Loading...
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