8, 2021. 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 in 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. Accessible EV parking standards, exceptions for utility supply availability, and (electricity) load management options will also be discussed. Please review the supplemental narrative (Attachment 3) for further discussion on proposal topics. 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: Attachment 1- Draft Code Amendment Attachment 2- Draft Presentation Attachment 3-Supplemental Narrative Packet Pg. 42 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 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. 8/25/2021 Page 1 of 8 Packet Pg. 43 7.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. 8/25/2021 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 44 7.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. 8/25/2021 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 45 7.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. D. Load Management. Electric -vehicle load management system technology is permitted to be used to support EV charging infrastructure. 8/25/2021 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 46 7.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. 8/25/2021 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 47 7.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 aGGOFdiRg W the f9l'G ORg 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 ,p c�. 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. 8/25/2021 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 48 7.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_S0.020 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. 8/25/2021 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 49 7.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. 8/25/2021 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 50 7.A.b r .L d W I� t S9 0 0 U Packet Pg. 51 7.A.b Tonight's Agenda. 1) Finalizing Multifamily and Non -Residential Standards 2) Accessible Parking Space Standards 3) Load Management Options 4) Reductions for Electrical Load Capacity 8/25/2021 2 Q Packet Pg. 52 7.A.b LU [� E 1 O U 4 1( Packet Pg. 53 What We've Heard............ ...................... ................ Spoke with: 11 Master Builder's Association (MBA) Built Green (MBA) Goodman Real Estate (GRE) Snohomish County Public Utility District City of Issaquah Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) . ............ 8/25/2021 2 4 Stages or "Types" of EV Charging Infrastructure 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 & s • Specialized Equipment for Charging 8/25/2021 • : • 7.A.b Pros and Cons of Each EV Stage Component EV Capable Pro Initial wiring complete Electrical panel/room sized to accommodate future need Con Additional work still required EVs can't charge 8/25/2021 EV Ready .e "Back -of -House" work complete Allows portable EV charging Con Lack of EVcharging awareness Difficult to control/monitor usage . , . EV Install 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 6 Packet Pg. 56 7.A.b Cost Assumptions Cost Estimates for EV Parking Spaces • .j r .. Requirement • • EV Capable $300 per space EV Ready $1,300 per space https://www.swenergv.orq/transportatoin/electric-vehicles/buiIdinq-codes#resources VEV iEV Infrastructure Type EV Infrastructure Cost (single port) Range Level 1 Level 2 (Fast Charger) $400 - $6,500 $3,000 Source: afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publicationstevse—cost_report-2015.pdf Costs Associated With Non -Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (energy.gov) EV Infrastruct Costs Estimatesfor Type New Construction EV Capable 11 per •. - EV Ready $1,300 per space EV Installed $4,300 per space r_v inrraSZructure %.vszs MZionatesrvr Type Retrfit EV Capable $2,500 per •. EV Ready $• 11 per •. InstalledEV $• 11 per •. Packet Pg. 57 7.A.b 20% of parking 40% of parking 40% of parking 10% of parking 10% of parking Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages shall follow the requirements for single family dwelling units Packet Pg. 58 7.A.b EV Capable EV Capable EV Installed Packet Pg. 59 7.A.b 2 WFTNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIw Staff's Proposal EV Capable 40% EV Ready 0% EV Installed 10% Overall 50% a� c L CU U �.Ns • .•. •« W PB's Discussion EV Capable 90%* 40%* EV Ready 0%* 0%* W E M E a 0 U Packet Pg. 60 Updated Accessible EV Standards New Table in Accessible EV Section Number of EV Installed Minimum Number of Charging Stations Accessible EV Installed � Charaina Stations 5 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 100 • Update fits real world scenarios better • Easier for people to understand k_ Simplified from Denver's Example PpAO- - gyro- - �r 8/25/2021 11 Load Management Technology _______________ Allows control of charging based on available capacity, and demand request at each charging station Traditional: One Circuit per EV Space Load Management: Adjusts power to supply p multiple EV Spaces -7 wm. - .......... Courtesy: BCHydro.com ........... 8/25/2021 i. 12 Load Management Technology Pros: Electrical Efficiency Flexibility of Power Usage Possible Peak Energy Need Reduction Cons: Potential for Reduced Peak Charging Performance Possible Equipment Upgrades/Costs 8/25/2021 13 Exception for Utility Upgrades Concern Raised by Snohomish County PUD .......... • Utility Upgrade Costs could be very expensive • Depends on power availability • Highway 99 area of concern Suggest including an exception to reduce requirement when utility M upgrades would be prohibitive 8/25/2021 14 7.A.b Option Option Continue without Exception, Exception, an exception no minimum with minimum thresholds thresholds J Packet Pg. 65 Staff Requests Planning Board Decisions on: 8/25/2021 1. Selecting Multifamily EV Standards 2. Selecting Non -Residential EV Standards 3. Updated Accessible EV Recommendation 4. Allowing Load Management Technology 5. Consider an Exception for Utility Upgrades 7.A.b Questions? Eric Engmann, AICP Senior Planner I City of Edmonds eric.eng mannaad mond swa.g ov (425) 997-9541 8/25/2021 00 Q Packet Pg. 67 7.A.c Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Supplemental Narrative- 8.25.2021 Based on previous discussions, options for multifamily and non-residential development standards will be the focus of tonight's meeting. Accessible EV parking standards, exceptions for utility supply availability, and (electricity) load management options will also be discussed. A) 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. 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 141" 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 analysis difference between staff's recommendation and the initial suggestions from Planning Board, the PB option would become cheaper for larger parking lots. This is primarily because of the reduced EV Packet Pg. 68 7.A.c Installed parking space costs. For multifamily development with approximately 20 spaces or less, staff's proposal would be cheaper or similar in price. 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. 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 staff's 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 Capable spaces needed to achieve 100% overall EV capacity. Packet Pg. 69 7.A.c Staff finds that this will create an increased burden on smaller non-residential developments and recommends utilizing staff's proposal. Although the idea of 100% EV capacity is ideal, there are still practical realities and scenarios in non-residential development that warrant the lower (yet still progressive) standards. B) Amended Accessible EV Parking Standards Staff has 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 accessible parking spaces. This would require a minimum number of all EV Installed parking spaces to be reserved as accessible parking spaces. Originally, staff recommended 10% of all EV spaces to meet accessibility standards, but the practicality and real -world scenarios makes this difficult to achieve. C) Reductions for Significant Electrical Load Upgrades In speaking with the Snohomish Public Utility District, there was concern about the potential costs of upgrading service capacity to account for the required EV charging infrastructure. This issue would occur when the electrical grid in a particular area is near its capacity and the additional electrical load needed would require significant improvements such as on -site transformers or underground vaults. These upgrades could be expensive and significantly increase the cost of a new development or renovation. An option would be to allow the Development Services Director to reduce the amount of EV charging infrastructure when there is documented proof that this will occur. This can be drafted in two ways; option 1) where the total number of EV spaces can be reduced without restrictions or option 2) only allowing the convertion of EV installed and EV ready spaces to EV capable spaces (not net reduction in overall EV capacity). D) Load Management Staff has updated the draft amendment to allow for load management system technology to be utilized Load management technology allows multiple charging stations to share the capacity of a circuit, panel or meter between several EV charging stations. This technology can help to use panel capacity more efficiently. It would allow the power supply to serve multiple EV charging spaces rather than reserving a fixed amount of capacity per space. The benefit of allowing load management in the code would be more efficient usage of the power supply and a possible reduction in installation costs. The negative would be a potential for reduced charging efficiency (longer charging times) if all EV users are charging their vehicles at the same time Packet Pg. 70 7.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/25/2021 Planning Board Discussion on Outreach Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History Continuation of Planning Board discussions from 7/28. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Planning Board is interested in furthering its goal to expand community outreach for its agendas. This is an opportunity for the Board to discuss conceptual ideas for community outreach. Part of this discussion may include a look at upcoming agendas and code update priorities. Packet Pg. 71 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/25/2021 Code Amendment Webpage Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Staff will share the proposed City of Edmonds webpage dedicated to Code Amendments. The webpage should make it easier for the public to find and track information about proposed and recently adopted code amendments. Packet Pg. 72 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/25/2021 Extended Agenda 8/25 Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review the Extended Agenda. Narrative Extended Agenda Attached. Attachments: 08-25-2021 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 73 �y ()F EQAf o Items and Dates are subject to change KAMM BOARD Extended Agenda August 25, 2021 Meeting Item vugust, LUL1 August 1. Presentation on Code Amendments Webpage 25 2. Continued Review of EV Charging Regulations and Standards 3. Continued Planning Board Discussion on Public Outreach 5eptemoer, Lull September 1. Scheduled Public Hearing - EV Charging Regulations and Standards 8 2. (Tentative) Overview of Potential Code Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards: Discussion on code options, issues, and intended public outreach efforts September 1. (Tentative) Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable 22 Lands Program 2. Discussion of Veteran's Memorial Sculpture Donation 3. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) [Next update on November 10th] Or+nhcr 7R71 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) October 1. (Tentative) Continuation of Overview of Potential Code 27 Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards Packet Pg. 74 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change hirtwo r%hcr 7n71 November 1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) 10 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report November Day Before Thanksgiving- Cancel Meeting? 24 December, 2021 December 8 1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) 2. (Tentative) Continuation of Overview of Potential Code Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards: Discussion on issues and code options, including public outreach efforts December 22 1. Discussions for 2021 Agendas and Topics 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 Multifamily Design) 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 c as a m x w c� c m a� a as c as x w m a N 0 N LO N 00 0 r c m E R r Q Packet Pg. 75 ttems ana t)ates are 9.A.a ochange Recurring 1. Election of Officers (Vt 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 Packet Pg. 76