Loading...
2021-08-25 Planning Board MinutesCITY 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. 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 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. 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. Judi 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). Mike Rosen: Asks for meeting maker (calendar invites) to be updates to only show dates of Planning Board meeting on 2nd and 4t" Wednesdays of the month. Mike Rosen: Confirms the agenda for the night's meeting. 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 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 ability for certain neighborhoods to accumulate wealth could have been identified and impacted properties could have been notified to provide comment. Trees are not uniformly distributed in the city. It is areas annexed in the '60s, '90s and SR99 Corridor who will pay while properties in downtown neighborhoods will not. 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 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 proposing. Reiterates some of the prior issues staff has discussed with the board about the differences between EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed. 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 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. In non-residential, staff made 40 percent EV capable. So, that means 40 percent would be 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 be one or the other. 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 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. I thought that works a little bit better. I think it fits real world scenarios better and it would be easier for my staff and for the developer to understand. And like I said, it's simplified from the model that Denver had. Theirs was even larger. Theirs was five to 50 as the first 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 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. Judi Gladstone: Asks if the concern differs as to whether or not the requirement would be Level 1 or Level 2. Eric Engmann: That is something we could do. We could also lower it down to be a Level 1 option. Just remember though, with Level 1, it takes a lot longer to charge but that could be an option for minimum thresholds. 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 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 garage? 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. 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 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 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 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? Alicia Crank: I prefer staff's recommendation. 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 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, biggest concerns with going to 100 percent? So, why is that a fatal flaw for you? Eric Engmann: I wouldn't wanna say that it's a fatal flaw. There are other codes that are 100 percent. I think there's probably three or four in the country, so it is not uncharted to go to 100 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 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 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. Mike Rosen: 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? Judi Gladstone: 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? Eric Engmann: 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. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 11 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 — Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 12 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) Eric Engmann: Mentions non-residential businesses will be a good place for people to charge their EVs when there are no chargers where they live. Mike Rosen: I did hear of a study not too long ago that in retail establishments that did install chargers, that people in fact, as a result of that, specifically stayed and spent mor money. So, the 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 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, 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 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 gonna be necessarily ADA ready. Or available. I mean, that's not always gonna be true. 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 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. 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 potential alternative to clarifying how that space can be used if it's not an electric, so we aren't taking away. Okay. Eric Engmann: The benefit is, we might be setting the tone for a lot of other cities on this issue. Mike Rosen: And again, thank you very much for being bold and helping Edmonds go where everybody 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 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 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 on the coming supply of power in a corridor where they ought to know, it's going to grow. 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 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. So, I'm having a real hard time understanding — go ahead. 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 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 itself. Is it two percent, is it five percent? Is this what puts them over that threshold? Mike Rosen: That was a great question because if it was basically dirt to start with. 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 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 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 as a result of redevelopment or are they already planning for the power supply that needs to be there? I personally need a little bit more from them about what it is that would be needed to understand that. Mike Rosen: So, Eric. Do you have any concerns over any of those specific requests? 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 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, they can say okay, here are the tools that make sense for this lift. And there are the tools that make sense for this lift. And then it would be progressive. Judi Gladstone: And how do you determine which things are in Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 or is that completely a subjective decision by whoever has the lead on the issue? 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 not 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 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? Roger Pence: No, I guess I was a little uncertain. Alicia made the point about deferring to staff on certain 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 of the large menu presented. I would like us to arrive at a working consensus at some point on what elements ought to be included in each of the tiers. 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 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. Roger Pence: But certain chapters might end up being a rewrite? Eric Engmann: The usual term is called, amendment. But if there's something else that you want me to 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 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. Mike Rosen: I would add that to something we would encourage. And I had a question on, at any given time, what do you anticipate the number of amendments being changed in process would be? How many of those would be going on? Eric Engmann: It's hard to say. It really depends. 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 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 address those things as they come about. Judi Gladstone: I'm sorry that I had to miss the last two meetings. 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