2021-06-09 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
June 9, 2021
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the
Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with
the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuen
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
None
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Eric Engmann, Planning Division
Mike Rosen: Discusses the meeting's agenda.
Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience for public comment.
Natalie Seitz: Discusses city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property.
Addresses some of the statements the Council made during the Stage 2 Tree Issues
discussion on June 1ST, and the memorandum/information developed by the city in
support of the Stage 3 Issues discussion. Encourages Planning Board to review comments
made at the City Council meetings.
Discusses issues with some of the options raised at Council Meeting and the desire for
better clarification. States that neither Option 2 nor 3 provides specific guidance with
regard to trees above 24 inches diameter at breast height and that Council needs to
immediately clarify its intent to regulate the maintenance of those trees. Believes that
the Council stating that they support Option 2 and 3 for "tracking purposes" is not
accurate or transparent. States that both options limit or prohibit the removal of trees,
and there are many other less costly ways to track tree removal than this regulatory
effort. Talks about being consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan.
Does not want Council to penalize people from growing and maintaining trees. Seeks
transparency and equity in process. States that the city is stuck because, barring the
emergency ordinance, there is nothing that prevents an owner who plans to develop from
removing trees as a maintenance action and then being treated exactly like an un-treed
property when seeking a development permit.
States that the solution to this issue is resolving the funding mechanism for the
development regulations and respect all the public input that went into the Urban Forest
Management Plan process. Talks about other equitable options such as revising the tree
funding fee structure to equally burden all properties where trees have historically and
could grow again or Option 6 with no exceptions, which would in time become equitable.
States that barring those options, the next most equitable path forward is to revise the
tree fund to require monies to be spend in areas where they were taken from or
restructure these fees to account for the difference in stormwater benefits provided by
trees.
Wants Planning Board to ask Diversity Commission to evaluate the disproportionate
amount Highway 99 communities will pay under the proposed tree ordinance for benefits
that are diverted outside those communities. Also wants GIS analysis to identify the areas
that will be disproportionately penalized and those that will receive benefits. Believes
there are significant land use impacts in SEPA that aren't being evaluated. Thanks the
Planning Board for their time.
Rob Chave: No other public comment.
Alicia Crank: Would like to see a Planning Board member apply for one of the PSRC positions. Asks if
this is Shane Hope's last meeting.
Shane Hope: States this will be Shane's last meeting and that it has been a pleasure working with the
Planning Board.
Mike Rosen: Also thanks Shane for their service.
Judi Gladstone: Asks if City nominates people for PSRC.
Shane Hope: States City does not nominate but would support people volunteering.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 2
Judi Gladstone: Asks about Equity training, and if there is any planned.
Shane Hope: Doesn't believe there has been specific equity training for the Planning Board but that
there has been training for city staff. States this may be something to consider in the
future.
Judi Gladstone: Fully supports the idea of equity training for Planning Board. Then asks about what
housing policy items will be coming to the Planning Board or if a special workshop is being
planned.
Shane Hope: Mentions the discussions on housing policy will take place at City Council on June 241n
at 4:30 pm. Lists some of the items that may come to Planning Board:
detached accessory dwellings, cottage/cluster dwellings, and multi -family design
guidelines. States that the challenge for the Council in delving in more deeply to the
recommendations from the Housing Commission has primarily been due to their full
workload.
Mike Rosen: Introduces Legislative Report item.
Shane Hope: Presents 2021 legislative session presentation. Talks about various bills and several
highlights.
Discusses bills that did not pass. States that some of the bills that did not pass related to
accessory dwellings that would have required detached or attached accessory dwellings
to be allowed throughout single-family zones and not subject to parking requirements.
There were also requirements proposed to allow more duplexes and quadruplexes in
various areas of single-family zones. There were also some other affordable housing
incentive options that did not pass.
Mentions House Bill 1099 was a framework for local climate planning that did not pass. It
would have required a climate and resiliency element in the comprehensive plan.
Suspects it will be back next year.
Discusses bills that did pass.
House Bill 1050 seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and focused on coolants:
refrigerator coolants, freezer coolants, etc.
House Bill 1070 allows local governments to capture a portion of the existing state sales
tax and use it for certain kinds of housing needs supporting lower -income households.
House Bill 1189 allows tax increment financing which could be used for infrastructure
improvements like sidewalks, streets, or similar items.
House Bill 1220 provides more options for emergency shelters, emergency housing, and
coordination with the cities when county housing agencies are siting shelters within cities.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 3
House Bills 1236 and 1277 apply to tenant situations and protects people who are renting.
House Bill 1287 is about zero emission vehicles and sets goals for having all new vehicles
be electric vehicles (EV) by 2030. Also provides for the Building Code Council to increase
their rules about providing EV charging stations.
Senate Bill 5022 limits plastic bags and non-compostable containers from restaurants.
Senate Bill 5126 addresses ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It includes a cap
and invest program and provides for ways that incentivize the reduction fossil fuels.
Senate Bill 5235 addresses emergency shelters and housing. Prevents local governments
from regulating the number of unrelated persons that could occupy a household.
Senate Bill 5253 establishes new programs for ensuring the health of bees and other
pollinators and is an educational program.
Senate Bill 5287 deals with the multi -family tax incentive program and allows additional
years to use it.
As a summary there was little change with growth management bills, modest changes to
housing laws, and climate bills are gaining momentum.
Roger Pence: Asked for a copy of the presentation.
Shane Hope: Agrees to send presentation.
Nathan Monroe: Thanks Shane for 10+ years of service then asked about Tax Increment Financing and
whether the funds would be restricted within certain areas.
Shane Hope: Confirms it would be limited to specific areas.
Mike Rosen: States there are no public hearings and introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure item.
Rob Chave: Introduces Eric Engmann as the new planner working on code updates.
Eric Engmann: Introduces himself and provides background experience in planning and code drafting.
Introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure topic. States that the meeting will
be an introductory look into the components needed for the code and to connect this
initiative to the City's larger sustainability efforts.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 4
Discusses the connections between this code amendment and specific Comprehensive
Plan, Climate Action Plan, and New Energy Cities Action Plan goals. Most notably the goal
for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050.
Talks about the sources for greenhouse gases within the City of Edmonds and identified
the transportation section as the largest single localized contributor. Talks about the
connection between reduced greenhouse gases produced by EVs and the City's future EV
goals. He then talks about how vehicle manufacturers are producing more electric vehicle
models and mentions the years that many will start producing only electric vehicles.
Talks about the fear of not being able to charge vehicles as a key factor limiting EV
adoption and indicates 80% of EVs are charged at home or at work. Also, mentions that it
is much cheaper to install EV charging infrastructure in new development rather than in
retrofits. Provides examples.
Discusses key elements needed for the code amendment. The first one is the charging
level, how much power goes into this infrastructure. Then the stages or types of
infrastructure. Finally, how different uses will have different EV charging infrastructure
needs.
Talks about the difference between the EV stages: EV capable, EV ready and EV installed.
• EV Capable means that the electric panel has the capacity to handle the charging
voltage needed and has the initial wiring. Mentions EV Capable does not allow for
current EV charging, but means it will be ready for future use.
• EV Ready has the panel capacity, the conduit lines, and a plug in the wall. The circuitry
is in place to physically charge the car with a portable charger.
• EV Installed has the panels in place, conduit lines, circuit lines, and the specialized
equipment geared specifically for electric vehicles. It deals with the voltage and shut-
off times. It is considered the full, complete package for charging infrastructure.
Then talks about the charging levels: Level I, Level II and Level III or fast chargers.
• Level I is a 120-volt circuit, similar to what is seen on a typical household outlet. Can
charge an EV but takes a long time, average charging time can be from eight to 20
hours.
• Level II is the most common charging level, especially for residential use. It runs on a
240-volt circuit which is similar to an oven or dryer outlet. It can fully charge an EV
battery in four to eight hours.
• Level III, also known as rapid charging, has a 480-volt circuit. This is considered too
much for current home usage. It can fully charge an EV battery in 20 to 60 minutes.
They are typically found at large commercial sites, electric vehicle dealerships, and
along major highways.
Mentions the need to separate uses into three categories: single-family, multi -family, and
nonresidential uses. Also mentions staff has done a lot of research on other cities and
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 5
explains how the standards vary. Reiterates the specific items that will be discussed at the
next meeting including a draft code amendment and development scenarios.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Eric and asked for Planning Board questions
Roger Pence: Mentions load management and if that is applicable here.
Eric Engmann: Is unsure of the implications.
Roger Pence: Asks how people will be charged for the electricity used in multifamily buildings.
Eric Engmann: Mentions several options, specifically credit card readers on EV installed infrastructure.
Alicia Crank: Asks about the types of costs based on the charging level and whether a consumer should
have a preference.
Eric Engmann: Mentions the major cost difference are between the stages themselves e.g. ready vs.
capable. The cost of the electricity should be relatively similar amongst charging levels.
Alicia Crank: Talks about the importance in charging levels across the city. Asks if the ones downtown
are Level III.
Eric Engmann: Unsure of downtown but mentions that most are Level II.
Rob Chave: Believes city -sponsored ones are Level II.
Nathan Monroe: Asks for staff to keep some flexibility in the code because technology is still advancing.
Mentions that, since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting standards will be important
as part of remodel work. Asks for staff to consider how this ordinance will apply to
retrofits.
Matt Cheung: Asks how much it generally costs to charge an EV battery.
Eric Engmann: States that it generally takes about $4.00 to fully charge an EV battery based on current
Washington kilowatt hour costs.
Matt Cheung: Asks if the city tracks how often the charging stations are being used.
Rob Chave: Mentions that the city would only know about the 5 or 6 public ones and is unsure if that
information is tracked.
Todd Cloutier: Talks about how this amendment should be "future focused" and not just looking at the
technology around today. Wants to be careful not to try to legislate too hard and keep
the metrics more flexible.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 6
Judi Gladstone: Also discusses flexibility and understanding what the future trends are. Asks about
analysis for different scenarios and mentions examples such as if Level III chargers
become preferred. Would like to know what information staff can provide to look at
upcoming technology.
Eric Engmann: Offers to provide more information on future technology. Mentions the difficulty in
assessing future technology trends in the code. States that an option would be to revise
the code if the technology does change.
Judi Gladstone: Clarifies the desire for different scenarios based on the charging types and levels. Asks if
scenarios can account for financial, environmental, and social costs to address equity.
Eric Engmann: Agrees to provide more scenarios and to have more conversation about the other topics.
Mike Rosen: Agrees with others' statements. Asks for more information about how this effort will tie
directly into the city's climate strategy; if there is a specific target for this amendment.
Asks about the effectiveness of this amendment since new development will represent a
small amount of Edmonds' future growth.
Eric Engmann: Mentions the Climate Action Plan updates and the effort to find items to "close the gap"
for carbon neutrality. Also acknowledges that Edmonds is mostly built -out but mentions
that this amendment will still have an impact.
Mike Rosen: Sees no other questions and asks if this item will come back to the June 23rd Planning
Board meeting.
Eric Engmann: States that this will be back on June 23rd. Thanks the Board.
Mike Rosen: Discusses the extended agenda and asks for any comments by Board members.
Judi Gladstone: Mentions that there are several meetings where she will unfortunately be on vacation.
Matt Cheung: In looking at the extended agenda, asks if EV charging regulations will be ready for public
hearing in two meetings as proposed.
Rob Chave: States that this is tentative and can change based on what happens at the next Planning
Board meeting.
Roger Pence: Asks when the Planning Board will go back to live meetings.
Mike Rosen: States there will probably be a hybrid or combination model after the City Council tries it
first.
Roger Pence: Expresses desire to go back to in -person meetings.
Alicia Crank: Asks if there will be a break in Planning Board meetings at some point this summer.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 7
Mike Rosen: States this is often the case, usually around Labor Day, but it is still to be determined.
Alicia Crank: States that the extended agenda looks very heavy all the way into October. Asks to
determine any breaks sooner rather than later.
Mike Rosen: Suggests picking a meeting where several Board members are going to be absent to
determine a break. States that the Vice Chair may want to poll the Planning Board
members. Thanks the new members, Judi and Rich, forjoining Planning Board. Closes the
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2021 Page 8