2021-07-14 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
July 14, 2021
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the
Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with
the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair
Matt Cheung
Nathan Monroe
Roger Pence
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Judi Gladstone (excused)
Richard Kuen (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Eric Engmann, Planning Division
Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Asks
Rob Chave for roll call.
Rob Chave: Does roll call.
Mike Rosen: States Judi Gladstone, Richard Kuen, Alicia Crank, and Todd Cloutier have excused
absences.
Mike Rosen: Mentions two past meeting minutes to approve. Starts with June 9. Asks for changes or
concerns (hears none) and asks for motion to approve.
Nathan Monroe: Makes Motion to approve.
Roger Pence: Seconds.
Mike Rosen: Asks for all in favor.
Group Aye.
Mike Rosen: Continues with June 23. Asks for changes or concerns (hears none) and asks for motion
to approve.
Nathan Monroe: Makes motion.
Mike Rosen: Seconds and asks for all in favor.
Group: Aye.
Mike Rosen: Announces the agenda. Audience comment, then public hearing for bicycle parking
standards code amendment, then under unfinished business continue discussions from
June 9 and June 23 on electric vehicle charging infrastructure code amendment, then
review extended agenda. Asks if anyone in audience wishes to speak.
(Appears audience member Natalie Seitz is having microphone issues)
Eric Engmann: Introduces public hearing for potential bicycle parking code amendment. Recaps the
discussion from the June 23 meeting.
Mike Rosen: Indicates Natalie Seitz has solved microphone issues and wishes to speak for public
comments. Pauses public hearing.
Natalie Seitz: Apologizes for technical difficulties. Wishes to comment on city's intent to regulate the
maintenance of trees on private property. Likes seeing public outreach for tree programs
and regulations on the extended agenda for July 28. Recommends using the 2017 Urban
Tree Canopy Assessment to target outreach to those communities that will be impacted
by the city's tree programs and regulation efforts as well as ask the Diversity Commission
to evaluate the disproportionate amount Highway 99 communities will pay under the tree
ordinance for benefits that are diverted outside those communities.
States that there are lots of topics that she has not yet been able to cover in comments
to council and the planning board, including implementation of Right Tree, Right Place
and the role of the recently approved tree planner, SEPA or the lack thereof, and land use,
and the realities of enforcement in relation to privacy, equity, and takings claims. States
she offered to meet with the city council to discuss concerns in a format that is longer
than three minutes and extends that invitation to the planning board. Hopes to
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 2
summarize her past comments to the city council and planning board for the benefit of
the new planning board members.
Talks about climate change and the effect of the existing emergency ordinance and the
upcoming consideration of the permanent ordinance. States climate change is likely to
exacerbate extreme heat events like the one a few weeks ago and is part of a long term
trend of hotter, drier summers. Also states native tree species encouraged by the current
code are likely to decline and die off in the coming years.
Mentions Seattle's master arborers have identified that if soil is dry near the trees 4 inches
below the surface, that the trees should be watered lightly for about an hour every week.
Says drought or dry and hot conditions is correlated with limb failure during the summer
or upon the first wind event and branch fall creates a hazard to both people and property.
States the result of the emergency ordinance is an implicit requirement for property
owners to maintain trees above 24 inches or live with existing and increasing hazards in
coming years. States that the city is not going to pay for her water bill for the days leading
up to and the weeks following the last heat event or maintenance as things get worse.
States the city made these costs and hazards required for a portion of her property with
the emergency ordinance and they are a current reality for portions of the city annexed
in the'60s, '90s, and SR 99 Corridor. Hopes that the planning board thoughtfully considers
the burdens and hazards that the city is imposing on overburdened and other less
developed communities and states that the city's narrow focus on preserving the private
urban forest in its current location misses the reality of climate change.
Thanks the board and apologizes for the interruption of the presentation.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie Seitz and asks Eric Engmann to continue where he left off with the
presentation.
Eric Engmann: Continues where he left off. States the main changes since the last draft.
• Created a definition section
• Updated the 50% rule to use existing code language for substantially improved and
substantially damages
• Created a calculations section
• Removed exception option to allow City to set minimum standards above what is
stated in the code (without specific requirements)
• Updated minor Schriever's errors
Explains the differences between short-term and long-term bicycle parking and how they
are used. Reiterated that these standards would apply to multifamily and non-residential
development.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 3
Then explained the proposed standards. One short-term (multifamily) space per 10
dwelling units. Short-term nonresidential parking requires one per twelve parking spaces,
with no less than two spaces. For long-term multifamily parking it is 0.75 per unit. For
long-term nonresidential, it would be one per 25,000 square feet of floor area, not less
than two spaces. Explains the footnote that multifamily units with individual garages and
those with ground floor access directly outside of the development are exempt from
these requirements.
Briefly mentions the rest of the requirements and mentions the exception for assisted
living and similar uses. States that he spoke with the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group
and showed them a few of the standards. Mentions some minor language recommended
to be added by Public Works for the short-term and long-term standards.
Talks about the applicability standards and how the new 50 percent rule would work and
where the new language, using the defined terms substantial improvement and
substantial damage, comes from. Also compares the proposed language to the other non-
conforming standards in the code. Mentions that the work would need to take place over
a 1-year period and the final decision would be made by the Building Official.
Asks the Board to consider the proposed standards, the updated applicability standards
and any other comments on the current draft. Also, asks the Board to consider transmittal
to City Council.
Mike Rosen: Opens up the public hearing. Asks if anyone in the audience wishes to speak.
Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience and can speak if she wishes.
Ms. Seitz: States she hasn't reviewed this in detail. States one of the major impacts of all of those
bicycle sharing programs is ADA accessibility and making sure there is ADA accessible
pedestrian access.
Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie Seitz and, understanding that there are no other people wishing to
participate, closes the public hearing portion.
Nathan Monroe: Asks if the short-term bicycle and the long-term bicycle, is governed by PROWAG or
ADAG.
Eric Engmann: Unsure. Asks if it refers to bike parking in the right-of-way.
Nathan Monroe: Asks about bicycle parking on the fringe of the right of way, it would be accessible to our
right of way and wonders what building code governs, PROWAG or ADAG?
Eric Engmann: Unsure.
Nathan Monroe: Imagines the Building Department will sort that out. Has four questions to ask.
Has some pause about the assisted living exception and notes that building uses change.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 4
Asks why assisted living was carved out.
Eric Engmann: States this is standard for bike parking standards and done in other cities. This
acknowledges that some use might required less bike parking.
Nathan Monroe: States his concern is that building uses change often as the needs of the city change.
Mentions assisted living now might become condos or apartments later and this could
lead to insufficient infrastructure. Discusses caveat to have the space now but not
necessarily use it as such.
Has another question about electrical outlet distances. Would like to see the average
extension length included, whatever it may be. Also mentions the lighting required in
Section F and that there ware no specific lumen requirements. Worried about the code
simply using the term lighting, and that developers can twist those words. Lastly, agrees
that the 50% applicability rule seems appropriate.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that staff discussed using specific lumens in earlier drafts. In talking with Public
Works and the Building Official, it was felt that lumens were hard to specify. Mentions
that it can be difficult if codes are too specific to allow for different scenarios. Mentions
this is also why no specific distance was used for electrical outlets. States they were left
out for some flexibility.
Nathan Monroe: States he seems the point with lumens, but feels that average length of an electrical bike
plug is a known quantity. Suggests the Board direct staff to include a specific electrical
outlet distance.
Mike Rosen: Discusses the applicability options. Asks if it is the consensus on using the 50% rule.
Doesn't hear pushback so assumes there is consensus on 50%. Mentions Nathan Monroe
suggests there be a specific plug-in (distance) number based, asks if this is a reasonable
approach.
Nathan Monroe: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung or Roger Pence have any concerns.
Roger Pence: Observes that most electrical bikes have demountable batteries that riders take up to
their living quarters to charge them up. Unsure how much demand there is for charging
at the bike rack.
Mike Rosen: Asks if there is any downside of putting this in the standards.
Roger Pence: Has no objection, just pointing out fact.
Mike Rosen: Reiterates what he assumes is the consensus of the group. Ponders if it is reasonable to
mention a certain lumen to address the brightness of a surface. Asks if that is a reasonable
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 5
approach.
Nathan Monroe: Asks if this is more like performance criteria.
Mike Rosen: States the standard could be based on brightness of the room and not how it is done.
Rob Chave: Mentions that bicycle parking can be provided in many different kinds of circumstances,
sometimes within parking areas and other in personal storage units. Mentions that it is
not a uniform thing.
Nathan Monroe: Clarifies that short-term parking would be more public.
Rob Chave: Agrees.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions that for a safety and usability aspect, it should be well lit. States the current
language seems a little ambiguous.
Eric Engmann: Mentions the current language states it requires adequate illumination. Mentions that
there are a lot of different scenarios to consider.
Nathan Monroe: Asks if the code addresses safety, specifically if it must be in an easily accessible safe area.
Eric Engmann: Confirms. States that for short-term parking it needs to be near the building entrance
unless specifically assigned to a different location. For long-term parking, it is typically
where people live so it doesn't need the same sort of signage.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe about his recommendation on the lighting.
Nathan Monroe: States he is nervous from a builder's standpoint and acknowledges this is a minor issue.
Mentions that the more standalone and performance criteria included the better. Defers
to staff but mentions that he wanted to bring it up.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that this was specifically discusses with the Building Official and Public works,
the consensus was switching to the current language.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe if he has a specific recommendation.
Nathan Monroe: States that he is okay with adding the electrical (distance) language and not including the
lumen language.
Eric Engmann: Agrees that the electrical distance can be added.
Mike Rosen: Brings up the assisted living exception. Asks if Eric Engmann has concern with that change.
Eric Engmann: Clarifies that the Board's amendment would require Senior living to comply.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 6
Mike Rosen: States that they could still use it for other purposes, but it would be available.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that there are considerations or scenarios where there may be use for some
exceptions, but it is up to the Board.
Mike Rosen: Asks Roger Pence and Matt Cheung if they have any opinion. Reiterates staff's comment
that if Nathan Monroe has a strong opinion, then they will honor it.
Nathan Monroe: States he thinks it makes the most sense to future proof our infrastructure.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make the change and brings up the proposed ADA standards that
was discussed. Asks for the thoughts of the Board.
Nathan Monroe: States that if it is inside of a building, it's already got to honor ADAG, which is the building
code for accessibility and if it's outside, it's PROWAG if it's public right of way. States that
the criteria already exists in other parts of the code and doesn't think it needs to be
reiterated.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that following ADA requirements is already part of the overall code language.
Mike Rosen: Mentions that staff had recommended adding two additional components to short-term
and long-term parking installation requirements. Asks if anyone has any concerns. Hears
none.
Asks if Eric Engmann has any other discussion points.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that Roger Pence had brought up whether there should be an exception to the
short-term parking requirement in downtown if there is on -street parking nearby.
Mike Rosen: Asks Roger Pence for his opinion.
Roger Pence: States he was thinking about downtown where businesses and buildings are close
together. Mentions the Board ought to be encouraging combined parking both
automobiles and bicycles. States this approach seems logical.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for his thought. .
Nathan Monroe: Mentions this would mostly affect retrofits. Rhetorically asks who can use the on -street
bike parking and how it would be used for multiple buildings.
Roger Pence: States that logic would have the different building owners cooperating on a joint use
facility. Concerned about how the short-term bike parking on private property would
work; who could use it.
Mike Rosen: States he appreciates that kind of thinking. Asks Eric Engmann if there is any other
direction needed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 7
Eric Engmann: Mentions that was it.
Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anything else to add or change. States that he thinks the Board is looking
for a motion to send to Council.
Nathan Monroe: Confirms that the update includes the electrical outlet distance component and removing
the senior living exception.
Mike Rosen: Agrees and mentions the two additions by staff.
Nathan Monroe: Moves that this, with those modifications, be sent to Council.
Matt Cheung: Seconds.
Mike Rosen: Asks for any discussion. Asks for all those in favor say aye.
Group: Aye.
Mike Rosen: Asks if anybody is opposed.
States that hearing none, the motion passes unanimously.
Eric Engmann: Introduces continuation of EV charging infrastructure potential code amendment. States
it will be focused on the changes from the last draft which are
• The mix of EV charging standards in the table.
• The applicability standard.
Also mentions that there are a few changes to the draft since the last meeting. They are:
• Included Level 3 charging into the definition for EV capable and EV ready- for the sake
of flexibility
• Updated the 50% rule language- now uses substantial damage and substantial
improvement in the definitions
• Clarifies parking restrictions will only apply to EV Installed spaces
• Minor clarifications and corrections
States one of the big topics from the last meeting had to do with the mix of standards
that were proposed.
Highlights (and reads slides) of the pros and cons for each of the EV staging types (EV
Capable, EV Ready, EV Installed.
Highlights the specific proposal. Mentions Board seemed comfortable with single family
proposal, which also includes multifamily with individual garages.
Discusses multiple dwelling unit (Multifamily) proposal. 20% EV capable, 40% EV ready,
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 8
and 10% EV installed. Discusses nonresidential proposal. 20% EV capable, 20% EV ready,
and 10% EV installed. Mentions, for multifamily, basically, 70% of the spaces would have
to have some level of capability and then, for nonresidential, it would be 50%. Mentions
that the list of many different standards was shown. Mentions that, at the last meeting,
the Board was talking about 100% and if 100% (total requirement) is appropriate.
Discusses comparisons between Denver, San Jose and staff's proposals. Mentions that
requiring more EV ready would allow a building to transition easier to EV installed at a
later date. Highlights that Denver and San Jose have a higher overall standard, 100%, but
staffs proposal would require a higher percentage of EV ready and EV installed spaces.
Mentions this would have a higher upfront cost but would be cheaper than later retrofits.
Mentions staff feels that the multifamily proposal from the last meeting is still
appropriate.
For non-residential, staff shows the comparisons for the same cities (Denver and San
Jose). Mentions that they have much less EV ready requirements. Mentions staff took a
look at this again and changed their recommendation from the last meeting. It would now
require 40% EV capable and 10% installed. Stated that EV ready may be difficult to
accommodate in a nonresidential parking lot.
Mentions the updates to the 50% rule that was also discussed in the bike parking public
hearing. States that for existing buildings, substantial damage and substantial
improvement would apply. Also states that this standard would apply if it occurs within a
one-year period and it's determined by the building official. Mentions the 50%
requirement would be pretty sizable and gives examples.
Also mentions that it would be very difficult for EV upgrades to be made at the time of
electrical permits. States that the electrical permits are contracted outside of the city.
States that there still might be wall work to run wires through the ceiling or floors. States
that this was a great idea but staff is not recommending making that change.
States that staff would like to hear more about the Board's thoughts on the multifamily
standards, the nonresidential standards, and those applicability standards.
Mike Rosen: States that the Board should take these issues one at a time and opens discussion.
Eric Engmann: Reiterates the proposed multifamily standards but acknowledges that there are different
options.
Mike Rosen: States that staff mentioned many buildings in Edmonds are smaller but mentions the
Apollo Project, which is 251 units. Asks if the proposal means 175 out of the 251 spaces
would need some level of EV infrastructure.
Eric Engmann: Affirms
Mike Rosen: Asks the other Board members about their thoughts.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 9
Matt Cheung: Asks to look at the multifamily presentation slide of other cities. States that San Jose has
10% installed but the others are 5% or below.
Eric Engmann: States that these are just a few of the cities, but agrees that those are the ones listed on
the slide.
Matt Cheung: States that EV ready should be sufficient for most people, especially residential when
charging overnight. States that it seems like EV installed for residential isn't as important
compared to commercial where maybe EV installed is more important. Also says for non-
residential, it seems like EVC installed is more important that EV ready.
Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issue in order. Asks Matt Cheung Cheung if the would like the board to
consider as alternatives to the current proposal.
Matt Cheung: States he would probably say EV installed at 5% and then, EV ready, feels 40% is pretty
high. Mentions the current proposal has one of the highest EV installed and EV ready
percentages. States that if Edmonds wants to stand out, then the EV ready percentages
make sense.
Mike Rosen: Asks Matt Cheung what numbers is he recommending, 20/40/5.
Matt Cheung: States he doesn't have much opinion on EV capable but that number could go up. States
that the EV ready numbers proposed are higher than other cities.
Summarizes that he would probabably just lean on dropping the 10% to 5% on the EV
installed and keep the other ones the same or increasing EV capable.
Mike Rosen: Asks for other Board members feelings about changing the EV installed percentages.
Nathan Monroe: Asks to confirm multiple development means multifamily.
Eric Engmann: Confirms, states this is how it is defined in the code.
Nathan Monroe: States that he doesn't see why we should build any parking space that doesn't have at
least EV capable. States he is in favor of bringing the EV capable up enough to sum it out
to 100% and there is no situation in the future by which electric vehicles don't have a role
to play.
Mike Rosen: Restates this to mean 55% EV capable, 45% EV ready, and 5% EV installed to get to 100%.
Nathan Monroe: States that he'd prefer higher percentages on the higher end, but he'll accept it.
Mike Rosen: Asks for Roger Pence's opinion.
Roger Pence: Asks about the EV capable pros and cons from the presentation. States he doesn't think
EV capable will require invasive work. States that it will only require cutting a hole in the
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 10
wall and put a box on it. Asks for clarification.
Eric Engmann: States that is his personal summary of it and mentions the raceway wiring could be further
away from the wall to get to the outlet.
Roger Pence: States that he envisions EV capable meaning that there's wire in the wall that goes to the
individual parking spot and then, dead ends in a box on the wall with a blank cover on it.
And then, to upgrade that to EV ready, an electrician comes out, unscrews the blank, puts
in a socket. States he thinks we should define EV capable as meaning the wire goes to the
parking spots and then, blanks off.
Eric Engmann: Mentions that he is worried about creating a definition that is unique to Edmonds for this
type of technology. States that the definition is set up in state law and international
building code.
Rob Chave: States that the City would want to use industry standards as much as possible.
Nathan Monroe: Asks for clarification about the EV capable definition.
Eric Engmann: States that the definitions does not define where the wiring stops but that it does require
raceway wiring.
Nathan Monroe: States that they're not going to run a 5-foot wire out of the panel and stop. They're going
to take to about where they think it should go and it doesn't cost any more money. States
that he doesn't think it's invasive to go from EV capable to EV ready.
Mike Rosen: Asks if Roger Pence wants to discuss this further.
Roger Pence: Sates that he made his point and happy to let it go at that.
Mike Rosen: States there are two parts of the discussion, but unsure if they are reliant on the other.
Nathan Monroe recommends going to 100% for total percentage. Asks Matt Cheung for
his thoughts.
Matt Cheung: States that he likes this in principle. Provides a scenarios and states that doesn't know if
100% is realistic. Also asks if the EV installed infrastructure would only work for one space.
Eric Engmann: States that there are multiple options available, they also work for two spaces.
Matt Cheung: Asks if the max would be two spaces, could there be one serving four spaces.
Eric Engmann: States that he hasn't seen one like that, but that technology could change.
Matt Cheung: Asks about the cost of EV installed.
Eric Engmann: States that staffs analysis showed it would be about $4,300.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 11
Matt Cheung: States that he feels having an outlet (EV ready) should suffice. States that he is converned
about EV installed in multifamily and likes EV ready.
Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issues one at a time. Checks to see if 100% for multifamily is appropriate
and states that Matt Cheung Cheung's pushback is that it might not be possible and that
an alternative would be to go to a lower number.
Nathan Monroe: States that he has built some parking garages and that it is possible. States that you could
run conduit anywhere and that it isn't that expensive.
Mike Rosen: States that he hears the majority consensus is to change the overall multifamily number
to 100%. Asks for the Board to raise their hand to confirm.
(Mike Rosen and Nathan Monroe raise their hands).
States that they are split.
Roger Pence: States that he is split too.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions he'll bring it up again at the next meeting and it can be discussed in a bigger
group.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to reflect this as an option.
Eric Engmann: Confirms.
Mike Rosen: Mentions that the second point is the one raised by Matt Cheung. That he would prefer
the EV installed percentage reduced to 5%. States that Nathan Monroe would like to see
it kept at 10% and asks Roger Pence Pence's opinion.
Roger Pence: States that he would like to hear from developers, contractors, and people that build this
stuff. States that he would like to invite one or more to the public hearing to have some
input from people with real world working knowledge of the subject.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make this 5% EV installed proposal a discussion item. Asks if he
could reach out to people in the industry and ask them to participate; if nothing else,
report on what they said.
Roger Pence: States that he feels he needs more information.
Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann if there is more information needed.
Eric Engmann: Thanks the Board and asks how the Board felt about amending the nonresidential
standards to 40% EV capable and 10% EV installed.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 12
Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung would like to finish his thought on this subject.
Matt Cheung: Discusses it out loud then states the more EV capable makes sense. States that it may
allow the spaces to go directly from EV capable to EV installed and thinks that commercial
units may not want the exposed outlets in EV ready. Thinks that the EV capable number
could be higher.
Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Matt Cheung would like the EV capable number to be higher.
Matt Cheung: States that if there was one to change, he would probably increase capable.
Mike Rosen: Asks if anyone else has a preference.
Nathan Monroe: States that he would like it to be 100% and once you build it, you don't unbuild it.
States that it would be such a small amount of money to spend now to future proof
everything down the road. Doesn't see why you wouldn't at least put the conduit in the
ground and pull the wire and get it ready for eventual use.
Mike Rosen: Asks about a scenario: if a Home Depot goes up, would we want wire underneath all of
the spaces?
Nathan Monroe: Reiterates that it is better to have the ability to wire every space without having to tear
up the parking lot.
Mike Rosen: Asks if the rest of the Board feels the number should add up to 100 percent, mostly from
EV capable.
Matt Cheung: States he doesn't feel it has to be set at 100% and discusses a hesitancy with requiring
every spot to have EV charging infrastructure. Mentions it may be nice to hear from
others in the industry.
Mike Rosen: Summarizes Matt Cheung's discussion and that he would like to hear from the industry.
Asks Eric Engmann to reach out to people in the industry for guidance and encourage
people to talk with the Board. Asks Matt Cheung if he would like to pencil in 100 percent
for now.
Matt Cheung: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for clarification on the term wire or conduit, whether that should
be called out.
Nathan Monroe: States that builders will put conduit in surface parking lots. Surmises that it would be up
to the Building Official. Asks if Eric Engmann has a feeling on this.
Eric Engmann: Pulls up the definition in the draft. Mentions the definition is fairly broad.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 13
Nathan Monroe: States caution with the comments from developers. Mentions they would probably not
want to do it. Asks to be clear what the Board is asking. Would like to ask them about the
costs of installing it now verses the later cost.
Eric Engmann: Refers back to the EV capacity question, states that it talks about the capacity and conduit,
raceway, and breaker space. Reiterates that the language is rather broad.
Mike Rosen: States that the Board has a tentative recommendation for staff.
Eric Engmann: States that previous discussion also covered separating different nonresidential
categories. Mentions staff felt it would be better to keep the category broader and that
most other codes also merge non-residential into one category.
Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board has any push back to staff's recommendation.
Nathan Monroe: Asks if the other cities previously discussed, San Jose and Denver, make a qualification for
mega shopping centers. Agrees that it could be difficult for them to meet higher
standards.
Eric Engmann: States that larger development is why the percentages are lower. States that he doesn't
think any non-residential standards exceeded 50% for total EV charging infrastructure.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions he was considering office space with 15 or 20 parking spaces. States that a
different number for big commercial spaces may be needed.
Eric Engmann: Asked if the Board would like to see options for different non-residential sizes.
Nathan Monroe: Agrees.
Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board would like to have further discussions on this during the hearing
meeting.
Rob Chave: States that staff usually puts the options out there, advertise, and let people come and
give feedback. Mentions that the Board can't insist that people come ahead of time.
Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Rob Chave's recommendation would be to move forward, book the
hearing, and have the things discussed tonight as options.
Rob Chave: Agrees and mentions the hearing won't happen for another month.
Mike Rosen: Agrees.
Rob Chave: Mentions staff is already reaching outto people in the development community, including
the Master Builders, to make them away of what the city is considering. States that if they
are concerned, they will show up.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 14
Mike Rosen:
Asks Eric Engmann if there is anything else he would like the Board to consider.
Eric Engmann:
Asks if the Board is comfortable with the updates to the applicability 50% rule.
Mike Rosen:
Checks with the Board and mentions that everyone is good with those standards.
Eric Engmann: Thanks the Board and mentions that the next meeting will focus on the standards and
what the appropriate numbers should be.
Mike Rosen: States that there is no new business and that the Board will discuss the extended agenda.
Talks about upcoming vacations of the Board members. Asks Rob Chave if he will miss the
July 28th and August 11th meetings.
Rob Chave: States he will be gone for the August 25th meeting.
Mike Rosen: Mentions Roger Pence will miss the September 8th meeting.
Roger Pence: States he could be available by Zoom.
Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board wants to take one of those meetings off.
Nathan Monroe: States he's not sure how good they're going to do without Rob Chave here.
Rob Chave: States Eric Engmann will do fine.
Mike Rosen: Asks the Board if there is any feeling about taking a meeting off or keep going.
Nathan Monroe: States that he thinks the Board has a lot on their plate and doesn't want to lose rhythm.
Mentions missed meetings may throw things off but that he could also appreciate a
summer break.
Mike Rosen: States that he is good moving forward and asks Roger Pence if he is too.
Roger Pence:
Agrees.
Mike Rosen:
Asks Matt Cheung his opinion.
Matt Cheung:
States he can go either way.
Mike Rosen:
States that, unless Rob Chave has any concerns, that the Board would just keep going.
Rob Chave:
States that there may be a time going forward where staff isn't ready to present and that
may be the time to take the meeting off.
Mike Rosen: Agrees and discusses the extended agenda. Asks if there are any concerns.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 15
Rob Chave: States he has one modification. States they may be able to have a presentation on
Buildable Lands on August 11th.
Roger Pence: Mentions the big box on the last page titled Pending 2021 and that it looks like an awful
lot of work. States he is a little concerned about what the Board does with each of those,
how many can be handled, and when.
Mike Rosen: States that the PROS plan is the one pretty well scheduled out.
Roger Pence: Asks about the neighborhood center plans and implementation and the subdivision code
update. States that it looks like a formidable list of titles.
Rob Chave: Mentions that a lot of these are things we don't want to forget about but they're not
going to addressed in the short term.
Mike Rosen: Asks if it might make sense to say they are in 2022, on the horizon.
Rob Chave: Mentions they may be getting to the point where everyone starts thinking about 2022.
Mike Rosen: States they are moving into comments for the good of the order. Mentions Roger Pence
has something to add.
Roger Pence: Mentions the lack of people for the public hearing and the only speaker was about trees.
Asks about the outreach done, other than the legal notice and the fine print of the
Edmonds Herald. Doesn't recall any news releases in My Edmonds News. Would like to
talk more about community engagement.
States that the Board should have a plan for public hearing that engages the community,
informs, or at least puts out more notice.
Nathan Monroe: Recommends adding this topic to the July 28th agenda; how to increase public support or
public engagement. Suggests Roger Pence can bring the suggestion to the group with
some action items. Mentions he'd like to discuss it more.
Mike Rosen: Agrees.
Roger Pence: States the Board could come up with a plan or proposal to help begin the discussion.
States they could talk about what a better public communication plan might look like.
Mike Rosen: States that this should be added to the July 28th agenda, and they will ask that the
outreach person participate. Mentions that Roger Pence and himself will serve as a task
force to try to come up with some initial recommendations as a starting place for that
discussion.
Roger Pence: Agrees and thinks Alicia Crank will have some thoughts on this too.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 16
Mike Rosen: Thanks the Board and asks if there is any comments for the good of the order.
Matt Cheung: Talks about being proactive in communications as opposed to waiting for someone else
to show interest in coming here.
Nathan Monroe: Mentions that the Board should run these thoughts through council. States that they are
somewhat victims of our own success. States that the Board needs to make sure they're
highlighting the important topics and not all the topics.
States that for EV and bike parking is a chance for Edmonds to be bold and at the
forefront. Would like the Board to be really cognizant about this and that it is a chance
for it to be low dollar, low cost, with a lot of impact down the road.
Mike Rosen: Thanks everyone and adjourns the meeting at 8:56.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2021 Page 17