2021-09-22 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, September 22, 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 # 5797)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the minutes from 8/25 and 9/8.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: August 25, 2021 minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 2: September 8, 2021 minutes (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 911712021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 22, 2021
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5796)
Proposed Donation of Memorial Sculpture: Edmonds Veterans Plaza Memorial
Background/History
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza committee and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of Edmonds collaborated
to create a site -specific commission for the Edmonds Veterans Plaza in Edmonds, WA. The Memorial for
this commission was selected based on a financial donation made to the Plaza, and as a result of
collaboration with a local artist, David Varnau. The committee has engaged in an exhaustive review of
concepts, with the final Memorial determined through this partnership.
After review and discussion of the proposal at their meeting on 9/13/21, the Arts Commission made a
recommendation stating that the proposal does not adversely impact existing and planned public art
elements in the vicinity. Minutes from the 9/13/21 Arts Commission are shown in Attachment 1.
Please review the supplemental narrative (Attachment 2) for further discussion of the
background/history.
Staff Recommendation
The Parks Department has reviewed the proposal and suggestions regarding site, installation and
maintenance have been met to their satisfaction.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - Arts Commission Draft Minutes 9.13.21 (PDF)
• Attachment 2 - Supplimental Narrative(PDF)
6. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5798)
Extended Agenda 9/22
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review of the Extended Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
• 09-22-2021 PB Extended Agenda (PDF)
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 911712021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda September 22, 2021
7. Planning Board Chair Comments
8. Planning Board Member Comments
9. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 911712021
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/22/2021
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the minutes from 8/25 and 9/8.
Narrative
Meeting minutes attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: August 25, 2021 minutes
Attachment 2: September 8, 2021 minutes
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
August 25, 2021
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
c
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES -
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the L
Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We a
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with Q
the land and water. �?
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuen
Roger Pence
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe (Excused)
Todd Cloutier (Excused)
Matt Cheung (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Engmann, Planning Division
Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and asks Roger Pence to read Land Acknowledgement.
Roger Pence: Reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to call roll.
Eric Engmann: Calls roll.
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: States Matt Cheung, Nathan Monroe and Todd Cloutier have excused absences. Discusses
minutes for July 14t" and July 28t". Mentions he verbally indicated that Judi Gladstone,
Richard Kuen, Alicia Crank and Todd Cloutier all had excused absences on July 14t" but
only Alicia Crank was listed as being excused.
Judi Gladstone: Mentions her name was spelled wrong in several places on the July 14t" agenda.
Mike Rosen: Asks for those two corrections and asks for vote.
udi Gladstone: Abstains because she wasn't there. (Moved, seconded, and all others vote to approve).
Mike Rosen: Moves to July 281" minutes and asks for any comments, corrections. (Moved, seconded
and others vote to approve).
c
Mike Rosen: Asks for meeting maker (calendar invites) to be updates to only show dates of Planning o
Board meeting on 2nd and 4t" Wednesdays of the month.
0
L
Mike Rosen: Confirms the agenda for the night's meeting. 0.
a
Q
Roger Pence: Asks for clarity on the agenda format. Mentions the standard boiler plate agenda that lists
things like administrative reports, public hearing, etc. And when there are none, as there
are this time, it might be useful just to put the word none afterwards, just to clarify, to
minimize potential for confusion.
Mike Rosen: Likes the idea and asks staff if they would be willing to do one or the other of those.
Eric Engmann: Mentions the agenda is set in a program called MinuteTraq. It requires documents to be
inserted to add text to the agenda so it would not be able to just read none below the
item. The only real way would be to remove the categories.
Mike Rosen: Mentions it could be equally effective if it's possible to just omit them. Asks if there are
any audience comments.
Eric Engmann: States Natalie Seitz wishes to speak.
Natalie Seitz: Comments on the implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act and the Urban
Force Management Plan and Tree Code. Through public record disclosure with the city
self -exempted the 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan from SEPA compliance by
identifying that it "contained no substantive standards respecting use or modification of
the environment." This is an astounding and erroneous determination because the Urban
Forest Management Plan clearly includes provisions directly aimed at planning and
actions. Including specific goals to update the tree regulations, change penalties and tree
replacement requirements. Unlike Edmonds, other cities do perform SEPA for their urban
forest management plan updates and an example would be the City of Seattle.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Edmonds and its urban forest management plan is not special when it comes to regulatory
compliance and SEPA should have been conducted for that plan. When the development
plan was updated in 2021, the city referenced the urban forest management plan being
the reason for the code update and that it would apply to short subdivision, subdivision,
new multi -family development and new single-family development. Again, clearly
demonstrating that there is an impact to use or modification of the environment, as well
as a specific understanding of the impact to land use. However, when it came to analyzing
these impacts in accordance with Washington Administrative Code 197-11-960, the city
did not respond to 8-A Question 2, which would have identified impacts to current land
use and did not analyze impacts to existing land use plans when it responded to 8-L.
Instead, referring to the urban forest management plan, which is not a land use plan, and
therefore not responsible for the requirement. If the city had performed the required
analysis, the impacts to tree properties being able to develop as zoned, as well as a
significant penalty similarly zoned parcels would pay, thereby impacting land use and the o
ability for certain neighborhoods to accumulate wealth could have been identified and
impacted properties could have been notified to provide comment. Trees are not L
uniformly distributed in the city. It is areas annexed in the '60s, '90s and SR99 Corridor a
who will pay while properties in downtown neighborhoods will not. Q
I know that was in the weeds, however when I say, as I have previously at council meetings
and I also think I made a request at planning board meetings, that the city needs to use
this opportunity to comprehensively address the land use impacts of both the
development and maintenance tree regulations, I do mean it. I don't think that the city
has SEPA coverage to understand even a cursory amount of scrutiny. Additionally, and
though not required by SEPA, many jurisdictions now include environmental justice
considerations. Please consider including an environmental justice analysis as a way to
show a tangible action that the city is committed to equity. Thank you for your time and
consideration of these comments.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie Seitz for her comments, how she expresses them, and makes sure that
she's heard.
Roger Pence: Mentions they hear from Natalie Seitz often and shares the Chair's your opinions about
the value of her contributions. Would like to find a way to have an offline conversation
with her, to tease out a little more helpful response to what she's suggesting. Mentions
he finds great value in her comments and to just show up every time and to speak for
three minutes and then go away.
Mike Rosen: Agrees with Roger Pence's comments and reminds him that he cannot then have
conversations with others that would violate open meeting laws. Asks if there are other
public speakers
Eric Engmann: States there are no others.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: Opens the Unfinished Business portion of the meeting to discuss Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure.
Eric Engmann: Mentions there is a Public Hearing scheduled for the September 8" Planning Board
meeting. States that this meeting with be to discussion a few more issues before the
public hearing. There are five things to talk about or think about with this. The first two
are probably the ones we talked about the most. It's finalizing the multi -family and non-
residential standards that we have going forward.
The next three are things that've either come up in discussions or we've marginally talked
about. The first one is about the accessible parking standards. The next one are some
options for load management. Then the last one is something that came about in
discussions with our public utility board about reductions when electrical load capacity
becomes an issue. Mentions those that staff has spoken with. My summary of it is
basically for the most part, we didn't get any negative comments on what we're o
proposing.
0
L
Reiterates some of the prior issues staff has discussed with the board about the a
differences between EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed. Q
Mike Rosen: Mentions Judi Gladstone has her hand up.
Judi Gladstone: Asks about how Charging level 1 and level 2 play in terms of the definitions.
Eric Engmann: Mentions Level 1 and 2 have to do with the power supply; how powerful it is. So, really
theoretically, each one of these could be a different level of supply. You could have a Level
2 power as capable, ready or installed. That's how that fits into that case.
Talks about the pros and cons foe each stage type. For EV capable, the pro is that the
initial wiring is complete, and the panel room is sized correctly. The cons, there is skilled
work required. You still have a physically go into the wall, pull it out, have the panel put
in at the end. So, there is still some work left to do for that. And at that point, you can't
actually charge EV.
The next one is EV ready. At that point they can plug into the wall and get a charge. One
of the cons when we talked about it was lack of the charging awareness. So, if someone
isn't familiar with that plug being ready for an electric vehicle, they may not know to use
that.
Then when you get to the last stage, to EV install, that's the one that most people think
about. It's easier to control and monitor that usage. And it provides clear indication at
that point, that this space is for EV charging. The cons are at that point, it's the most
expensive to install. And since it's reserved specifically for EVs, you can't use that space
for anything else.
Talks about the cost projections made by staff and shown on the slide.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Discusses the standards table for multifamily development. Mentions it is a pretty
progressive standard;
• 70 percent of the overall spaces would have some level of EV capacity.
• Twenty percent EV capable,
• 40 percent EV ready and
• 10 percent EV installed.
These are some of the most progressive standards in the county.
Staff felt that 100 percent capacity may be too much for those who don't choose to use
the technology. But notes there are some cities that have done 100 percent.
m
In non-residential, staff made 40 percent EV capable. So, that means 40 percent would be
c
ready to go at some point when they will need this technology, and 10 percent EV
installed. The reason why staff took out EV ready was because it doesn't seem to work -
well for commercial spaces, to just have a random EV plug available. Having the plug
without the EV installed doesn't seem to make sense for non-residential. It would either L
be one or the other. a
Q
Discusses the differences between staffs proposal and Planning Board's suggestions from
the July 281h meeting. For multifamily, the Board has two suggestions:
• Lower the EV installed from 10 percent to five percent. Realizing development
might not be ready for 10 percent.
• Increase to 100 percent overall capacity. Thinking it's better to put it in now and
need it later
For non-residential, it needed more interpretation on the suggestions. For anything with
those asterisks, there was not specific standards suggested. But this is where it was
leading to. One was to a tiered system based off the number of parking spaces. What I
heard was basically, a large shopping center or an Ace Hardware, might have different
needs than a smaller development there. And so, it could be a higher percentage for those
smaller spaces, the smaller parking lot, for the first 20 spaces. Then the percentage would
reduce as the number of parking spaces increases. Asks Judi Gladstone if she has a
question?
Judi Gladstone: Asks if the Planning Board's discussion were included in discussions with the stakeholders.
Eric Engmann: States he mentioned it to them. Not the specific standards — because we didn't have a
specific planning board recommendation. But talked to them about the 100 percent.
None of them thought 100 percent would be necessary. Obviously, the builders didn't
think that 100 percent was necessary. The other municipalities that we spoke with, King
County and Issaquah, theirs were lower than 100 percent. Then SWEEP, Southwest Energy
Efficiency Project, their code guidance was lower than 100 percent too.
Judi Gladstone: It does. It would be great, and I don't know if this is the right time for it or not, to hear
what their thinking was around that. Because I think not being necessary and costing too
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
much, for what period are they planning for, for the next five years, the next 10 years or
the next 15 years, is what's going through my mind.
Eric Engmann: Mentions he set up the discussion so that the Board can talk about it at the end and go
through each one of these issues, one by one. The next issue was about accessible EV
standards. Looking at different codes, there's not a set standard. None that are prevalent
across the board. A lot of them have an overall percentage, say five percent overall. But
my problem with that, is that it doesn't really pencil out well. For instance, if you have
five spaces and five percent of those are required to be EV accessible. That would end up
being one accessible space. It just doesn't work well for smaller developments with just
the overall percentage.
So, what I took a look at what other codes have done. I modeled it after what is required
for Washington State for overall EV. Explains his system based on the number of overall
EV spaces.
c
I thought that works a little bit better. I think it fits real world scenarios better and it would
L
be easier for my staff and for the developer to understand. And like I said, it's simplified
a
from the model that Denver had. Theirs was even larger. Theirs was five to 50 as the first
Q
one and then 50 to 100 was the second one. I thought it should be a little bit tighter than
that, especially since we see less parking spaces.
The next one is about load management technology. And this is something that's starting
to become more and more interesting, and more and more people are talking about it in
this field with it. I'm not an expert on this, but basically, the way you can see it is on the
left and the right. So, without load management, the power for each outlet is equal. Each
outlet is dedicated for each individual plug, with the same amount of power. What load
management does, is it allows that to be a smart distribution system for it. So, it splits it
out amongst the outlets for the power. The way that I like to think it is if you go to a gas
station, each one has a separate nozzle to fill up your tank, but it's shared amongst all of
them. So, it's more efficient. It allows for electricity to flow between them as needed and
on a smart timing. But it draws less energy at that peak time. That's what the cons are
with it would be that it would reduce peak charging performance. So, if everyone is
charging at the same time, it'll take a little bit longer. And then what happens too is that
there could be some possible upgrade costs, some extra smart technology that goes into
that. But the way that we have in our code, the way that you'll see it in that draft is now,
it would be an option.
The last one came about after a discussion I had with the Snohomish Power and Utility
District. They raised some concerns about how this could affect the power supply. So,
right now, let's say there's a project on Highway 99, and they are asking for their utilities
to come in. Right now, power, the supply in that area, the amount of power that's
available in can be running low. When that happens, when there's not enough to supply
a development, the development must make the improvement themselves. This has a
large associated cost. So, what the Snohomish Power Utility District suggested having a
code section to reduce some of those requirements when these would be prohibited.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
What they said is, sometimes these could be a seven -figure improvement that is needed
for improvement. I see there's three real options that we could choose from this, and we
could discuss it. Option 1 would be to continue our code with no exceptions. Basically,
just say that's something that they have to figure out when they go through it. Load
management could possibly help with that. Option 2 would be an exception, but without
any threshold. Just allowing for an exception. And then Option 3 would be to allow an
exception but have a minimum threshold in place. That could at least have EV capable,
rather than EV installed or EV ready. So, for instance, if we're talking about multi -family,
we have 70 percent overall EV capability.
Discusses some of the possible options.
m
Judi Gladstone: Asks if the concern differs as to whether or not the requirement would be Level 1 or Level S
M
2. 4-
0
Eric Engmann: That is something we could do. We could also lower it down to be a Level 1 option. Just c
L
remember though, with Level 1, it takes a lot longer to charge but that could be an option a
for minimum thresholds. Q
Finishes the presentation and shows the board the five decisions staff is hoping the Board
can make. Selecting the multi -family EV charging standards. Selecting the non-residential
EV standards. If you are comfortable or have other suggestions for the accessible EV
recommendations, whether we wanna allow for load management technology. And how
we feel about those utility upgrades. Whether we should have an exception or not. And
with that, turnover for discussion.
Mike Rosen: Asks to take the decision points one at a time. Starts with multifamily standards
Eric Engmann: Sure. So again, on the left is what staffs proposing. This is what we felt was a very
progressive standard looking nationally, talking with others. But we thought that's one
we're comfortable with and we think that we could get this approved and get the
development committee behind for the most part. Unfortunately, the two people that
made the recommendations for A and B aren't here, but everyone else can help them
with that. But these were specific recommendations from them. For Component A, 10
percent down to five percent for EV installed. And then Component B, raising the overall
capacity up to 100 percent. They were less specific about how it could break down, but
up to 100 percent is what they prefer.
Mike Rosen: Correct. And part of the logic I believe for multi -family and non-residential was the
argument of, 1.) The cost and putting conduit in the wall doesn't necessarily mean that it
will be used but that is the time to do it and putting conduit in the floor actually, even in
both those categories. So, that's why I think the group felt comfortable about 100 percent
at the time. So, what're people thinking in terms of these two and either staff's proposal,
our previous consensus and/or an alternative?
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
Roger Pence: I have a brief questions about the difference between EV capable and EV ready. The cost
difference, it jumps from $300.00 to $1,300.00 and I'm trying to get a grasp of what is
involved in that because, based on my very limited understanding, EV capable, the
conduit and the wire are in the wall or in the floor and to go from EV capable to EV ready
means pulling that wire out and attaching a dryer socket onto the end of it and mounting
that dryer socket on the place where it's accessible to EVs. Doesn't seem like a jump from
300 to 1,300. Doesn't seem like $1,000.00 worth of work to do that task.
Eric Engmann: That's a great point. These are Denver's calculation numbers and if I were to guess what
it was for was, that the wires aren't' necessarily going to run directly behind the space
itself. Those rooms, especially for larger buildings, could be pretty far away from where
the spaces end up, so it could be the wiring to get from Point A to Point B.
Roger Pence: So, EV capable just means there's a conduit from a panel to somewhere in the parking
ga rage?
Eric Engmann: Basically. There's wiring somewhere behind the walls.
Roger Pence: Okay. But not necessarily to each space.
Eric Engmann: Right.
Roger Pence: Thank you for that clarification.
Mike Rosen: Recognizes Alicia Crank has question or a comment.
Q
Alicia Crank: I have a cost related question as well. I'm presuming that an EV capable could be upgraded
to EV ready if somebody wanted to do that. So, would you happen to know if there's a
certain cost associated with that upgrade. Do we have any idea what that would look like
from a cost perspective?
Eric Engmann: I don't. Generally the discussion goes from that's going from nothing to EV ready. I haven't
seen good numbers on that.
Alicia Crank: When I think about the breakdown best case scenario, people start moving to more EVs
and we're trying to get rid of the traditional cars. So, if the situation was oh, my god. We
need more of these, or we need to upgrade certain ones, what would that look like from
a planning and cost perspective and trying to plot out for future, what those costs would
potentially be.
Eric Engmann: Agrees to take a look at the issue. Talks about the equity of having EV ready spaces so
people won't have to rely on a property or apartment owner to decide to upgrade from
EV capable to EV ready.
Alicia Crank: And that's where I'm thinking too. But I was curious to know if you offhand had any idea.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Recognizes Judi Gladstone.
Judi Gladstone: I like the idea of there being 100 percent EV capable. And that's why when I asked about
the stakeholders, I was wondering when they say they don't think they need it. Well, in
what time period? And what's the life span of the buildings and given that we don't know
how it's going to grow, I think that it would be better. But I still have in my mind here,
does the capable make a difference if it's Level 1 or Level 2 or is capable just to cross the
word? So, it's like you could have a certain percentage of whatever EV capable at 45
percent, could be Level 1. 1 don't know, I just don't know what those combinations could
be. But I would lean more towards, have as much ready as possible for the future because
we need to be planning here for well beyond 10 years.
Mike Rosen: Suggests as a process, that the Board takes each of these columns one at a time. So, staff's 3
proposal for EV ready, looking at the middle first. For EV ready in our discussion, we saw
eye to eye. So, does anyone wanna push back on 40 percent for EV ready? Okay, so I think o
we've got closure on that one. Let's go to EV installed. The staff is actually more aggressive
than us. So, does anybody wanna push back on that? L
Q.
a
Alicia Crank: I prefer staff's recommendation. Q
N
N
Mike Rosen: Anybody wanna push back?
Richard Kuen: Agrees.
Judi Gladstone: What's the difference in the overall cost between the 10 percent and five percent if you
increase the EV capable? If you're doing 10 percent of the EV installed and 20 percent
capable, you obviously have more of the EVs installed, which costs more. Drop that EV
installed to five percent, and you increase the EV capable, then what happens to your
total cost?
Eric Engmann: Great question. So, we did the analysis based on staffs proposals, versus the overall
proposal for the planning board's recommendation and discuss it in the supplemental
narrative. But to begin with, if you start doing smaller developments, it ends up being that
the staff proposal is cheaper. When you start talking about larger developments, 200 or
300 units, planning board's recommendation is cheaper. Planning Board's suggestion
becomes cheaper because those EV installed are so much more expensive.
Mike Rosen: So, Judi it looks like there was starting to build some consensus towards the 10 percent.
Do you wanna push back on that at all?
Judi Gladstone: Well, so only in that, how does that affect the EV capable and the 100 percent? So, looking
at it separately is fine, but I need to understand it in terms of the overall picture. Because
yeah, it would be great to have more EV installed. But the balance of trying to get more
capability within a building, if you need to give somewhere in order to keep the cost
manageable, where does that come from.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: So, let's reserve our right to go back and revisit it after we talk about EV capable and then
see if we have unintended consequence, how's that? So, now let's go to EV capable. Let's
have the conversation in the context of the overall, because I think that forces that
capable number. So, philosophically we say, we're gonna give you the ratios but we want
it to add up to 100 percent, which means you can make it up at the capable, but you have
to have it at 100 percent or are we more comfortable at the 70 percent?
Richard Kuen: I just personally think 70 is a little low. If we're looking at trying to plan out for like Judi
said, whether it's 10 years out, right? To Eric's point, in smaller instances, in smaller
projects, the staff's proposal of keeping the 10 percent EV installed versus five percent EV
installed is gonna be cheaper. I'm much happier with that versus the 70 percent.
Mike Rosen: So, thank you Richard. That impact and I should have said, I guess that is a third alternative
is, we were at 100 percent in consensus at the last meeting. Eric, before we continue this
conversation, I'd personally like to hear from you, what is your one, if not top three,
o
biggest concerns with going to 100 percent? So, why is that a fatal flaw for you?
0
L
Eric Engmann: I wouldn't wanna say that it's a fatal flaw. There are other codes that are 100 percent. I
Q-
a
think there's probably three or four in the country, so it is not uncharted to go to 100
Q
percent for multi -family. I think my main thing is thinking about logically, is there going to
be a point where everyone goes EV? Or is there always going to be with an old classic
muscle car or something that they just won't get rid of. Is it really worth it to make it 100
C
percent?
Mike Rosen: Thanks for that. I guess in my simple mind, by saying capable, we aren't saying that all
cars have to be electric. What we're saying is, any car in that space or that the building
owner or manager could then convert it, but he doesn't have to convert it if there's no
market need. If we're reserving the biggest hunk for only when it's needed. We're just
saying you can if you need to. But that would be my counter to that.
Richard Kuen: I was going to make the exact same point that you just made. I think that having those
capable at a higher percentage and getting us to the 100 or whatever that number is
doesn't mean that just because it's capable doesn't mean that it's installed, right? If
somebody has a diesel pickup that they're still utilizing because they can't get what they
need in an EV vehicle at that time, whether it's four years down the road, seven years
down the road, as for that unit, they can still utilize either that muscle car or that diesel
pickup, whatever it might be.
Mike Rosen: We now have the option of staff's recommendation, the 100 percent option, or
something in the middle. So, after hearing Eric's concerns and sharing of what others in
the country are doing, would somebody like to throw out a number and use that as our
starting place?
Judi Gladstone: I would throw out maybe 85 or 90 percent overall. And either reduce the overall capable
or allow for some or all of it to be a lower level. Because I think that, and I don't know if
you can mix and match, Eric. So, I may be totally out of line here. so, this is my lack of
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
Mike Rosen
Judi Gladstone:
Eric Engmann
knowledge showing through. But while yes, it takes longer to charge on the Level 1, at
least one of the articles you provided I thought was very informative, in terms of how
there is the potential use. That people tend to not drive far, top off. So, they may not
need that much power. And if there are some EV installed places or, yeah. EV places
installed that are higher power, then if they needed to, they could use those. I just think
there's an overall picture here of use that's important to keep in mind.
So, to try to understand that. So, are you suggesting that if they have X of Level 1 or X of
Level 2, that that buys them a reduction in one of the other areas?
Or that it helps to meet the EV capable, if that saves money. Aren't they gonna need to
know if the EV ready is supposed to be at Level 1 or Level 2?
They will, the draft code requires it to be a Level 2 or Level 3 to count for these
percentages. That's what most codes require.
Richard Kuen: I like the idea of being progressive in this whole idea. I understand what Eric said before.
Is there gonna be fluid option in 10 years or X or whatever we're looking to plan for, right?
I think we should always look out further than we think, right? And just because we're
looking at again, overall, 100 percent doesn't mean that all the spaces are going to be
installed at 100 percent. But I like having that number at least at 90 for me. That's my
minimum, personally.
Mike Rosen: At some point we won't need wires for electricity. Alicia, what number are you?
Alicia Crank: I'm in line with Richard.
Mike Rosen: You like the 100?
Alicia Crank: Yeah.
Mike Rosen: Roger?
Roger Pence: Well, I think Judi said 85 to 90, that was taking words right out of my mouth.
Mike Rosen: Well, I'm liking 90.
Alicia Crank: Okay, we can just split the baby and say 90.
Mike Rosen: All right. So, let's take a vote. So, all in favor of using 90 as our recommendation? (all raise
hands) Anybody opposed? (none) So, we have a recommendation. So, how do I feel about
that installed number, does that change my opinion. So, if we were gonna do 40 and 10,
that gets us to 50 which would make capable 40. So, we good with that mix? So, it would
be 40, 40, 10. Richard.
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.a
Richard Kuen: That's exactly what I was thinking when we were looking gat numbers. I mean, I think
that's pretty clean.
Mike Rosen: And not seeing any shaking heads from the members of the board. Eric, are you gonna
lose sleep?
Eric Engmann: No.
Mike Rosen: All right. Let's move to No. 2 of 5.
Eric Engmann: This is one where staff is a little bit stronger feelings about keeping the percentages closer
to our recommendation. The highest standards in the country for non-residential are 50
percent overall capacity. So, if we think about where the country is now, the highest
standards now are at 50 percent. We could go higher, but where do we draw that line? I
think that's where we felt more comfortable with it, at that number.
If we think about all the different uses that're non-residential, there's many, many
different uses, like shopping centers or restaurants. Those will be top off fueling locations.
There are some codes that have tiered standards, usually the smaller properties have
lower standards versus larger properties. It's usually giving breaks to smaller properties,
not make them have higher percentages, as Planning Board suggested. But then, on larger
properties, does 100 percent make sense? We don't feel like it would.
Mike Rosen: Thanks, Eric. Roger, it looks like you've got a comment or a question.
Roger Pence: Yeah. I guess in my mind, I would make a distinction between office parks and similar
places where people come and park all day. They are far more likely to plug in and charge
up than somebody stopping at Ace Hardware for a package of LED bulbs, like I did the
other day. I was in and out in 12,14 minutes. Had I been driving an electric vehicle; I would
not have bothered plugging in for such a short time. And fast-food restaurants. What's
the likelihood of plugging in for the time it takes to go in and buy your Big Mac and eat it
on the bench? I don't know. If I'm missing something here, let me know. I don't drive an
electric vehicle. I look forward to living long enough to do that. But I always assumed that
I would be looking for the longer charge up points, i.e., home and parking for a long visit
at Overlook Mall or a movie theater and not for the incidental stops that people make at
many, if not most of our retail establishments.
Mike Rosen: I had a comment and a question, then Judi. My comment on that Roger is, I think one of
the concerns that Eric expressed in terms of doing it by tenant is, that tenants change. So,
what might be an office building, might become a retail building, might become another
use and you can't always count on what the building use is. Foreseeing a case on what it
was may not necessarily apply to the future. The other argument I might make to the
thought process and it's more just a test of the concept is, you have employees who are
there for a long period of time. So, the client base might turn over, but the net number of
people actually using the chargers might be the same based on that. So, I'm not sure if —
Q
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 16
2.A.a
Roger Pence: Good point, good point.
Mike Rosen: Judi?
Judi Gladstone: Yeah. So, I support staff's proposal because I think especially with the recommendation
for the multi -family to be at 90 percent and that, from what I've read, really is the primary
place where people tend to charge. It just seems as though there should be emphasis on
the dwelling units and not so much on the business units. So, I would support staff's
proposal.
Mike Rosen: So, using that as our starting place, let me as one question first before we go to that, and
it would be the idea of splitting based on number of spaces. Asks for additional feedback.
(Board agrees to the non-residential standard)
c
Eric Engmann: Mentions non-residential businesses will be a good place for people to charge their EVs
o
when there are no chargers where they live.
0
L
Mike Rosen: I did hear of a study not too long ago that in retail establishments that did install chargers,
Q-
a
that people in fact, as a result of that, specifically stayed and spent mor money. So, the
Q
retailers were in fact using it as a revenue generator. And because of the cost of EV cars,
it was a very desirable market segment.
Roger Pence: I was talking with the owner of a Tesla Model 3, and he lives here in Edmonds in a place
with no charging at home. But his employer provides free electricity for charging at work.
So, he's not paid a dime for power to run his car. So, yeah. I would think that a lot of
employers may be offering things like that as an incentive or a benefit for their employees.
Judi Gladstone: Yeah, to follow on that, it seems to be, or we don't know yet how the private sector is
gonna jump into this market and that could really be a game changer.
Eric Engmann: (Briefly highlights the accessible standards proposed)
Mike Rosen: A question that popped into my head and there should be any math involved. But in terms
of ADA requirements, spaces to total spaces. It would seem to me that a similar ratio
would make sense. Whatever those numbers are. So, I like your thought about making a
number and not a percentage. Suggests that our standards reflect a similar commitment,
if that makes sense.
Eric Engmann: It does make sense.
Richard Kuen: If you have X number of parking spots and Y number of parking spots needs to be ADA
accessible. And then we're saying okay, well five to 25, you need to have one of those be
EV accessible. That EV accessible does not take away from having an actual regular ADA
accessible unit, correct?
Eric Engmann: Correct, that's absolutely right.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 17
2.A.a
Mike Rosen: So, we aren't saying, of your 88 spaces, this is how many have to be electrified. You're
saying you have to add spaces?
Eric Engmann: No, let's say for instance it's 100 parking spaces. Under the Washington rules, let's just
say it's about four ADA spaces, a certain percentage of those that were required to be
accessible spaces, have power to them for this.
Mike Rosen: So, that's different than what Richard just described because he was describing that we
would require an additional space that would then have power. And what you're saying
is, one of those spaces must have power.
Richard Kuen: That's what I'm saying is, we're taking away, with my understanding of what you just said,
m
Eric is, we're taking away from one of those ADA spaces because ADA non-EV vehicle, we
have a Toyota Sienna minivan, right? It's not a plug in EV vehicle, so we couldn't park in
c
one of those EV ADA accessible spaces. That's why I was asking that question. So, the last
thing I wanna do is take away a regular ADA space, because a lot of EV vehicles are not
L
gonna be necessarily ADA ready. Or available. I mean, that's not always gonna be true.
Q-
a
Q
Eric Engmann: We will want to keep those spaces available. I would think we would keep those spaces
available for ADA, whether they're charging or not. So, that it wouldn't be just restricted
to ADA spaces that are charging.
Mike Rosen: Does that have to be explicit? Because there isn't current protocols, right? So, cars that
take less to charge don't get to cut in line for cars that take longer. There is no protocol
like that. So, as long as it's protocol or kindness would say, use that space last.
Judi Gladstone: Right.
Eric Engmann: These ratios, this topic, is not something that's covered well in most codes. So, that topic
you just brought up, Richard, is not something that's generally talked about. It's generally
just percentage of spaces that need to be set aside for this.
Judi Gladstone: So, I think part of my questions were answered, that these are in addition to, I'm not sure
we know for sure, but they're in addition to the already ADA. But I wanted to go back to
the proportion of ADA. So, if you have four EV installed requirements for ADA, how many
other — what's the ratio that's required just for regular ADA for that same number of
parking spaces?
Eric Engmann: I'm pretty sure it's similar to the table above. For the next meeting, I'll have a little bit
more topic on this. I'm hearing we need a little more information on this.
Judi Gladstone: I think that would be helpful.
Mike Rosen: So, Eric, the public hearing will be in front of us or council?
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 18
2.A.a
Eric Engmann: Here, in front of you all.
Mike Rosen: So, another option that we would have as well is, because we're gonna then get another
shot at this after the public hearing. So, what we could do is say, let's put it in like this for
the purposes of the public hearing with an asterisk that we wanna revisit, reserve the
right to change our minds afterwards based on Eric's study, as opposed to necessarily
continuing to push this back. Would that be acceptable? Judi, would you be okay with
that? I know you were looking for more clarity.
Judi Gladstone: Yeah, being I don't really know how that process works. So, as long as it's really clear that
we're still unsettled on it and looking for input on it, I think I would be comfortable with
that.
m
Mike Rosen: All right. So, I guess the request is that you do that research so we're comfortable with
the ratios and the impact. Also, as your conversation with Richard was going, with one c
potential alternative to clarifying how that space can be used if it's not an electric, so we
aren't taking away. Okay. L
Q.
a
Eric Engmann: The benefit is, we might be setting the tone for a lot of other cities on this issue. Q
N
N
Mike Rosen: And again, thank you very much for being bold and helping Edmonds go where everybody
c
else who's done this should have gone before us. All right. So, now No. 4 of 5.
Eric Engmann: This would allow the option of load management technology. It allows a builder to work
with it, to see what works best for them, what works best for the power supply. And
possibly finding efficiencies for this. Up to this current draft, it was silent on it. Whereas,
what we've talked about is just having a simple statement saying it's a possibility to look
at. And that's our current proposal
Mike Rosen: Thanks. Does anybody have any pushback to his recommendation? (no comments)
Sounds like you convinced us. So, we'll go with your recommendation.
Eric Engmann: This results from a talk with people on the technical side from Snohomish County Power
Utility District. What they're saying is that there could be some situations where the extra
power draw could lead to a bigger power box on the property, essentially. And that could
cost a lot of money. They're asking for an exception for us to look at each one of those
cases and, if it looks like it's going to cost a lot of money for that extra increase in power
on the property, that we could then lower some of the standards. I'm not a power person,
so I don't quite get it 100 percent, as far as the technology behind it. But I know how we
could craft it in the code.
I always like to think about are scenarios. Let's say there's a new 100-unit project
proposed on Highway 99. They've asked for a certain amount of power, they're ready to
follow our recommendation s for our EV charging requirements. They go to Snohomish
PUD, and they say oh, there's not enough power available to you on this property. Here's
how much it's gonna cost you to upgrade and have enough power to your property. It
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 19
2.A.a
could be a seven -figure number. That's where they would like to have some exception
that says, in those instances, when that happens, that we could reduce some of our
thresholds that we just created to lower that impact.
Mike Rosen: Let's talk about it conceptually first. Roger.
Roger Pence: That seven figure cost that you mentioned, is that paid for by the developer or is that paid
for by PUD?
Eric Engmann: It's paid for by the developer. They have to pay for those upgrades.
Roger Pence: Because I don't know power either, even though I grew up in a public power home. But it
seems to me that PUD is in the business to supplying electric power to the customers who
need it. And it's going to grow in that corridor over time anyway, regardless of how we
tweak the code for EVs in the future. We're coming down, we're beginning to come down
c
as a society on natural gas as a heating source. That means more electric power over time.
It just grates on my sensibilities I guess to hear suggestions that PUD wants to dial back
L
on the coming supply of power in a corridor where they ought to know, it's going to grow.
Q-
a
Q
Mike Rosen: I would echo Roger's concerns. I have a hard time, I have never heard a situation where
they came to us and said yeah, we don't want Edmonds to allow anymore car dealerships
c
because all that lighting is gonna, right? Cost too much to bring in a car dealer, or a bakery
or a restaurant. There are lots of industries that suck a lot of power. And I guess, yeah. T.-
So, I'm having a real hard time understanding — go ahead. N
Eric Engmann: I think the difference is the increased impact. So, they have enough supply for what's
there, but it's almost a concurrency use. You are now adding another 100 units to the grid
that a developer is creating. Like with roads, they have certain capacities and if certain
developments go beyond that, then they have to pay for what impacts they have on them.
I think that's where it comes from.
Judi Gladstone: As a utility person, now I'm not power but water and sewer. It's pretty standard in the
utility world that the developers pay for improvements that are required above and
beyond what is there, even on waterlines if the line has to be enlarged, it goes to the
developer. And it's standard utility practice. I know it sounds really awful, but that being
said, it sounds like this has to do with the specific development, not their overall
infrastructure coming to that development, am I right?
Eric Engmann: Right, it would be the power coming on to their property.
Judi Gladstone: Now, I will say that I have heard of jurisdictions, cities, that on water and sewer side, I
don't know about on the water side. That have provided some local subsidy where that
occurs, as a way to incentivize it. So, that I do believe is probably an option on power, as
it has been done with water, that I'm aware of. But it would be really unusual for the —
because what you're doing then, is you're spreading the cost to all the other non -users if
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 16
Packet Pg. 20
2.A.a
you have the public utility district pick up that cost. And they aren't supposed to be there
now.
Mike Rosen: Richard, Alicia. We haven't heard from either of you.
Alicia Crank: I'm interested in the write up that Eric will do on this then give my opinion on it during
public hearing.
Richard Kuen: I tend to agree with what Alicia said. I'd like to see a little more info.
Mike Rosen: So, what would we put in front of people for the public hearing?
Eric Engmann: If you'd like, I can put together one that includes the minimum threshold options. It's
easier to put everything and then you can take away portions of it. My last question to
them was, how would we know how much of the power is coming from the EV charging o
itself. Is it two percent, is it five percent? Is this what puts them over that threshold?
0
L
Mike Rosen: That was a great question because if it was basically dirt to start with. Q-
a
Q
Richard Kuen: And that was my question too. If they're building a 100-unit, 200-unit place, how do we
know that's not getting them over the threshold to where they need? I don't like the idea
c
of a developer being able to skirt something they would have to be paying for anyways.
Roger Pence: We need to know the increment for the EVs that puts them over the threshold that
requires the more expensive box and that may be a very hard test to actually make in
reality.
Judi Gladstone: So, I feel like we need more information. Because I have some concerns that we start
having an impact on affordable housing. And that's a real concern. So, if you have a
potential building on Highway 99 that could produce some good multi -family affordable
housing and it puts it into this million dollar change in power, is that enough to put it over
the edge so it's oh, never mind.
Mike Rosen: So, I guess so that Eric is — I'd like for everybody to have the information they need to
make a decision. So, if you could be really specific, that this is an actionable question.
Judi Gladstone: I think we need to have information that's more solid about what the potential cost is to
the developer, first of all. I realize there could be a range and a range, but it may also have
to do with the size of the building that I think is important. Second is, what minimum
thresholds could there be and are there ways to mitigate that so that we're allowing other
opportunities for similar housing going in. Those are the ones that come to my mind
immediately.
Alicia Crank: I would just say, I'm looking for if then for each of those options. Just to have more
information going into the public hearing, also leaving room for those that might be at
the public hearing to then add something additional to that. So, I just wanna make sure
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 21
2.A.a
that there's some tangible examples to be able to discuss and look at side to side, to
prepare us to make final recommendations to council.
Richard Kuen: There's gonna be a lot of variables. I mean, I'm just thinking about this right now and the
variable I'm writing down are the size of the project like we talked about. The effect of
the size of the project, versus the effect of the EV part of the project, or what the code is
saying.
Alicia Crank: I was gonna say, we know we can't plot out every if then, but just ones that can be looked
at side to side and give people an idea of what the other one's could potentially look like.
Judi Gladstone: One other piece of information, if you can get it Eric from the PUD and that is, what
planning are the PUDs doing in the areas where they're likely to have the development.
Particular I'm thinking about Highway 99 where they've identified that as a problem. And S
as a result of redevelopment or are they already planning for the power supply that needs c
to be there? I personally need a little bit more from them about what it is that would be
needed to understand that. c
L
Q
Q
Mike Rosen: So, Eric. Do you have any concerns over any of those specific requests? Q
Eric Engmann: I think they all seem reasonable. Some might be a little bit harder to get than others, but
I will try my best.
Mike Rosen: And just looking for consensus that we are okay making that a part of the presentation
for the hearing that we are not asking that to come back to us first. Is everyone good with
that?
Richard Kuen: Yes.
Mike Rosen: Great. All right, I think you got five out of five.
Eric Engmann: I do. Thank you for the thoughts.
Mike Rosen: Thanks very much, Eric. Well, done. So, we now move to the other unfinished business,
which was furthering our discussion about outreach. So, at the last meeting we had a
robust discussion from the first draft that was offered to the crown. And then I sent out
through Rob and Eric a redraft which hopefully reflected everybody's comments. We have
requested that any comments you have be sent in, that those did not get sent back out.
I'm not sure Eric, did we not receive any written comments?
Eric Engmann: I don't think I received them. So, I'm not sure about that.
Mike Rosen: Did anybody send any in, because then I will apologize. All right. So then based on that,
we'll just talk in real time. Hopefully you reviewed the draft, and I will now ask for
concerns as to that, that you would like to see. If any.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 18
Packet Pg. 22
2.A.a
Judi Gladstone: I have a question since I wasn't here forthe original discussion. I guess I wasn't clear about
the tiers.
Mike Rosen: At the last meeting, we had thrown out, here are our tools, right? Here's the toolbox.
What we didn't say was, not all outreach — we didn't recognize that not all outreach is
equal. That there are certain subjects, like what will take place with housing maybe or
with trees, that affect a huge population, right? Perhaps or are just, we know of a bigger
interest or just the sophistication of getting it in the process requires a much heavier lift
than some hearing which don't necessarily require 22 newsletters, five hearings and that
kind of thing.
So, the suggestion was made, and Eric reinforced in his experience, that what we try to
do is put it in tiers so as people are doing planning, the can say okay, here are the tools �'
p p p g p g. Y Y Y. �
that make sense for this lift. And there are the tools that make sense for this lift. And then
it would be progressive. o
Judi Gladstone: And how do you determine which things are in Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 or is that completely L
a subjective decision by whoever has the lead on the issue? a
Q
Mike Rosen: And Eric, do you wanna just give an anecdotal on how you guys dealt with that?
Eric Engmann: Sure. So, a lot of it is experience. Anything with trees, that's automatically gonna be the
hot button. The ones that you need to have as many touchpoints and conversation as
possible. And that over time, you also have a feeling for which ones don't need more than
basic outreach. So, it's definitely down to the level of us taking a look at it and using our
experience to assess that is typically what would happen.
Alicia Crank: I guess I will say to piggyback off that, I would caution us as a body to dictate strongly
what certain levels should be and professionals that we have on staff should be doing. I
would just caution us to be careful not to greatly overstep, but to offer our input and
suggestions without it coming off as, this is what it should be, and this is what we're
expecting it to be. And I think we can cross that line rather easily if we're not careful.
Mike Rosen: So, to try to make that actionable from the two of you, because I agree with you. 1.) 1
think big qualifier to all of this, we don't have the power to implement any of this. We are
sending the recommendation, right?
Alicia Crank: Right.
Mike Rosen: But for that, under six where we introduce the concept of tier, maybe we should explicitly
say that tiers will be explicitly determined by staff based on their experience, history and
budget available. Does that make sense? All right, thanks guys. Any other thoughts on the
document? Okay, so I think what we will do, I will make that addition and then, I will send
it to council and staff as a formal, this is from us to you. As a recommendation, both in
terms of, we offer it as a starting place for boards like ours and the council to use. In
developing plan and outreach strategies for the future. So, is everybody good with that
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 19
Packet Pg. 23
2.A.a
as a concept document? I don't know that I need a vote for that. Actually, let's take a vote
to do that then in the minutes, it says, we have consensus, that that's what we're going
to do. So, all in favor of doing what I just said?
Roger Pence: Could you repeat what we're voting on?
Mike Rosen: We're voting on this document is adopted with the amendment as described and will be
sent to the council as a formal recommendation from the planning board as a template
for use by boards such as ours and the council.
Roger Pence: Okay, thank you.
Mike Rosen: Any thoughts on amending that tone or that message, Roger?
c
Roger Pence: No, I guess I was a little uncertain. Alicia made the point about deferring to staff on certain o
elements. I could see deferring to staff on which tier a given issue belongs in. I would like
for the planning board at some point to opine on the contents of each of those tiers. Out L
of the large menu presented. I would like us to arrive at a working consensus at some a
point on what elements ought to be included in each of the tiers. Q
Mike Rosen: That was the point of today.
Judi Gladstone: So, am I understanding correctly though that what this is, is here's the toolbox that's
available. It's not necessarily that all of these would be employed in that tier and we're
leaving it to staff to determine which ones to employ at that tier.
Mike Rosen: I think what we're doing is saying, this needs to be improved. We need to step into current
best practices and our recommendation is a starting place is this, we don't have the
authority to create policy for the city. So, if you agree with this, this is a starting place.
Feel free to adopt it and/or amend it or ignore it. But we're sending it as our
recommendation for their action.
Alicia Crank: I just don't want our recommendation to come off too heavy handed, so that it could
potentially shut it down before it gains any ground. And if it's received well and it starts
to be put into place, I think we'll be totally open to going back an adding additional or
making suggestions on top of that.
Mike Rosen: Alicia, I think that's wise council and what I will do is, not only reflect that, try to reflect
that in the tone. So, now let's take the vote with everything I said before, plus that
amendment. All in favor? (all agree)
Mike Rosen: Thanks, guys. All right. So now, I think we move to new business, is that correct? And Eric,
you are going to provide us an update or a briefing on the code amendment webpage.
Eric Engmann: Just wanted to give you information at where we're looking at going with it and give a
chance to weigh in. So, this is the code amendment page for the City of Bellevue.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 20
Packet Pg. 24
2.A.a
It gives a centralized webpage where anyone can find out what's going on as far as code
amendments. Learn a little bit more about the amendments, where they are in the
process, and how to get involved.
Discusses the components.
Roger Pence: I guess when I think about the code and what needs to be done, I tend to think more of a
code rewrite, as opposed to an issue -by -issue amendment process. Do you make a
distinction like that or is the amendment process the only way to go to get where we need
to be?
Eric Engmann: I think those are semantics with how we call it. I've seen them be called code
amendments. When I hear rewrite, I hear it's a rewrite of the code itself, rather than an
amendment to the code. Each one is a little bit different. 4-
0
Roger Pence: But certain chapters might end up being a rewrite? 0
0.
a
Eric Engmann: The usual term is called, amendment. But if there's something else that you want me to Q
add to it, we could always try to do that.
Roger Pence: I like what I see here, especially they're very specific and easily found contact information
and the mailing list. That should be standard practice for every city project.
Mike Rosen: Thank you, Roger. Alicia and then Judi.
Alicia Crank: I was gonna say, I do like how clean it is. I love a clean web page. I think that I always try
to look at these things from a layman term. As opposed to those who are deep seeded
into planning and code and stuff. I would hope that this is more of a Phase 1 of being able
to get something like this done and this will organically grow and amend itself once you
get the first iteration of this deployed and successful and working out the bugs. So, that's
one thing I just wanna leave with the rest of the group is that it doesn't necessarily have
to be the end all from the start.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Alicia, Judi and then I'll Eric if he wouldn't mind asking a question that Natalie had
offered as well.
Judi Gladstone: So, I like what Alicia had to say in terms of it being clean, trying to keep it simple. And she
was talking about that, one of the comments that I was gonna have is that amendment is
a bureaucratic term. So, instead of code amendments, maybe code changes. The other
thing, and I don't know if this fits or not and if it's even doable. But having a sense of when
things are coming up, like a calendar that's easy to be right there so you don't have to
click four layers in to figure out what's coming up on time.
Because people really tend to gauge their engagement by what's more immediate. And if
there is a way to pictorially show what code amendments are coming up when, with a
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 21
Packet Pg. 25
2.A.a
little calendar or something, that would be great. Otherwise, I like the way your direction
is going.
Mike Rosen: Thank you, Judi. Eric, if you wouldn't mind addressing the one question.
Eric Engmann: Seattle calls theirs, changes to code. I could definitely make that change, that is not a
problem. The other suggestion with is a little bit more difficult. Smaller city, smaller staff.
I have to do this, and I don't have that technical prowess. Maybe like Alicia was saying, as
this grows and as this changes, we can find out what works and what changes.
Mike Rosen: Thanks. Can you, the question from Natalie, is there a language toggle on the website?
Eric Engmann: That's a good question. I don't know if Edmonds does that, but I can find that out.
c
Mike Rosen: I would add that to something we would encourage. And I had a question on, at any given o
time, what do you anticipate the number of amendments being changed in process would
be? How many of those would be going on? L
Q.
a
Eric Engmann: It's hard to say. It really depends. Q
Mike Rosen: So, I was thinking, just there might be enough real estate to not have a drop -down menu
if the longest that list would ever be is six. And then, to Judi's point too, one of the
recommendations we made in our outreach strategy is, that we'd be publishing calendars,
not just doing the notices that we do, but there is maybe a weekly listing in the media
that we have available, certainly on the website, so that people understand that we raised
the real estate or the importance of the public engagement process. So, the website is
filled with lots and lots of stuff.
What I think we're suggesting is what might take under a bigger part of the spotlight is,
here's where we need you. That this is all about you and we want your input. And here
are the subjects and here are the opportunities and then that should not just for code
amendments, but the business of the city. Because we've seen what happens when we
don't do that, and it hurts. Richard, you've had your hand up for a while.
Richard Kuen: Oh, yeah. No, just to answer Natalie's question. On the City of Edmonds website, if you
scroll all the way down, on the bottom right-hand side, there's a little link that says
language. If you click on that, you can go through many, many different languages and it'll
change the website to that language.
Mike Rosen: Thanks, Richard. Anything else on this subject? I think you heard from us that, yes please.
Well, done.
Eric Engmann: Thank you. I'll make some of those changes, thank you.
Mike Rosen: Thank you. So, I think that now brings us to the extended agenda. Just a reminder to
ignore your meeting maker for next week. Our next week meeting is scheduled the 81n
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 22
Packet Pg. 26
2.A.a
and in the interest of understanding that we wanna have this hearing, I'm assuming that
we have given the appropriate amount of advanced notice for that?
Eric Engmann: Correct.
Mike Rosen: Okay, great. So, does anybody have any questions or concerns about knowing that this is
a work in progress and does change.
Roger Pence: I'm gonna be out of town on the 8th but I should be able to plug in and join the Zoom.
Alicia Crank: I would say, from an airport commission standpoint, we are moving forward a lot faster
than I though we would on the airport master planning. From watching last night's council
meeting, I have a feeling we're gonna be dealing with more tree code stuff coming back
to us in the near future and probably more than we anticipated. So, as we plan out our
agendas going forward, just keep that in mind and make sure you leave some room to
0
address those things as they come about.
0
L
Judi Gladstone: I'm sorry that I had to miss the last two meetings.
Q-
a
Q
Richard Kuen: One thing and I don't know how this would be, but Natalie's comment on the language
thing, I think that's a really important deal and if it could be more prominent, up on the
top right-hand side of the webpage
Mike Rosen: Thanks, Richard. I just wanna thank you all again for the amount of time and passion and
smarts that you bring to this. The community is better for it. So, thank you all and I will
call the meeting adjourned at 8:59. See you next time.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 25, 2021 Page 23
Packet Pg. 27
2.A.b
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
September 8, 2021
N
N
r
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES c
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the a
Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We a
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with
the land and water. N
as
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuen
Roger Pence
Todd Cloutier
Matt Cheung
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Engmann, Planning Division
Mike Rosen: Calls the Planning Board meeting to order. Asks Judi to read the land acknowledgement.
Judi Gladstone: Reads the Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to do the roll call.
Eric Engmann: Does roll call.
Mike Rosen: Nathan Monroe is an excused absence today. Announces the agenda.
Packet Pg. 28
2.A.b
Eric Engmann
Mike Rosen:
Eric Engmann
Mike Rosen:
Eric Engmann
Mike Rosen:
Eric Engmann
Asks to amend the agenda. Under unfinished business, asks to take the Code webpage off
the agenda. States it isn't quite ready yet.
Asks about changing the agenda to remove titles without items.
Asks to hold off on that for one more meeting.
Asks if Eric Engmann will now be the official staff liaison.
States that there hasn't been anything decided yet.
Opens audience comments. Asks if there is anyone in attendance.
States Natalie Seitz is wishes to speak.
Natalie Seitz: I'm commenting tonight on the city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on
private property. Beth Chatto coined the term, "right plant, right place" in the 1980s.
This was a revolutionary concept that gardeners should match the plant to the conditions
they found and not the reverse. The City of Edmonds has adopted a version of this
concept with "right tree, right place" in the 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan. This
concept is a foundational guiding principle of the plan identified as its own goal and
section.
The plan recognizes that "right tree, right place" is a shared value among residents. Tree
planting requires careful consideration of view, space, climate, soil, infrastructure, and
property. Native trees may not be appropriate for the urban environment. And a tree
once planted may no longer be in the right place overtime.
All of these values go way with the unsupported adoption of a maintenance regulation
and retention requirement. Regulations forcing some property owners to find space for
"any tree, any place, "and bear the ongoing cost whenever a tree is no longer in the right
place for the use and enjoyment of property.
Maintenance regulations also have a deleterious effect on the abatement of hazard trees
because city arborists, whose core function is to maintain canopy cover, often obscure
the rights of property owners to remove a hazard tree in order to trigger retention
requirements that are common under maintenance standards.
I believe that maintenance regulations do not work because they disincentivize trees by
subjecting property owners to oversight fees and permits for undertaking a
noncommercial activity that benefits the community; create a negative relationship
between property owners, the city, and trees; but will serve to warn people off from
planting trees, especially large tree species.
Maintenance regulations do not recognize the reasons why property owners choose tree
removal as the right action. Trees that are planted in haste are not maintained and
a
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 29
2.A.b
therefore do not persist in the urban environment and in the City of Edmonds are
fundamentally inequitable placing the cost and penalties for trees on communities
outside the bowl. And when the city yields to the concerns to not cite growth in the bowl
and keep Edmonds, Edmonds, all you will be doing is quite literally harvesting wealth from
communities that are already underserved by the city.
I continue to ask the city to seek partnership with tree property owners. It is only through
that partnership, not penalties, that the private urban forest will thrive. Do not throw
away "right tree, right place" guiding principle of the Urban Forest Management Plan.
Use a normal planning process, i.e., the planning board, and undertake the public
engagement necessary to determine if a changing course is supported.
N
N
r
The city should, at a minimum, strive to do no harm. So, don't do this in secret. The city
can absolutely harm the existing and regeneration of the private urban forest by M
undertaking further emergency actions much more so than doing nothing. Thank you for o
your time and consideration of these comments. >
0
L
0-
Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anyone else in attendance. (no one else) Opens the Public hearing. a
a
Eric Engmann: Goes over the pubic hearing agenda: review the reasons for the amendment, the
U)
proposed code amendment itself, finalize the remaining standards, and then decide if it's c
ready for transmittal to city council. E
Reiterates the feedback from several different organizations, developers, builders, people
in the industry, people that are working with EV charging itself.
Reviews the reasons for the amendment and how it ties into the city's major sustainability
goals. Especially the city's goal to be climate neutral by 2050. Talks about the greenhouse
gas emissions, and how the transportation sector is the largest sector contributor. Shows
the current and future goals for the number of EVs in the City. Mentions how
manufacturers are switching to EV production. Also discusses the major reluctance for
people to switch to EVs: the fear of not having places to charge their vehicles.
Then discusses the main components of the code:
• the staging types: capable ready, installed.
• the different charging levels: I, II, or III?
• appropriate ratios for single family, multi -family, and non-residential.
Mentions the prior topics of discussions:
• pros and cons of each staging type
• cost estimates
• definitions
• applicability (50% rule)
• proposed standards for multifamily and non-residential
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 30
2.A.b
Discusses the two remaining issues. The first one is about the accessible EV standardsThis
is one that's been really tough because we want everyone to have access to these
chargers regardless of your ability.
Discusses the three options. The first one is having a standard space based on the number
of EV spaces. The second one would be to have a percentage of all ADA spaces be EV.
The third one is kind of a two -fold one. It's either requiring a minimum of one orjust not
specifying it at all.
The first option would be based on a set standard. It's proportionate of the EV ready and
EV installed spaces.
N
N
r
The second one is just a simple percentage. So, we could pick what percentage that could
be, but it's also easier to understand.
0
The third one, there's two ways of doing this. The first one is that we would require a >
minimum of one EV ready or EV installed space. Just set the bottom standard for it so a
that it can go up above that and allow really other codes to dictate how much of that goes C
into place. But having at least one would ensure that at least one space would be EV
ready or EV installed. as
The other option is to not put it in the code at all. It allows our state building code council
to take the lead on this topic. There are things that have to do with national standards,
building code standards. It's almost something that's above what our code typically
handles. So, if we don't put it in there, it would still be covered because the state requires
a certain percentage of them to be EV charging. This topic isn't covered in all zoning codes.
Then shows the City's table for required ADA spaces for regular (non-EV) parking spaces.
Then provides a large and small development example for multifamily and non-residential
development. Shows how many EV accessible spaces would be required, for each option,
in these scenarios.
After going back and forth, staff is leaning towards that third option. There's so many
national codes and national standards that it's difficult for us to put our extra standards
on top of that.
The next item is for utility upgrades. Last time we talked about it, there were concerns
raised by Snohomish County PUD, our utility district. They talked about how utility
upgrades can be very expensive, and it depends on the power level available in that area.
And they mention that Highway 99 is an area of concern.
So, they suggested an exception to reduce the requirements when cost upgrades would
be prohibitive.
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 31
2.A.b
Shows and explains graph of how power gets from power station to individual properties.
Mentions, if there would be a problem, it would be at the point of the distribution
substation or the transformers. Another scenario for an issue is a house at the end of a
cul-de-sac. Let's say the power source serves 10 of those homes on that cul-de-sac and
it's right about near its limit. Potentially, when someone is doing renovations and needing
that extra power for their EV ready station, it could potentially make them have to
upgrade that transformer. So, a lot of it is hypothetical, but it could be an issue. And it
could be something in the end that could be very expensive.
Mentions the options:
• No exception in code,
• An exception with some minimum thresholds in place, r
• Or have an exception in there with no thresholds in place. c
If we decide to not put this exception in, we would ensure that our adopted standards are C
met in all cases. We would ensure that there is maximum potential to reduce greenhouse >
gases. It's consistent standards across the board, so it's equitable. The con of that is it a
doesn't account for all real -world scenarios that we talked about. It could lead to a a
development project being abandoned including affordable housing.
Another option is an exception with minimum thresholds. We can have an exception,
where the director could reduce the requirements when certain circumstances are in
place and there is evidence of an added electrical load.
So, they'd have to prove to us the electrical loading issue and it can be attributed to
meeting the EV requirements. And it significantly alters local infrastructure design. For
minimums, they could reduce the type of EV charging infrastructure, EV ready or EV
installed down to EV capable. They could also reduce that charging level, Level II or III
down to a Level I. But we would say that they cannot reduce the overall number of EV
spaces.
Provides an example in the presentation.
The other option would be to not have minimum thresholds. They'd still have to prove
to us that it's an issue, but we would let them change the EV station type, the EV charging
level, or the overall number of spaces.
Staff prefers option 2, where we would have those minimum thresholds in place
Ends by highlighting the four decisions needed by the Board.
• Accessible EV Recommendatinos
• Exceptions for Electrical Loading
• Reviewing the overall code amendment
• Possible transmittal to City Council
Mike Rosen: Opens the public hearing for anybody who wishes to address us.
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 32
2.A.b
Eric Engmann
Natalie Seitz
States Natalie Seitz wishes to speak.
I'm basing my comments based on what I've been hearing at times on the planning board.
I haven't had the opportunity to read the code as proposed, but there were some points
that I wanted to make.
So, first, we recently personally undertook some electrical work on our house. And as
part of that work, we changed out an existing 220 plug for one that could accommodate
an EV. I learned that there are about six different types of 220 plugs.
I bring this up say that I hope that the regulations have an exception for properties that
have an existing 220 plug for me to do a separate upgrade for EV since changing out a
plug would be relatively cheap. It's less than $500. And it could preclude an existing use.
And the change to EV could be undertaken at a later date when an EV car is purchased.
Switches apparently are now getting so that they can accommodate multiple uses. So, it
maybe a little bit later that would be available. So, I wanna make that point.
I was unable to stay for the discussion about SR-99 and the limitations of the electric
system last meeting. I hope that instead of creating exceptions so that businesses don't
have to pay for upgrades to the electric system, the city considers partnerships to help
alleviate the costs so that the fundamental electric system upgrades do occur. The city
has long helped downtown businesses pay for things like hanging baskets and other
events to boost those businesses.
The city can use this as a way to pay for rather retroactively for the lack of city investment
in the SR-99 businesses for the past 60 years since this area was incorporated. I think that
the future will certainly include subscription electric car and bike services, especially for
low-income residents, ensuring that the SR-99 corridor commercial areas and commercial
areas throughout the city have the capabilities to meet this need is vital and should be
prioritized by the city.
With regard to what was presented tonight, just in listening to it with option one and the
potential for it to be prohibitive to low-income housing, I think my gut reaction to that is
that I'd really appreciate the city and planning board to imagine siting low-income in
someplace other than the SR-99 corridor.
I've commented about park resources and investment in this area, and they keep siting
more and more people here. And I'm happy for it if it comes with the city investment,
but itjust doesn't seem to. So, I really think that the investment needs to start happening
from the city.
Because I feel that vehicle subscription services are going to be part of our future, I do not
think that every single low square footage residents would have to be low square footage.
Retrofit needs to be EV capable. The question is not whether people will have an old
classic car. It's whether people will have a car. Low square footage dwelling units that
N
m
r
c
0
0
a
a
a
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 33
2.A.b
do not provide parking or car accessible garages or driveways should be consider for an
exception or a lower requirement.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie. Asks if there is anyone else.
Eric Engmann: States there are none.
Mike Rosen: Closes the public hearing. Asks to address the request in the order they were presented.
So, taking the accessible question first. And, again, we were provided three options. And
staff is recommending option three. Anybody wish to jump in?
Todd Cloutier: I'd just like to say that I concur with the staff that option three seems to make the most r
sense. And we do the same thing with a lot of our options to try to make sure we're
consistent with the communities around us.
0
Judi Gladstone: Actually, I think that option three does make sense to me. But I do have two questions >
for you, Eric. 1.) Is there a state code that covers EV charging in general? And then my a
second question — I think you said it, but I need clarification — are the ADA requirements C
a subset of the overall or in addition to?
Eric Engmann: So, for the first part of that, yes. A couple years ago, the state put in regulations for basic
EV charging requirements. They put it into the building code. So, they've been updating
it since then, but there are minimum standards in the building code itself for EV charging.
Judi Gladstone: So, did you send those to us? And I'm not remembering it?
Eric Engmann: We did talk about it early on, one of the first meetings. It talked about that it's 10 percent
of the overall spaces, but it's a very broad, not a well-defined term in my opinion. So,
we're going above and beyond that standard. And it doesn't cover single family. For the
second part of that with the ADA, it would normally be a space above. When people do
parking standards for these, it's typically a separate standard for ADA spaces.
Mike Rosen: So, we have a couple people suggesting that they concur with staff with option No. 3
Does anybody wanna push back on that?
Eric Engmann: Mentions option three is almost like an A or a B. It's either a minimum of one or just
taking an out altogether.
Alicia Crank: If I have to weigh in on one, I would say do not specify. And I'm leaning on that because
I think my overall thought about this whole thing is that I would like this to be somewhat
of a living document that can be updated and upgraded because it's such kind of a newish
area. And I wouldn't want us to put ourselves in a position to have something super
hardcoded in that we couldn't make that adjustment and almost to the point that you
made about the different areas when you might run into something unforeseen that
might require some type of adjustment if it's hardcoded in. So, that's really my mindset
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 34
2.A.b
around option three and do not specify. It will probably inform any other opinions on the
other three as well.
Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Judi, it looked like you might've been ready to say something.
Judi Gladstone: Well, I was actually going to go and look at something in the packet. So, I'll come back to
you after I look it up.
Mike Rosen: Does anybody want to push back on using the do not specify?
Richard Kuen: I didn't hear until Alicia finished up her comment. Not to ask for an update but just a
quick maybe Cliff Notes version would be great. r
c
Mike Rosen: So, there was consensus around going with option three, which was also staff's M
recommendation. But it's a two-part question. One option is to not specify, which would o
default to state regulations. But, also, as Alicia was sort of saying, provides sort of future
maneuvering opportunities for us as the real -world sort of informs us as opposed to the a
other option being just set a minimum of No. 1. So, we have consensus around option C
three. Now, we're deciding, do we set the minimum or do not specify.
Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, I think the question I have is — does the international building code — it applies
within the City of Edmonds, right?
Eric Engmann: Yes, that is what the city uses for their building code.
Judi Gladstone: So, does it have a minimum number? Does it speak to that? Or is it silent as well?
Eric Engmann: It is in the State Building Code Council. So, it's at least the state language.
Judi Gladstone: So, it would apply regardless of whatever we put in here.
Eric Engmann: Right.
Judi Gladstone: All right. So, then I would go with do not specify.
Mike Rosen: Just to then validate again, is there anybody who does not agree with do not specify on
option three?
Richard Kuen: The only question that I have and I think I mentioned this before and was trying to look
for it, as long as the EV capable ADA space doesn't take away from what the current
Washington State or whatever the regulations are for current regular ADA spaces, then
I'm all for it. I think that's great.
Chair Rosen: And, Eric, can you validate that that's the case?
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 35
2.A.b
Eric Engmann: I didn't see anything about that. I didn't see any other codes that had a standard that
mentioned this one way or the other. So, I would assume in that case, it would be okay.
Mike Rosen: Are you good, Richard?
Richard Kuen: Yes, I think so.
Mike Rosen: So, Eric, we do have consensus on option three with do not specify.
Eric Engmann: Then, I would be removing that section from the draft.
Chair Rosen: That's how you would execute it, right? So, now we're moving to the exception for utility r
upgrades —three options. And, again, as a reminder, staff was recommending option No.
2. Anybody want to jump in?
0
Todd Cloutier: I've got a question for Eric. This might be hard to answer because it's not your agency. >
But as Natalie brought up, if 99's the problem, are there plans already to increase capacity a
on 99? a
Q
Eric Engmann: So, it's not just 99. It's an area that they've listed as an example. So, it could be lots of
different ones. The way it typically works, it's improvements as the user needs it. It's
really up to that increased usage and that increased demand that would then have to pay
for that upgrade. They do upgrade sometimes, but I don't think that they have one
specifically picked for Highway 99, not last time I saw.
Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, could you go back to the slide where you had the diagram? I don't know power
particularly well. So, in the water and wastewater world, the general philosophy is growth
pays for growth. So, what that would mean, the equivalent of is these transformers would
be what growth would pay for. But the utility might have a connection charge that might
incorporate some of these facilities but not necessarily all of them.
I think the equivalent on water and wastewater, there would be a connection charge that
would be calculated based on some of this. But some of it would be attributed to the
existing as well.
I want to say that it concerns me that Highway 99 is the area where if you look at the
planning, it seems like there's a desire to put a lot of multi -family there. And if that's the
case, then where's the multi -family going to go if it's in these places where they haven't
upgraded? And I think that if they've got an issue with these big towers or all the way to
the plant, I think there probably needs to be some partnership. And I would necessarily
want to see that be standing in the way of the EV chargers. I would be concerned, the
extent to which, that they would load up those costs onto the developers.
Todd Cloutier: Judi and I were getting to the same point. If the PUD doesn't have a plan to proactively
push changes from their own coffers, then the cost would be unbearable for the lower -
level people to pay for it all per project. And we're going to end up with projects not
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 36
2.A.b
getting done, multi -family housing not getting constructed because they can meet
parking requirements with EVs. And that doesn't seem to make any sense.
So, I think it makes sense to let the infrastructure come of its own accord. As the demand
rises, the infrastructure will come, and more spaces will get built. And like Alicia said, we
can revisit that as things change, and there's great capacity and that's not considered a
limit anymore.
Judi Gladstone: Let me also add that I know there are some jurisdictions where they contribute to the
connection charges, as that can be the form of the partnership that can occur. So, if the
City's really vested in trying to meet these goals for EV, they may need to put some money
in that pot. r
c
Mike Rosen: So, does somebody want to offer up their specific recommendation? M
4-
0
Judi Gladstone: So, I have to say, despite what I've said here, I'm torn between no exceptions and with >
exceptions with a high bar. Could you go to the slide that lists what the exceptions would a
be? I think it's going to be really easy for them to have evidence of added electrical load. C
So, they can come up with that information pretty easily and parse it in such a way frankly
N that it looks like it's the cause of the problem.
as
But if you keep going to those thresholds — go to the one with the table. If they were
required to keep the 18 spaces, I think the question is — what kind of flexibility could be
allowed as long as they had the 18 spaces? And I would be concerned on some level, as
I've read more about Level I, do we end up with a second tier of service if you've got multi-
family at level I and single family at Level 11. And do you start getting inequities of service?
So, I'm still wrestling with it to be honest with you.
Todd Cloutier: I'm agreeing with Judi because that's exactly the concern I had. And I know we just used
Highway 99 as an example. So, as Eric said, it's not necessarily that Highway 99 is the
vulnerable area. It was just an example brought up. But that's the one that's going to
stick in my head.
I just couldn't go with removing all minimums. So, I think that having at least option two
reserves the spaces that can be upgraded later where option three throws it all out or
gives the option to throw it all out. And option one makes it so that it could be cost
prohibitive. And it could eliminate the building of the number of units we want in the first
place.
So, it seems to be that option two gives us some director's discretion to try to keep those
spaces reserved at the very least and push for the amount of infrastructure that makes
sense at that time for that project, which I think seems to be the most flexible position
for us to be in. So, I vote for option two.
Mike Rosen: Anybody want to argue for something other than two? So, can you go back to then what
those thresholds might be? So, the question I have is as we've been talking about it and
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 37
2.A.b
I've been hearing people express what they don't want, it seems to me that hardship is
one of them. And different structures and people's abilities will be at different levels. So,
this does not reflect any cause of hardship on the individual.
Some people are going to be in a much better position to write that check than others.
And it seems to me that somebody could benefit on the high end. So, we're giving them
an exception where the entire development is a very high -ticket item and money isn't a
problem, and we just gave them an out whereas what we're trying to do is protect the
people where hardship is an issue. So, if that's our concern, I don't think this addresses
it. And notice I didn't offer an alternative.
Alicia Crank: I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I also think that, again, if we approach this
with a sense of, again, as this kind of living breathing document that we can go back and
tweak as we get more information that comes in that we could revisit that piece? So, I
don't know if we'll be able to address all of the concerns in this sitting.
Mike Rosen: It could be too loose. But I'm wondering if it was an option where in addition to these
things it created financial hardship, and it was sort of the burden of the applicant to sort
of argue what that means and allow the city some discretion in that? I'm not a big fan of
vagueness, but I do wonder if it opens the door.
Eric Engmann: From the practicality of enforcing the hardship, that would be hard to enforce or even get
to what that would entail. It would be so hard to weigh what that would be for a hardship
without opening their books and looking at those things.
Mike Rosen: I'm convinced. But in the three minutes that you've had to think about it, do you have
any thoughts on how we might address hardship?
Eric Engmann: I guess it would depend on if we're talking about affordable housing or not. That's the
only one I can think of, that we would make that a separate standard. We could say two
different standards. We could make it only for affordable housing.
I think with the way that we had it on the left side that it makes it a little bit easier to kind
of try to find that. They'd have to prove to us that it's the EV that's causing this. They
can't just say that it's everything else. But I don't know how we go past that, other than
just putting in something about affordable housing.
Mike Rosen: That addresses the price tag. I'll stop there. All of our concerns were about impact, and
I don't believe we've addressed it. But I'm cool with option two.
Judi Gladstone: So, affordable housing to me is challenging in itself because what is affordable housing?
How is it defined? Who does it apply to? I think it's always a question. But here's a
question that comes from my lack of knowledge around code and policy connection.
Can there be policy guidance for the director that isn't necessarily put in code that allows
for that flexibility but sets out some standards for those considerations that are not
a
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 38
2.A.b
necessarily code because I get the sense code is much more rigid in its application and
much more black and white. Policy — you can have goals; you can have guidance. It's
mushier.
And I don't know if that's something that can somehow intersect with the code? It might
be out of our purview to do, but that's just a thought that came to my mind that might
be able to start to address the differences in the type of development that we're talking
about here that have the potential to be impacted differently.
Eric Engmann: A lot of times, when something's not codified like a procedure, we can make a rule on it.
And they can list out what's included in that rule to making those decisions. Usually, it's
for a process that's not in the code itself. Because what a developer would say is that, r
no, the code tells you what you can and can't do. We have this list of these three criteria.
It's in the code right now. That's how we would handle it.
0
But, yes, there are plenty of cases when it's something that's not codified but it's a policy >
that we can put it into a rule form. But it's usually something that's not codified. 0
a
a
Mike Rosen: So, at this point, I see us having consensus on option two. Anybody? Going, going, going.
All right, Eric, there is our second decision. So, our third question to us is — okay, back to +;
the balcony. Is there anything else overall? Right, Eric, is that the question? c
Eric Engmann: That's it.
Alicia Crank: I have a situational question. And I apologize as it comes off as silly. So, when we put
together this code amendment and it happens, are the spaces that would be EV — are they
open to anyone? Or is it for the multi -family properties? Is it restricted to whoever lives
there? And the nature of my question comes from someone who asked me this today,
and I didn't have an answer.
What if they currently live in a condo? Condo doesn't have an EV space. That's currently
their situation right now. Where would they with this in place be permitted to be able to
charge their vehicle? Would it have to be at a public place? If there's one next door in a
multi -family unit that has them available, would they be permitted to be able to utilize
that? Or is it just restricted to who lives there?
Eric Engmann: That's a great question. So, it would really depend on the situation, just like with other
parking spots. If the parking garage is restricted, those are private spaces. If it's available
for public use, that would be considered a public use, and there are state laws about
public usage for a a public use space.
So, anything on the nonresidential, outside of a grocery store, or one that's just available
for regular public use, that's considered public use. And there are some state laws that
do give some benefits to people using those, not just in the development itself. But if it
is a private development and it is only accessible to the residents, then it doesn't have
those same points.
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 39
2.A.b
Alicia Clank: It makes sense. I guess maybe the foundation of that question was — if we as a city are
creating a code around this, does the city have any type of responsibility to identify that
within all this that other residents should be able to use particular ones if a resident lives
in a multi -family unit or even a single family unit to be able to utilize it? Or is that even a
thing? If the city creates a code around something, does the city have a responsibility to
identify its use?
Eric Engmann: The state takes care of that for the public use side. They have their standards. We can
maybe come up with a guide, or we can take people on our webpage to where the state
laws talk about it. Something so the public can know about it. But the state has started
to get a good grasp. And, again, this is one of those codes that keeps changing. r
c
Alicia Crank: Got it. Thank you.
0
Chair Rosen: It's an observation that I just wanted to sort of put out there. And it goes way back. Part >
of this is to help get us to the 50,000 goal — 50,000 electric vehicles. And the last data I a
saw about total number of vehicles in Edmonds currently is just shy of 17,000. So, C
understandably, there will be growth, but there will also potentially be other vehicles.
And as Natalie pointed out, the hope and the trend currently has been fewer vehicles per
household. And some of those vehicles are going to be other kinds. Or some people
aren't going to give up because of collections and those kinds of things. So, I guess I am
questioning sort of the reality of that number as a goal to aim for given all those things
that I just said. So, no action or response. I just sort of wanted to say that out loud.
Because I know you didn't create, nor did we create that goal.
Judi Gladstone: Can I jump in because I have something that I want to go back to if that's okay, Mike?
Chair Rosen: Absolutely, this is the time.
Judi Gladstone: I know we reached consensus on the utility upgrades. But I was feeling some reluctance,
and I think I figured out why. And I want to ask you a question about the language in the
code, Eric. Because I think what was troubling me is the language says, "When there is
substantial evidence that the added electrical load that can be attributed to meeting
these requirements will significantly alter the local utility infrastructure design
requirement." I think that's really good it says local utility infrastructure because I think
that should narrow it to not include necessarily all the really big infrastructure.
But I'm wondering if that bar can be a little bit tighter? Instead of saying "that can be
attributed to," it says "that results from." And they have to prove that it results from it
rather than attributed.
Eric Engmann: We can change that. That was our point, to make sure. So, what are you recommending?
Judi Gladstone: That results from meeting these requirements.
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 40
2.A.b
Mike Rosen: Anybody have any other overall code amendments before we move to our next question?
All right. So, the next question before us — are we ready with the decisions we just made
and the one change recommended by Judi to transmit it to City Council for their review?
Anybody have any concerns about that? Nope? All right. Eric, please send it on with our
recommendation.
Roger Pence: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think it might be helpful at this point to take a formal
vote to recommend transmitting these amendments to this code section to City Council
for their consideration.
Mike Rosen: Understood. And I agree with the purpose. All in favor of transmitting the code r
amendment as revised this evening, please signify by saying "aye" or raising your hand.
(All say aye) o
Is there anybody opposed? Is there anybody abstaining? It is passed unanimously. °
a
a
a
Thank you, Eric, again for all of the work and how you walked us through it.
Discusses the extended agenda.
I will share with you that I did receive outreach from a local media source asking about —
on September 22nd, item No. 2, discussion of veterans' memorial sculpture donation.
And they did receive a response from staff indicating that there is another donation of a
sculpture being — the opportunity presented to the city. And because it would go into the
veterans' area —that is a park, and we serve in a park capacity. So, that's why it's coming
to us. And that's a little bit of the headline behind it, so if you were wondering why are
we talking about sculptures.
Eric Engmann: I just wanted to talk about the buildable lands report. I believe Steve Toy is going to be
available for October 131h. He can never do it on the second one of the month. So, I think
we're going to put that back for the first meeting in October.
Roger Pence: Just so we get there eventually.
Mike Rosen: As you can see, as Alicia had predicted at the last meeting, trees will be coming to us
shortly. So, any other comments related to the extended agenda?
We will now go to comments for the good of the order. Asks the Board members for
anything for the good of the order.
Roger Pence: Well, I took a keen interest in the article in My Edmonds News about the decision by the
railroad to finally tell us about their plans to double track the section through the City of
Edmonds. And this may not be a thing that affects our code amendment responsibilities,
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 41
2.A.b
but it is certainly going to have huge impacts on the planning future of the City of
Edmonds.
And I think as the Planning Board for the city we need to take a keen interest in that
project and begin that with a briefing by the city and ideally by the railroad if and when
they are beginning to share the real information with the City of Edmonds. So, I do not
see the Planning Board sitting back and letting this thing roll through until we get to a
code issue. I hope we can take an interest in it from the get -go.
Alicia Crank: So, three things, 1.) Continue to be safe everybody. It looks like we're gonna be virtual
for the foreseeable future. It is sad to know that 18 months in that the rates are higher
than ever, so do with that information what you will.
Second is — if anyone caught the council meeting or read the follow-up to it from Tuesday,
it also looks like we along with the architectural design board are going to be involved in
discussions around incorporating green space and to multi -family design standards. So,
our extended agenda is going to continue to be extended. So, be on the lookout for that.
And from the airport commission, Alaska Airlines is adding another route. They actually
added Boise and Spokane. And I'm actually taking a flight to Spokane tomorrow out of
Paine Field. So, I'll be on the second flight that goes out of there. So, just an FYI that
they're gonna continue to add routes there as time progresses on.
But it is definitely scary out there. I went on another flight over the weekend, and people
are flying. And they're being naughty to some degree. So, if you're traveling, just be
careful, mask up, don't take it for granted, and that, unfortunately, there are people out
there who don't care about being sick.
Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia, for each of those. I would again just like to thank you all for your
contribution of time and wisdom and the way you approached the topic tonight as you
have approached all others. Thank you for your service. And I will now adjourn the
meeting at 8:09.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
a
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 42
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/22/2021
Proposed Donation of Memorial Sculpture: Edmonds Veterans Plaza Memorial
Staff Lead: Frances Chapin
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza committee and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of Edmonds collaborated
to create a site -specific commission for the Edmonds Veterans Plaza in Edmonds, WA. The Memorial for
this commission was selected based on a financial donation made to the Plaza, and as a result of
collaboration with a local artist, David Varnau. The committee has engaged in an exhaustive review of
concepts, with the final Memorial determined through this partnership.
After review and discussion of the proposal at their meeting on 9/13/21, the Arts Commission made a
recommendation stating that the proposal does not adversely impact existing and planned public art
elements in the vicinity. Minutes from the 9/13/21 Arts Commission are shown in Attachment 1.
Please review the supplemental narrative (Attachment 2) for further discussion of the
background/history.
Staff Recommendation
The Parks Department has reviewed the proposal and suggestions regarding site, installation and
maintenance have been met to their satisfaction.
Narrative
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza is a space set aside for contemplation and recognition of the service and
sacrifice of veterans in the past, as well as of those who are serving and will serve in the future. This
Memorial will support the mission of the Plaza by creating a conceptual representation depicting the gift
of freedom given by service men and women. The Memorial is meant to facilitate engagement,
encourage veterans and non -veterans to gather in the space and consider what military service means in
our country. The work should also appeal to a public of all ages and backgrounds, and reflect the
community values of inclusiveness, access and engagement.
Please review the supplemental narrative (Attachment 2) for further discussion on proposal topic.
Action Needed
Planning Board is asked to review the memorial project in their role as Parks Board and make a
recommendation to City Council regarding appropriateness of the memorial for the Veteran's Plaza
Park.
Packet Pg. 43
5.A
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Arts Commission Draft Minutes 9.13.21
Attachment 2 - Supplimental Narrative
Packet Pg. 44
5.A.a
edmonds
ARTS COMMISSION
MINUTES - Meeting via Zoom 4:45 pm Sept 13, 2021
The Edmonds Arts Commission: dedicated to the arts, an integral part of community life.
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department
PRESENT:
Rhonda Soikowski
Ashley Song
Richard Chung
Pat Oneill
Lesly Kaplan STAFF
Lisa Palmatier Frances Chapin
Georgia Livesey Laurie Rose
AUDIENCE
David Varnau
Ron Clybourne
Kelley McHenry
The meeting was called to order at 4:46 PM by Rhonda Soikowski. Soikowski read the land acknowledgement.
"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."- City Council Land Acknowledgment
ADDITIONS/CHANGES TO THE AGENDA —
MINUTES —Approval of August 2 minutes postponed to October meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT/INTRODUCTIONS —
REPORTS -
A. Creative Programs
Write on the Sound — Kaplan reported that almost 100 people have registered and 28 writing contest
entries were received. Promotion efforts are ongoing.
2. Veteran's Plaza Committee Proposed Memorial Donation — Chapin introduced David Varnau, artist,
and Ron Clybourne, Veteran's Committee representative, and Commissioners each introduced
themselves. Chapin outlined the city process for accepting a memorial donation: the Arts
Commission reviews the proposal in regards to impact on existing public art in the vicinity, the
Planning Board reviews the proposal with respect to appropriateness for a park site, and City Council
holds a Public Hearing to take public input before considering acceptance of the donated memorial.
Ron Clybourne spoke about the importance and meaning of the Plaza and the proposed memorial to
veterans in the community. The plaza was completed a few years ago, a project to honor all veterans,
and the Committee which Clybourne chaired was able to raise $685,000 to build the plaza at the
Public Safety Complex site for the benefit of the community at large. Original plans included an artist
made memorial within the plaza but funding was not available at that time. A grant for $25,000 has
now been received for the project and the proposal is to place a memorial sculpture on top of the
existing wall which commemorates KIA and MIA veterans. In addition, a plaque will be added at the
end of the wall with a quote honoring all veterans and thanking them for the gift of freedom and
their sacrifice. David Varnau, Edmonds artist who used to design protheses used by veterans and
others all over the world, introduced the proposed memorial sculpture. His vision was to convey an
image of offering and what veterans have contributed to our freedom — the piece is titled The Gift of
Packet Pg. 45
Edmonds Arts Commission Draft Minutes — 9/13/2021
2
5.A.a
Freedom. It is a sculpture of monumental hands, 5 times life size, about 40" high and 4' wide by 30"
deep, cast in aluminum to match the stainless steel and other tones in the plaza. The memorial will
draw people in and bring them close to the memorial wall with its inscriptions. Site Workshop, the
landscape designer for the plaza, is in concurrence with the location of the memorial. The title will be
inscribed on both sides of the base. The additional plinth on the east side of the wall allows for the
memorial to be back from the edge of the wall so it will not impede people coming up to the wall and
not encourage climbing on it. David and the committee spent time with Parks staff discussing issues
of visibility, safety, mounting, and other issues aimed at creating a piece that attracts but does not
encourage climbing. The budget for the memorial sculpture is $25,000 and Varnau is doing most of
the design work pro bono.
Comments from Commissioners included that is very important to keep issues of inclusivity in mind
and the goal of welcoming the entire community. The raised hands are often used as a symbol of
worship, commonly in Christian prayer. It is important to think about the universality of hand
gestures and perhaps that is included in the statement on the wall. The connotation, the offer of
giving, is powerful, but everyone has a different visceral reaction to it.
Commissioners asked questions regarding the cost of the plinth, which will be paid for from
additional funding raised for the project. Maintenance in perpetuity will be provided by the VFW. A
question was asked about lighting and staff responded that the lighting in the plaza focuses on the
flags, there is no plan to light the memorial separately.
Commissioners appreciated the thought and time that has already gone into this project. They
reviewed the public art existing in the vicinity of the Public Safety Complex site and determined that
there is no direct negative impact with the siting of the proposed memorial which is the primary
basis for their review in the memorial donation process. Sharp Moved and Palmatier Seconded that
the recommendation is that there is no adverse impact on existing or planned public art in the
vicinity of the proposed memorial donation, Approved.
3. Floretum Garden Club Public Art Project — Kelley McHenry was introduced. McHenry is the chair of
the centennial committee for the Floretum Garden Club. The oldest garden club in the state,
Floretum has had a relationship with the City since 1922 and assists with a variety of projects such as
the hanging flower baskets and corner park plantings. In commemoration of their upcoming 1001n
anniversary they are proposing to donate a public artwork to the City. They have a Memorandum of
Understanding in place with the Parks Department to help plant the corner park at 51" Avenue North
and Bell, adjacent to the Veteran's Plaza. They hope to send out a call for artists to select an artist to
create a colorful mosaic artwork that expresses their interests in garden, animals, and floral
elements. The artwork would be located in the corner bed at 51" & Bell per City specifications. The
budget for the artwork is $15,000. They hope to raise additional money. The RFQ has been
developed and they plan to send it out to mosaic artist in the region. The commemoration would
create an artwork that would be donated to the City to celebrate the 1001" anniversary and enhance
the downtown location. Commissioners asked questions about the height of the artwork and
suggested more detail be given regarding any restrictions. It is important to consider sight lines in
relationship to the stop sign, the wall behind the bed, and other things such as the boulders and
planting elements in the redesigned bed. Think about who is the intended audience. The mosaic
piece will add color year round, and it is important to consider both size and vibrancy. The
Commission looks forward to seeing design proposals in the future as part of the public art donation
process.
4. Hwy 99 Gateways — Chung reported on the City Council meeting for the project. The survey only
attracted 55 respondents and City Council would like it to be reopened for greater participation. It
now has over 300 respondents. Commissioners commented that the survey was very useful and
Packet Pg. 46
Edmonds Arts Commission Draft Minutes — 9/13/2021
3
5.A.a
informative with helpful graphics and encouraged anyone who hasn't done it to do so before it closes
on Wednesday. The new information will be compiled and go back to City Council.
Poetry of Place Potential Program — Kaplan reported on meeting with Soikowski and Oneill. The goals
are to feature writers connected to the community, focus on equity and inclusion, provide a
workshop for kids, and foster partnerships. The initial program would be in place by April 2022. The
idea is to start small and grow. To meet the equity and inclusion goal three sites are envisioned
where a variety of poem can reflect on landscapes, culture and community. The poems can be
rotated around the three sites. All ages would be encouraged to submit, and different languages as
long as translated as well, so it would be multilingual and multigenerational. A workshop on poetry
for youth would be sponsored early next year. Partnerships are key to the program, e.g. with the
bookshop, EAC, schools, EPIC etc. There is a big vision and also practical ideas for instant
implementation —there may be some easy ways to display poems initially, such as a picture frame or
easel, e.g. at City Park. Questions were asked about the title, does it refer to a particular place. The
committee is thinking that the place is specific to Edmonds, but could be just a connection to
Edmonds. Another question was about visual presentation of the poetry. This might be addressed
later with early focus on the words, although access should also be on the website which allows for
other possibilities. Poster art was also mentioned. The program should be promoted in the schools
but not lean on the teachers. Question about how the three sites would be connected, maybe
provide a map which is with the poem on an inexpensive structure. Funding for the workshop is
available in the budget for 2022. Committee noted that there are lots of details to fill in but looking
to Commission for general support. Commissioners noted that the strength of literary arts in
Edmonds indicates interest and this is a great way to grow it in public way and promote community.
Mention was made of other programs including the haiku plaques in Port Townsend. Commission
consensus was that the program is a good idea and the committee should work on the details.
6. Walkable Main/Uptown Market— Chapin reported that the musicians were generally happy with the
opportunities to play and comments from the public were positive.
7. Budget — Chapin noted that some minor changes had been made to the draft budget for the three
special funds, 117, 123 and 127, e.g. increased budgets for interest revenue. ONeill Moved and
Palmatier Seconded approval of the 2022 budget as updated, Approved.
C. Funding & Administration
STAFF REPORT— Chapin confirmed that the artist interviews for Civic are scheduled on Sept 23, 4 — 8 pm, and
encouraged Commissioner to join the Webinar and make written comment if they wanted.
NEW/OTHER BUSINESS — Palmatier reminded Commissioners to respond to her about On the Fence.
Meeting Adjourned at 6:52 PM.
Packet Pg. 47
1. PROPOSAL
5.A.b
�. dORnI IOIRFFI%ihi �-=.1lrfVINL IIu fRli�. _'. -
fi� RiNLrN fRL[DOM Y Hr RS W1��1 �11its'E [.-L1 ERll M14
r�l ruM Ii pNO FtI f]i
WE DQ WOULD FaIHFR DiE ON O1JP. REEI THAN Ii W pRr OUa xNFES
EDMONDS VETERANS PLAZA MEMORIAL
Proposed Donation of Memorial Sculpture
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza committee and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of Edmonds collaborated to create
a site -specific commission for the Edmonds Veterans Plaza in Edmonds WA. The MEMORIAL for this commission
was selected based on a financial donation made to the Plaza, and as a result of collaboration with a local artist,
David Varnau. The committee has engaged in an exhaustive review of concepts, with the final MEMORIAL
determined through this partnership.
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza Committee has arranged for the selected artist, David Varnau, to design,
fabricate and assist with installation of a site -specific MEMORIAL for the Edmonds Veterans Plaza for the
overall project budget of $25,000. The artist's time and design are being provided pro bono, and the
$25,000 cost has already been donated to the VFW for this purpose.
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza is based on the guiding principle "Remembering all veterans —past,
present, and future" and was developed through a cooperative venture between the City of Edmonds,
Edmonds Post 8870 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Edmonds Post 66 of the American Legion and
numerous community members. The MEMORIAL should reflect the spirit of the Plaza by capturing the
gravity of commitment by our military service members, as well as our gratitude to them.
1
Packet Pg. 48
5.A.b
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza is a space set aside for contemplation and recognition of the service and
sacrifice of veterans in the past, as well as of those who are serving and will serve in the future. This
MEMORIAL will support the mission of the Plaza by creating a conceptual representation depicting the
gift of freedom given by service men and women.
The MEMORIAL is meant to facilitate engagement, encourage veterans and non -veterans to gather in
the space and consider what military service means in our country. The work should also appeal to a
public of all ages and backgrounds, and reflect the community values of inclusiveness, access and
engagement.
SITE LOCATION
The Plaza Committee has intended, from the outset, to commission the creation of a MEMORIAL for the
Plaza.
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza is an important gathering place for the community located one block north
of the center of the downtown core and adjacent to City Hall and the Public Safety Building/City Council
Chambers, as well as adjacent to the City's outdoor summer market. Designated as the State's first
Certified Creative District in late 2018, downtown Edmonds is a hub for cultural activities and creative
businesses. The Edmonds Veterans Plaza is within the Creative District boundaries. It is also the site of
the popular summer market, the holiday Tree Lighting, and much more.
The donor has specified that the contribution is for a single element that works in conjunction with
entry access, landscaping and the Plaza.
MEMORIAL: As envisioned, the MEMORIAL depicts a pair of hands raised upward in a gesture of giving. The
image is a dramatic and fitting symbol of the personal sacrifices that veterans have offered to our country.
Further, there is nothing more evocative for expressing an emotion in general, and this message in particular,
than human hands.
TITLE: The title, The Gift of Freedom, pays homage to all veterans for their service in protecting our freedom.
To clarify the message, the title, The Gift of Freedom, will be engraved on the front edge of the MEMORIAL'S
base. Likewise, the artist's name will be inscribed on the right-hand edge of the base. Further, an explanation of
The Gift of Freedom will be inscribed either on a stainless steel plate, which will be added to the south side of
the Memorial Wall, or etched on the existing right face plate.
SITE: The proposed MEMORIAL is intended to be installed on the Memorial Wall on the east side of the
veterans' plaza as shown in the attached photo. There are several reasons why it is apropos for the MEMORIAL
to be sited on the Memorial Wall. First, the notion of The Gift of Freedom directly and strongly relates to the
quotation from FDR regarding freedom that is etched into the left face plate on the Memorial Wall. Second, the
MEMORIAL is proposed to be positioned immediately above the wall's right faceplate on which are inscribed the
names of those who made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that Americans continue to enjoy their freedoms.
Finally, the message of gift supports and highlights the Plaza's primary philosophy.
MATERIAL: The MEMORIAL is envisioned to be made of cast aluminum in order to be compatible with the
existing Memorial Wall's stainless steel plates. The finish is to be a pewter colored patina with light and dark
hues highlighting the 3-D nature of the MEMORIAL. Although the weight of the aluminum casting is estimated
Packet Pg. 49
5.A.b
to be less than 100 pounds, the MEMORIAL will additionally include an extensive interior stainless steel
reinforcing armature.
SCALE: The large pair of hands, which, at five times life size, will be a monumental scale. The hands are
envisioned to be approximately 3.5 feet tall and the ensemble will measure about 4 feet wide when viewed
from the front. The front to back dimension of the sculpture will be approximately 30 inches. For durability,
the wrists will be cast contiguous with a rectangular cast aluminum base measuring approximately 3"H x 36"W x
24"D. For reference, the Memorial Wall itself stands 10 feet wide and varies in height, with 40 inches being the
wall's height below the MEMORIAL. There is a 5 foot long lower extension on the south end of the wall that
serves as a bench, making the entire wall about 15 feet long. The wall is 18 inches thick, which includes the
stainless steel faceplate.
SCALE CONSIDERATIONS: The MEMORIAL will serve as a visible focal point for the plaza, especially when viewed
from the west, from as far away as the intersection of Fifth Street and Bell Avenue. But the MEMORIAL will be
visible from anywhere in the plaza. As such, The Gift of Freedom will be eye-catching and visitors will be drawn
into the plaza, curiously wanting to approach the MEMORIAL and view it close up.
PLINTH (WALL EXTENSION) CONSTRUCTION: For purposes of displaying the MEMORIAL and ensuring that it is
well supported, an auxiliary plinth is proposed to be constructed immediately behind the south half of Memorial
Wall. It is designed to be 18 inches thick, 5 feet wide and the same height as the Memorial Wall. Such a design
is robust and ensures a stable foundation onto which the MEMORIAL is anchored. The auxiliary plinth will
permit the actual MEMORIAL to be shifted back so that no part of it extends forward of the wall in order that
the hands do not interfere with visitors' reading of the names inscribed on the faceplate on the front of the
Memorial Wall. Situating the MEMORIAL back is intended to discourage children from placing their feet on the
front of the faceplate in an attempt to climb onto the MEMORIAL.
METHOD OF ANCHORING MEMORIAL: Care has been taken to identify the location of the rebar in the existing
Memorial Wall that was incorporated into the concrete for reinforcement when it was poured in place. Henry
Schroder of the Edmonds Engineering Division has assisted in identifying the rebar locations to ensure that they
do not interfere with the mounting of the MEMORIAL. Also, as designed by Brian Bishop of Site Workshop, the
rebar in the auxiliary plinth will likewise be located so that it also does not interfere with MEMORIAL'S
mounting.
To anchor the cast aluminum MEMORIAL, two holes approximately 1 inch in diameter will be drilled
approximately 11 inches down into the top surface of the concrete Memorial Wall and two of the same depth
into the auxiliary plinth. Protruding from stainless steel hex nuts that are welded to the bottom of the
MEMORIAL'S cast aluminum base will be 3/4" diameter x 10" long stainless steel "all thread" mounting bolts,
which will ultimately match up and insert into the holes in the concrete. Having checked to verify that the bolts
align with the holes in the concrete and, after removing all drilling dust residue from each hole, an anchoring
adhesive, such as Anchor Fix by Sika is to be pumped into the holes, filling each approximately 75%. The
MEMORIAL will then be positioned such that its mounting bolts are directly over their respective holes and the
MEMORIAL will be slowly lowered until the mounting bolts slide down fully as desired into the holes. Any excess
adhesive that extrudes onto the wall or auxiliary plinth will be wiped away before it is cured.
PRICE: $24,907.80
m
L
Q.
U
•L
0
E
m
0
0
r
0
c
0
0
m
0
a
0
a
Packet Pg. 50
5.A.b
• The artist proposes to create the maquette for the MEMORIAL on a pro bono basis. That is, at very little
to no charge for his services, the artist will create a life-size pair of hands as a reference in order to mock
up the enlarged clay hands from which the foundry will generate a finished cast aluminum MEMORIAL.
For his part, the artist reports that he will utilize a live model as a reference. His materials cost of
creating both the maquette and the enlarged MEMORIAL are included in the price listed.
• The foundry costs, which include CAD enlargement and milling, mold -making, creation of the wax
model, aluminum casting, welding of the interior stainless steel reinforcement, the associated metal
chasing and patina application are also included in the projected cost of the MEMORIAL.
• A budget of $1,500 for installation costs for both labor and materials is included. The artist
agrees to work closely with the City Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services staff in integrating the
artwork into the Edmonds Veterans Plaza and agrees to provide supervision and consultation
during the installation at no additional cost.
• To address any foundry and/or installation cost overruns, a 10% contingency is included in the price of
the MEMORIAL as is Washington State Sales Tax. Whatever funds (if any) that remain in the
contingency account after the completion of the artist's work and final installation, the artist will retain
as a nominal fee for his effort and creative input.
COST EXCLUSIONS:
• The design, engineering and construction of the auxiliary plinth are not included in the price. Also, any
revisions to landscape irrigation, plantings or electrical rerouting as well as installation of lighting (if any)
are not included in the price quoted above.
TIMEFRAME: Elapsed time from commencement of sculpting of the MEMORIAL until it is ready for installation
will be approximately six months.
NOTE:
RIGHTS TO CREATE EDITIONS: Although the MEMORIAL will be conceived specifically for the Edmonds Veterans
Memorial Plaza, the artist stipulates that he retains the copyright rights to the MEMORIAL. However, the artist
agrees to limit the number of subsequent editions to 15 and to guarantee that no copy of the MEMORIAL will be
installed within 50 miles of Edmonds, Washington.
4
m
L
Q.
U
0
E
am
0
0
r
0
c
0
0
m
0
a
0
L
Packet Pg. 51
5.A.b
2. Plinth
EXISTING CIP CONCRETE WALL
W/ STAINLESS STEEL SIGN PLATE
VARIES
PLINTH FOR SCULPTURE AT MEMORIAL WALL
SCALE: 1 1 /2" = 1'-0"
CAST ALUMINUM SCULPTURE
AND BASE W/ STAINLESS
STEEL REINFORCEMENT
ANCHOR BOLTS,
STAINLESS STEEL, 3/4"
X 10 ", TYP OF 4
#4 @ 18" ON CENTER,
EA FACE VERT
CIP CONCRETE WALL,
FINISH TO MATCH
ADJACENT EXISTING
WALL
#5 @ 16" ON CENTER,
EA FACE HORZ
DOWELS, STAINLESS
STEEL, SIZE? @ X" ON
CENTER, EPDXY TO
EXISTING WALL, TYP
FINISH GRADE TO MATCH
EXISTING
EXTEND CIP CONCRETE
FOOTING, TYP
EXTEND CRUSHED ROCK
BASE AND COMPACTED
SUBGRADE, TYP
Packet Pg. 52
5.A.b
3. Artist Perspectives
�
M-gwgijkL 09..E
Packet Pg. 53
5.A.b
1
IF
I
f
ID
I
I
o�
1
�
ID
I
��
�
f
f-
f
L
Q
:.i
N
�L
0
E
C0
C
4-
0
r_
0
0
0
0
cn
0
Q
0
CL
:1 PF-7 \1 Imo► L-- —sc, A.
Packet Pg. 54
58 f� fi L V+Tt 0 J�
5.A.b
L
3
V
N
R
VJ A L.L
0
m
0
0
r
0
c
0
0
m
0
a
0
L
r �-- G15,ST A 1_
a.
oA L
w
>
Y
L
L
Z
CAST ALUM(VAM
r
Sep L���s
E
.Q
N
N
N
E
t
V
Auv L[WY CoNQKR
a
--1 NTH
Y
Y
a
!MEMO l , l A L
PLAN y 1 E W ScFl� F
Packet Pg. 55
V. 3
5.A.b
ALU
-ULC
T�L-�
A w
ra
ZoeaM tit 1'�
� 3'l6 ! �— Packet Pg. 56
5.A.b
�4
Perspective View
4. Site Works Overview
The proposed memorial is well -integrated
into the layout and intended experience of a
the existing plaza.
N
The artist worked closely with the design
0
team from the original Veterans Plaza project
to study a range of potential locations and
4-
mounting options for the memorial. The pro-
r_
posed placement presented here is a result
2
of that collaboration, which included site visits
o
to review full-sized mockups in place and
exchange of sketches/narrative ideas.
N
0
a
From an urban design standpoint, the pro-
a
posed placement of the memorial does not
impact pedestrian movements through plaza
or constrain use of plaza for special events.
CU
The memorial is centered on the existing wall
Z
which makes it an intentional and visible part
of the plaza while not impacting views to the
E
Municipal Court Building.
Q
The placement of the memorial further rein-
N
forces the strong visual relationship with the
Memorial Garden as the primary backdrop
E
when viewed from most directions.
a
The memorial will be placed on an extension
of the existing wall, proportioned to match the
memorial sign plates. The finish of the wall
extension will match the existing wall and be
w
a
set flush to create seamless base.
The placement of the memorial is intended
to make it visually accessible while limiting
unintended physical access. The wall ex-
tension has been designed and engineered
to provide a strong and durable base for the
memorial.
Packet Pg. 57
5.A.b
Wall Extensio
Existing Wa
hear view
Wall and Base Details
I
Proposed Memorial
Existing Wall
Proposed Memorial
Wall Extension
Existing Wal
Packet Pg. 58
S�
yA`gn
j
kS
8-975
CB I
RIM 'I'll
IE E 70.23
IE S 70.0A
ROT 69.E
WU
TOP CASE 73.46
,TOP NUT 71,72
8-974
CB I
RIM 73.28
E W 77. 68
B 69,78
Site Plan
rl-
. DHA 2495-107
TACK IN LEAD W/ WASHER
N 299916,087
E 1261489.048
EL 78,66
Parking Lot
d
L
Q.
Cn
SH
0
E
6°
°BENCH
ry
4-
SH SH
0
6" DC-�.4" DEC
SH
C
35DE/
IA� 6" DEC
�
4DIA
.Q
0 0 0
0 0 0
3.5DIA SHE UME WALL 4 DICA
SH-i
0
NC WA L
"'-12" M
a °
Q
VSH
d
N
Icv
0
0
L
a
as
o
�
L
H
�
Z
Edmonds
Propo d M m rial
��>> �`�
Municipal
emona
Court
'&
Garden
M
_
CO
N
C
H
<1
s
�
C)
a
..
m
E
H SH o-RD
�<
Q
VEGETATION
H
SH
10" M
DHA 2495-102
MAG NAIL W1 WASHER
N 299756.420
8-972
E 1261370 997
CB I
EL 75.99
RIM 76.99
IE SW 74,59
BOT 74.'9
BELL ST.
Packet Pg. 59
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/22/2021
Extended Agenda 9/22
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review of the Extended Agenda.
Narrative
Extended Agenda Attached.
Attachments:
09-22-2021 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 60
�y ()F EQAf
o Items and Dates are subject to change
KAMM BOARD
Extended Agenda
September 22, 2021
Meeting Item
October 2021
October 1. (Tentative) Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable
13 Lands Program
2. (Tentative) Potential Code Amendment addressing Residential
Occupancy Definitions
3. (Tentative) Overview of Potential Code Amendments
addressing Multifamily Design Standards: Discussion on code
options, issues, and intended public outreach efforts
October 1. (Tentative) Potential Code Amendment addressing Residential
27 Occupancy Definitions
2. (Tentative) Continuation of Overview of Potential Code
Amendments addressing Multifamily Design Standards
November 2021
November 1. Update on Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan)
10 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Quarterly Report
3. (Tentative) Tree programs and regulations: discussion on issues
and code options for short-term review, including public outreach
efforts (e.g. Heritage Trees)
November Day Before Thanksgiving- Cancel Meeting?
24
Packet Pg. 61
6.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
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
3. Election of Officers
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
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (VY 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
c�
c
as
a�
a
as
c
as
x
w
c�
c
m
a�
a
as
c
m
x
w
m
a
N
O
N
N
N
on
0
c
d
E
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 62