Loading...
2021-09-08 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom September 8, 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 Todd Cloutier Matt Cheung BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (Excused) STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls the Planning Board meeting to order. Asks Judi to read the land acknowledgement. Judi Gladstone: Reads the Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to do the roll call. Eric Engmann: Does roll call. Mike Rosen: Nathan Monroe is an excused absence today. Announces the agenda. Eric Engmann: Asks to amend the agenda. Under unfinished business, asks to take the Code webpage off the agenda. States it isn't quite ready yet. Mike Rosen: Asks about changing the agenda to remove titles without items. Eric Engmann: Asks to hold off on that for one more meeting. Mike Rosen: Asks if Eric Engmann will now be the official staff liaison. Eric Engmann: States that there hasn't been anything decided yet. Mike Rosen: Opens audience comments. Asks if there is anyone in attendance. Eric Engmann: States Natalie Seitz is wishes to speak. Natalie Seitz: I'm commenting tonight on the city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property. Beth Chatto coined the term, "right plant, right place" in the 1980s. This was a revolutionary concept that gardeners should match the plant to the conditions they found and not the reverse. The City of Edmonds has adopted a version of this concept with "right tree, right place" in the 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan. This concept is a foundational guiding principle of the plan identified as its own goal and section. The plan recognizes that "right tree, right place" is a shared value among residents. Tree planting requires careful consideration of view, space, climate, soil, infrastructure, and property. Native trees may not be appropriate for the urban environment. And a tree once planted may no longer be in the right place overtime. All of these values go way with the unsupported adoption of a maintenance regulation and retention requirement. Regulations forcing some property owners to find space for "any tree, any place, "and bear the ongoing cost whenever a tree is no longer in the right place for the use and enjoyment of property. Maintenance regulations also have a deleterious effect on the abatement of hazard trees because city arborists, whose core function is to maintain canopy cover, often obscure the rights of property owners to remove a hazard tree in order to trigger retention requirements that are common under maintenance standards. I believe that maintenance regulations do not work because they disincentivize trees by subjecting property owners to oversight fees and permits for undertaking a noncommercial activity that benefits the community; create a negative relationship between property owners, the city, and trees; but will serve to warn people off from planting trees, especially large tree species. Maintenance regulations do not recognize the reasons why property owners choose tree removal as the right action. Trees that are planted in haste are not maintained and Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 2 therefore do not persist in the urban environment and in the City of Edmonds are fundamentally inequitable placing the cost and penalties for trees on communities outside the bowl. And when the city yields to the concerns to not cite growth in the bowl and keep Edmonds, Edmonds, all you will be doing is quite literally harvesting wealth from communities that are already underserved by the city. I continue to ask the city to seek partnership with tree property owners. It is only through that partnership, not penalties, that the private urban forest will thrive. Do not throw away "right tree, right place" guiding principle of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Use a normal planning process, i.e., the planning board, and undertake the public engagement necessary to determine if a changing course is supported. The city should, at a minimum, strive to do no harm. So, don't do this in secret. The city can absolutely harm the existing and regeneration of the private urban forest by undertaking further emergency actions much more so than doing nothing. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anyone else in attendance. (no one else) Opens the Public hearing. Eric Engmann: Goes over the pubic hearing agenda: review the reasons for the amendment, the proposed code amendment itself, finalize the remaining standards, and then decide if it's ready for transmittal to city council. Reiterates the feedback from several different organizations, developers, builders, people in the industry, people that are working with EV charging itself. Reviews the reasons for the amendment and how it ties into the city's major sustainability goals. Especially the city's goal to be climate neutral by 2050. Talks about the greenhouse gas emissions, and how the transportation sector is the largest sector contributor. Shows the current and future goals for the number of EVs in the City. Mentions how manufacturers are switching to EV production. Also discusses the major reluctance for people to switch to EVs: the fear of not having places to charge their vehicles. Then discusses the main components of the code: • the staging types: capable ready, installed. • the different charging levels: I, II, or III? • appropriate ratios for single family, multi -family, and non-residential. Mentions the prior topics of discussions: • pros and cons of each staging type • cost estimates • definitions • applicability (50% rule) • proposed standards for multifamily and non-residential Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 3 Discusses the two remaining issues. The first one is about the accessible EV standardsThis is one that's been really tough because we want everyone to have access to these chargers regardless of your ability. Discusses the three options. The first one is having a standard space based on the number of EV spaces. The second one would be to have a percentage of all ADA spaces be EV. The third one is kind of a two -fold one. It's either requiring a minimum of one orjust not specifying it at all. The first option would be based on a set standard. It's proportionate of the EV ready and EV installed spaces. The second one is just a simple percentage. So, we could pick what percentage that could be, but it's also easier to understand. The third one, there's two ways of doing this. The first one is that we would require a minimum of one EV ready or EV installed space. Just set the bottom standard for it so that it can go up above that and allow really other codes to dictate how much of that goes into place. But having at least one would ensure that at least one space would be EV ready or EV installed. The other option is to not put it in the code at all. It allows our state building code council to take the lead on this topic. There are things that have to do with national standards, building code standards. It's almost something that's above what our code typically handles. So, if we don't put it in there, it would still be covered because the state requires a certain percentage of them to be EV charging. This topic isn't covered in all zoning codes. Then shows the City's table for required ADA spaces for regular (non-EV) parking spaces. Then provides a large and small development example for multifamily and non-residential development. Shows how many EV accessible spaces would be required, for each option, in these scenarios. After going back and forth, staff is leaning towards that third option. There's so many national codes and national standards that it's difficult for us to put our extra standards on top of that. The next item is for utility upgrades. Last time we talked about it, there were concerns raised by Snohomish County PUD, our utility district. They talked about how utility upgrades can be very expensive, and it depends on the power level available in that area. And they mention that Highway 99 is an area of concern. So, they suggested an exception to reduce the requirements when cost upgrades would be prohibitive. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 4 Shows and explains graph of how power gets from power station to individual properties. Mentions, if there would be a problem, it would be at the point of the distribution substation or the transformers. Another scenario for an issue is a house at the end of a cul-de-sac. Let's say the power source serves 10 of those homes on that cul-de-sac and it's right about near its limit. Potentially, when someone is doing renovations and needing that extra power for their EV ready station, it could potentially make them have to upgrade that transformer. So, a lot of it is hypothetical, but it could be an issue. And it could be something in the end that could be very expensive. Mentions the options: • No exception in code, • An exception with some minimum thresholds in place, • Or have an exception in there with no thresholds in place. If we decide to not put this exception in, we would ensure that our adopted standards are met in all cases. We would ensure that there is maximum potential to reduce greenhouse gases. It's consistent standards across the board, so it's equitable. The con of that is it doesn't account for all real -world scenarios that we talked about. It could lead to a development project being abandoned including affordable housing. Another option is an exception with minimum thresholds. We can have an exception, where the director could reduce the requirements when certain circumstances are in place and there is evidence of an added electrical load. So, they'd have to prove to us the electrical loading issue and it can be attributed to meeting the EV requirements. And it significantly alters local infrastructure design. For minimums, they could reduce the type of EV charging infrastructure, EV ready or EV installed down to EV capable. They could also reduce that charging level, Level II or III down to a Level I. But we would say that they cannot reduce the overall number of EV spaces. Provides an example in the presentation. The other option would be to not have minimum thresholds. They'd still have to prove to us that it's an issue, but we would let them change the EV station type, the EV charging level, or the overall number of spaces. Staff prefers option 2, where we would have those minimum thresholds in place. Ends by highlighting the four decisions needed by the Board. • Accessible EV Recommendatinos • Exceptions for Electrical Loading • Reviewing the overall code amendment • Possible transmittal to City Council Mike Rosen: Opens the public hearing for anybody who wishes to address us. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 5 Eric Engmann: States Natalie Seitz wishes to speak. Natalie Seitz: I'm basing my comments based on what I've been hearing at times on the planning board. I haven't had the opportunity to read the code as proposed, but there were some points that I wanted to make. So, first, we recently personally undertook some electrical work on our house. And as part of that work, we changed out an existing 220 plug for one that could accommodate an EV. I learned that there are about six different types of 220 plugs. I bring this up say that I hope that the regulations have an exception for properties that have an existing 220 plug for me to do a separate upgrade for EV since changing out a plug would be relatively cheap. It's less than $500. And it could preclude an existing use. And the change to EV could be undertaken at a later date when an EV car is purchased. Switches apparently are now getting so that they can accommodate multiple uses. So, it maybe a little bit later that would be available. So, I wanna make that point. I was unable to stay for the discussion about SR-99 and the limitations of the electric system last meeting. I hope that instead of creating exceptions so that businesses don't have to pay for upgrades to the electric system, the city considers partnerships to help alleviate the costs so that the fundamental electric system upgrades do occur. The city has long helped downtown businesses pay for things like hanging baskets and other events to boost those businesses. The city can use this as a way to pay for rather retroactively for the lack of city investment in the SR-99 businesses for the past 60 years since this area was incorporated. I think that the future will certainly include subscription electric car and bike services, especially for low-income residents, ensuring that the SR-99 corridor commercial areas and commercial areas throughout the city have the capabilities to meet this need is vital and should be prioritized by the city. With regard to what was presented tonight, just in listening to it with option one and the potential for it to be prohibitive to low-income housing, I think my gut reaction to that is that I'd really appreciate the city and planning board to imagine siting low-income in someplace other than the SR-99 corridor. I've commented about park resources and investment in this area, and they keep siting more and more people here. And I'm happy for it if it comes with the city investment, but itjust doesn't seem to. So, I really think that the investment needs to start happening from the city. Because I feel that vehicle subscription services are going to be part of our future, I do not think that every single low square footage residents would have to be low square footage. Retrofit needs to be EV capable. The question is not whether people will have an old classic car. It's whether people will have a car. Low square footage dwelling units that Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 6 do not provide parking or car accessible garages or driveways should be consider for an exception or a lower requirement. Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie. Asks if there is anyone else. Eric Engmann: States there are none. Mike Rosen: Closes the public hearing. Asks to address the request in the order they were presented. So, taking the accessible question first. And, again, we were provided three options. And staff is recommending option three. Anybody wish to jump in? Todd Cloutier: I'd just like to say that I concur with the staff that option three seems to make the most sense. And we do the same thing with a lot of our options to try to make sure we're consistent with the communities around us. Judi Gladstone: Actually, I think that option three does make sense to me. But I do have two questions for you, Eric. 1.) Is there a state code that covers EV charging in general? And then my second question — I think you said it, but I need clarification — are the ADA requirements a subset of the overall or in addition to? Eric Engmann: So, for the first part of that, yes. A couple years ago, the state put in regulations for basic EV charging requirements. They put it into the building code. So, they've been updating it since then, but there are minimum standards in the building code itself for EV charging. Judi Gladstone: So, did you send those to us? And I'm not remembering it? Eric Engmann: We did talk about it early on, one of the first meetings. It talked about that it's 10 percent of the overall spaces, but it's a very broad, not a well-defined term in my opinion. So, we're going above and beyond that standard. And it doesn't cover single family. For the second part of that with the ADA, it would normally be a space above. When people do parking standards for these, it's typically a separate standard for ADA spaces. Mike Rosen: So, we have a couple people suggesting that they concur with staff with option No. 3. Does anybody wanna push back on that? Eric Engmann: Mentions option three is almost like an A or a B. It's either a minimum of one or just taking an out altogether. Alicia Crank: If I have to weigh in on one, I would say do not specify. And I'm leaning on that because I think my overall thought about this whole thing is that I would like this to be somewhat of a living document that can be updated and upgraded because it's such kind of a newish area. And I wouldn't want us to put ourselves in a position to have something super hardcoded in that we couldn't make that adjustment and almost to the point that you made about the different areas when you might run into something unforeseen that might require some type of adjustment if it's hardcoded in. So, that's really my mindset Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 7 around option three and do not specify. It will probably inform any other opinions on the other three as well. Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Judi, it looked like you might've been ready to say something. Judi Gladstone: Well, I was actually going to go and look at something in the packet. So, I'll come back to you after I look it up. Mike Rosen: Does anybody want to push back on using the do not specify? Richard Kuen: I didn't hear until Alicia finished up her comment. Not to ask for an update but just a quick maybe Cliff Notes version would be great. Mike Rosen: So, there was consensus around going with option three, which was also staff's recommendation. But it's a two-part question. One option is to not specify, which would default to state regulations. But, also, as Alicia was sort of saying, provides sort of future maneuvering opportunities for us as the real -world sort of informs us as opposed to the other option being just set a minimum of No. 1. So, we have consensus around option three. Now, we're deciding, do we set the minimum or do not specify. Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, I think the question I have is — does the international building code — it applies within the City of Edmonds, right? Eric Engmann: Yes, that is what the city uses for their building code. Judi Gladstone: So, does it have a minimum number? Does it speak to that? Or is it silent as well? Eric Engmann: It is in the State Building Code Council. So, it's at least the state language. Judi Gladstone: So, it would apply regardless of whatever we put in here. Eric Engmann: Right. Judi Gladstone: All right. So, then I would go with do not specify. Mike Rosen: Just to then validate again, is there anybody who does not agree with do not specify on option three? Richard Kuen: The only question that I have and I think I mentioned this before and was trying to look for it, as long as the EV capable ADA space doesn't take away from what the current Washington State or whatever the regulations are for current regular ADA spaces, then I'm all for it. I think that's great. Chair Rosen: And, Eric, can you validate that that's the case? Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 8 Eric Engmann: I didn't see anything about that. I didn't see any other codes that had a standard that mentioned this one way or the other. So, I would assume in that case, it would be okay. Mike Rosen: Are you good, Richard? Richard Kuen: Yes, I think so. Mike Rosen: So, Eric, we do have consensus on option three with do not specify. Eric Engmann: Then, I would be removing that section from the draft. Chair Rosen: That's how you would execute it, right? So, now we're moving to the exception for utility upgrades —three options. And, again, as a reminder, staff was recommending option No. 2. Anybody want to jump in? Todd Cloutier: I've got a question for Eric. This might be hard to answer because it's not your agency. But as Natalie brought up, if 99's the problem, are there plans already to increase capacity on 99? Eric Engmann: So, it's not just 99. It's an area that they've listed as an example. So, it could be lots of different ones. The way it typically works, it's improvements as the user needs it. It's really up to that increased usage and that increased demand that would then have to pay for that upgrade. They do upgrade sometimes, but I don't think that they have one specifically picked for Highway 99, not last time I saw. Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, could you go back to the slide where you had the diagram? I don't know power particularly well. So, in the water and wastewater world, the general philosophy is growth pays for growth. So, what that would mean, the equivalent of is these transformers would be what growth would pay for. But the utility might have a connection charge that might incorporate some of these facilities but not necessarily all of them. I think the equivalent on water and wastewater, there would be a connection charge that would be calculated based on some of this. But some of it would be attributed to the existing as well. I want to say that it concerns me that Highway 99 is the area where if you look at the planning, it seems like there's a desire to put a lot of multi -family there. And if that's the case, then where's the multi -family going to go if it's in these places where they haven't upgraded? And I think that if they've got an issue with these big towers or all the way to the plant, I think there probably needs to be some partnership. And I would necessarily want to see that be standing in the way of the EV chargers. I would be concerned, the extent to which, that they would load up those costs onto the developers. Todd Cloutier: Judi and I were getting to the same point. If the PUD doesn't have a plan to proactively push changes from their own coffers, then the cost would be unbearable for the lower - level people to pay for it all per project. And we're going to end up with projects not Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 9 getting done, multi -family housing not getting constructed because they can meet parking requirements with EVs. And that doesn't seem to make any sense. So, I think it makes sense to let the infrastructure come of its own accord. As the demand rises, the infrastructure will come, and more spaces will get built. And like Alicia said, we can revisit that as things change, and there's great capacity and that's not considered a limit anymore. Judi Gladstone: Let me also add that I know there are some jurisdictions where they contribute to the connection charges, as that can be the form of the partnership that can occur. So, if the City's really vested in trying to meet these goals for EV, they may need to put some money in that pot. Mike Rosen: So, does somebody want to offer up their specific recommendation? Judi Gladstone: So, I have to say, despite what I've said here, I'm torn between no exceptions and with exceptions with a high bar. Could you go to the slide that lists what the exceptions would be? I think it's going to be really easy for them to have evidence of added electrical load. So, they can come up with that information pretty easily and parse it in such a way frankly that it looks like it's the cause of the problem. But if you keep going to those thresholds — go to the one with the table. If they were required to keep the 18 spaces, I think the question is — what kind of flexibility could be allowed as long as they had the 18 spaces? And I would be concerned on some level, as I've read more about Level I, do we end up with a second tier of service if you've got multi- family at level I and single family at Level 11. And do you start getting inequities of service? So, I'm still wrestling with it to be honest with you. Todd Cloutier: I'm agreeing with Judi because that's exactly the concern I had. And I know we just used Highway 99 as an example. So, as Eric said, it's not necessarily that Highway 99 is the vulnerable area. It was just an example brought up. But that's the one that's going to stick in my head. I just couldn't go with removing all minimums. So, I think that having at least option two reserves the spaces that can be upgraded later where option three throws it all out or gives the option to throw it all out. And option one makes it so that it could be cost prohibitive. And it could eliminate the building of the number of units we want in the first place. So, it seems to be that option two gives us some director's discretion to try to keep those spaces reserved at the very least and push for the amount of infrastructure that makes sense at that time for that project, which I think seems to be the most flexible position for us to be in. So, I vote for option two. Mike Rosen: Anybody want to argue for something other than two? So, can you go back to then what those thresholds might be? So, the question I have is as we've been talking about it and Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 10 I've been hearing people express what they don't want, it seems to me that hardship is one of them. And different structures and people's abilities will be at different levels. So, this does not reflect any cause of hardship on the individual. Some people are going to be in a much better position to write that check than others. And it seems to me that somebody could benefit on the high end. So, we're giving them an exception where the entire development is a very high -ticket item and money isn't a problem, and we just gave them an out whereas what we're trying to do is protect the people where hardship is an issue. So, if that's our concern, I don't think this addresses it. And notice I didn't offer an alternative. Alicia Crank: I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I also think that, again, if we approach this with a sense of, again, as this kind of living breathing document that we can go back and tweak as we get more information that comes in that we could revisit that piece? So, I don't know if we'll be able to address all of the concerns in this sitting. Mike Rosen: It could be too loose. But I'm wondering if it was an option where in addition to these things it created financial hardship, and it was sort of the burden of the applicant to sort of argue what that means and allow the city some discretion in that? I'm not a big fan of vagueness, but I do wonder if it opens the door. Eric Engmann: From the practicality of enforcing the hardship, that would be hard to enforce or even get to what that would entail. It would be so hard to weigh what that would be for a hardship without opening their books and looking at those things. Mike Rosen: I'm convinced. But in the three minutes that you've had to think about it, do you have any thoughts on how we might address hardship? Eric Engmann: I guess it would depend on if we're talking about affordable housing or not. That's the only one I can think of, that we would make that a separate standard. We could say two different standards. We could make it only for affordable housing. I think with the way that we had it on the left side that it makes it a little bit easier to kind of try to find that. They'd have to prove to us that it's the EV that's causing this. They can't just say that it's everything else. But I don't know how we go past that, other than just putting in something about affordable housing. Mike Rosen: That addresses the price tag. I'll stop there. All of our concerns were about impact, and I don't believe we've addressed it. But I'm cool with option two. Judi Gladstone: So, affordable housing to me is challenging in itself because what is affordable housing? How is it defined? Who does it apply to? I think it's always a question. But here's a question that comes from my lack of knowledge around code and policy connection. Can there be policy guidance for the director that isn't necessarily put in code that allows for that flexibility but sets out some standards for those considerations that are not Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 11 necessarily code because I get the sense code is much more rigid in its application and much more black and white. Policy — you can have goals; you can have guidance. It's mushier. And I don't know if that's something that can somehow intersect with the code? It might be out of our purview to do, but that's just a thought that came to my mind that might be able to start to address the differences in the type of development that we're talking about here that have the potential to be impacted differently. Eric Engmann: A lot of times, when something's not codified like a procedure, we can make a rule on it. And they can list out what's included in that rule to making those decisions. Usually, it's for a process that's not in the code itself. Because what a developer would say is that, no, the code tells you what you can and can't do. We have this list of these three criteria. It's in the code right now. That's how we would handle it. But, yes, there are plenty of cases when it's something that's not codified but it's a policy that we can put it into a rule form. But it's usually something that's not codified. Mike Rosen: So, at this point, I see us having consensus on option two. Anybody? Going, going, going. All right, Eric, there is our second decision. So, our third question to us is — okay, back to the balcony. Is there anything else overall? Right, Eric, is that the question? Eric Engmann: That's it. Alicia Crank: I have a situational question. And I apologize as it comes off as silly. So, when we put together this code amendment and it happens, are the spaces that would be EV — are they open to anyone? Or is it for the multi -family properties? Is it restricted to whoever lives there? And the nature of my question comes from someone who asked me this today, and I didn't have an answer. What if they currently live in a condo? Condo doesn't have an EV space. That's currently their situation right now. Where would they with this in place be permitted to be able to charge their vehicle? Would it have to be at a public place? If there's one next door in a multi -family unit that has them available, would they be permitted to be able to utilize that? Or is it just restricted to who lives there? Eric Engmann: That's a great question. So, it would really depend on the situation, just like with other parking spots. If the parking garage is restricted, those are private spaces. If it's available for public use, that would be considered a public use, and there are state laws about public usage for a a public use space. So, anything on the nonresidential, outside of a grocery store, or one that's just available for regular public use, that's considered public use. And there are some state laws that do give some benefits to people using those, not just in the development itself. But if it is a private development and it is only accessible to the residents, then it doesn't have those same points. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 12 Alicia Crank: It makes sense. I guess maybe the foundation of that question was — if we as a city are creating a code around this, does the city have any type of responsibility to identify that within all this that other residents should be able to use particular ones if a resident lives in a multi -family unit or even a single family unit to be able to utilize it? Or is that even a thing? If the city creates a code around something, does the city have a responsibility to identify its use? Eric Engmann: The state takes care of that for the public use side. They have their standards. We can maybe come up with a guide, or we can take people on our webpage to where the state laws talk about it. Something so the public can know about it. But the state has started to get a good grasp. And, again, this is one of those codes that keeps changing. Alicia Crank: Got it. Thank you. Chair Rosen: It's an observation that I just wanted to sort of put out there. And it goes way back. Part of this is to help get us to the 50,000 goal — 50,000 electric vehicles. And the last data I saw about total number of vehicles in Edmonds currently is just shy of 17,000. So, understandably, there will be growth, but there will also potentially be other vehicles. And as Natalie pointed out, the hope and the trend currently has been fewer vehicles per household. And some of those vehicles are going to be other kinds. Or some people aren't going to give up because of collections and those kinds of things. So, I guess I am questioning sort of the reality of that number as a goal to aim for given all those things that I just said. So, no action or response. I just sort of wanted to say that out loud. Because I know you didn't create, nor did we create that goal. Judi Gladstone: Can I jump in because I have something that I want to go back to if that's okay, Mike? Chair Rosen: Absolutely, this is the time. Judi Gladstone: I know we reached consensus on the utility upgrades. But I was feeling some reluctance, and I think I figured out why. And I want to ask you a question about the language in the code, Eric. Because I think what was troubling me is the language says, "When there is substantial evidence that the added electrical load that can be attributed to meeting these requirements will significantly alter the local utility infrastructure design requirement." I think that's really good it says local utility infrastructure because I think that should narrow it to not include necessarily all the really big infrastructure. But I'm wondering if that bar can be a little bit tighter? Instead of saying "that can be attributed to," it says "that results from." And they have to prove that it results from it rather than attributed. Eric Engmann: We can change that. That was our point, to make sure. So, what are you recommending? Judi Gladstone: That results from meeting these requirements. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 13 Mike Rosen: Anybody have any other overall code amendments before we move to our next question? All right. So, the next question before us — are we ready with the decisions we just made and the one change recommended by Judi to transmit it to City Council for their review? Anybody have any concerns about that? Nope? All right. Eric, please send it on with our recommendation. Roger Pence: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think it might be helpful at this point to take a formal vote to recommend transmitting these amendments to this code section to City Council for their consideration. Mike Rosen: Understood. And I agree with the purpose. All in favor of transmitting the code amendment as revised this evening, please signify by saying "aye" or raising your hand. (All say aye) Is there anybody opposed? Is there anybody abstaining? It is passed unanimously. Thank you, Eric, again for all of the work and how you walked us through it. Discusses the extended agenda. I will share with you that I did receive outreach from a local media source asking about — on September 22nd, item No. 2, discussion of veterans' memorial sculpture donation. And they did receive a response from staff indicating that there is another donation of a sculpture being — the opportunity presented to the city. And because it would go into the veterans' area —that is a park, and we serve in a park capacity. So, that's why it's coming to us. And that's a little bit of the headline behind it, so if you were wondering why are we talking about sculptures. Eric Engmann: I just wanted to talk about the buildable lands report. I believe Steve Toy is going to be available for October 131h. He can never do it on the second one of the month. So, I think we're going to put that back for the first meeting in October. Roger Pence: Just so we get there eventually. Mike Rosen: As you can see, as Alicia had predicted at the last meeting, trees will be coming to us shortly. So, any other comments related to the extended agenda? We will now go to comments for the good of the order. Asks the Board members for anything for the good of the order. Roger Pence: Well, I took a keen interest in the article in My Edmonds News about the decision by the railroad to finally tell us about their plans to double track the section through the City of Edmonds. And this may not be a thing that affects our code amendment responsibilities, Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 14 but it is certainly going to have huge impacts on the planning future of the City of Edmonds. And I think as the Planning Board for the city we need to take a keen interest in that project and begin that with a briefing by the city and ideally by the railroad if and when they are beginning to share the real information with the City of Edmonds. So, I do not see the Planning Board sitting back and letting this thing roll through until we get to a code issue. I hope we can take an interest in it from the get -go. Alicia Crank: So, three things, 1.) Continue to be safe everybody. It looks like we're gonna be virtual for the foreseeable future. It is sad to know that 18 months in that the rates are higher than ever, so do with that information what you will. Second is — if anyone caught the council meeting or read the follow-up to it from Tuesday, it also looks like we along with the architectural design board are going to be involved in discussions around incorporating green space and to multi -family design standards. So, our extended agenda is going to continue to be extended. So, be on the lookout for that. And from the airport commission, Alaska Airlines is adding another route. They actually added Boise and Spokane. And I'm actually taking a flight to Spokane tomorrow out of Paine Field. So, I'll be on the second flight that goes out of there. So, just an FYI that they're gonna continue to add routes there as time progresses on. But it is definitely scary out there. I went on another flight over the weekend, and people are flying. And they're being naughty to some degree. So, if you're traveling, just be careful, mask up, don't take it for granted, and that, unfortunately, there are people out there who don't care about being sick. Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia, for each of those. I would again just like to thank you all for your contribution of time and wisdom and the way you approached the topic tonight as you have approached all others. Thank you for your service. And I will now adjourn the meeting at 8:09. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 15