The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-05-09 Planning Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 9, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Activities Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda May 9, 2018 Page 1 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2018 Development Activities Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History In recent years, the Development Services Department has been reporting annually on key development projects and activities. Staff Recommendation Narrative 2017 was a strong year for development in Edmonds. The most ever building permits were issued in 2017 and the total valuation for those projects was greater than any other year. While this level of activity is not likely to continue year after year, it is a sign of two things: (1) the regional economy and market is strong; (2) Edmonds is a place that both residents and businesses want to be. A slideshow will be presented on April 24 to highlight some of the more significant developments that either were recently built or are "in the pipeline", along with a few other related department activities. (See attachment.) Attachments: Dev Services Pres 20180417 Packet Pg. 2 5.A.a w kilm O Q d N d r V a r CL O m m 0 ti 0 co 0 N I d L CL :.i L v! > c� i ci r Q Packet Pg. 3 5.A.a r a Packet Pg. 4 5.A.a r a Packet Pg. 5 Development Services Permit History $2,000,000 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 LOU U10 Un WU 0, CDONOCOO"I-OOLO O'0 On WONOO ON CO � � 10 n w N O O0o0o0o0o0rn O O OOO, O ON O(h OV O O OO O O O CD CD CD CD O O n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N mTotal Devel Svc Revenue —# Building Permits 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 5.A.a New Single Family Duplex Apartment/Condo Commercial Mixed Use (Office/condo) Additions / Alterations Single Family Apartment / Condo Commercial 41 60 0 2 (4units) 8 (97units) 1 (9units) 3 1 0 2(111 units) 134 159 22 21 53 63 $17,185,087 $0 $14,948,238 $7,670,767 $0 $8,469,012 $613,766 $8,601,224 $21,183,868 $788,348 $893,224 $7,549,151 $14,756,385 $8,947,055 $3,654,817 $12,384,817 Mechanical / Plumbing 350/382 431/414 $200 0 Demolition 10 23 $0 0 Miscellaneous 634 581 $3,926,913 $17,224983 W OW r Q Packet Pg. 7 Engineering Division F right-of-way, side sewer, street use and encroachment activity 2016 vs 2017 Permits Issued Permit Revenue Inspection & Review Reve n u 2016 429 2017 415 $58,082 $42,806 $214,337 $416,959 f JAME x- WW . _y Impact Fees and General Fac*11*1 Charges (GEC's) for 2017 Transportation Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Water G FC Sewe r G FC Storm GFC $372,480 $4951267 $193,514 $230,014 $30,027 Solar Permits # of # of Year Permits Permits Online 3 0 6 5 2014 39 35 2015 32 29 2016 17 16 2017 0 0 Totals 97 85 kW Online 0% 11 83% 41 90% 91% 94% 0% 88% 241 211 137 0 641 5.A.a E 0 a m w m r 0 a r c m E 0_ 0 am 0 0 r O co r O N I d L a. N d V N N > d r.+ C d E L V 2 r a Packet Pg. 11 Mueller Short Plat lip IMI, M Post Office Mixed Us Beach Walk Apts. M FOOL 4 Top Pot * Civic Field 0 Graphite 0. ............. 1, 4) Senior w Center'K Art Lr- Marine Retail* Point *Edwards ............. ....... . ... ............................ Key Develop ro'leect I& HomeStreet Bank Paradise Heights Westgate Village Woodway -.`,Court 'Westg Woo( Madrona School Memory Care* Brackett's: Magic Toyota Corner Kid's Vundatjor cCummings Apts, Academy Z ............ ,.,,.Eclmoncls 6 Village 00 Q 04 lug's (Al )zdai a. is E L-1 r- E U Nyland Y M Apts. Meitzner The Shops @ Aurora Village I Packet 7Pg.7127] ,Cedar CreeyAllemory Care 37. 't W 2 Units eResidential esidential ISSUE Madrona coo r WNW / s .f u,i* I d *i n gl0 ,•- .may II r J •� � � � �' �s 68 Units _ - a Ai New Residential'''''' ISSUED 5.A.a :COGNIZED LEADER 4 SAFETY JANUARY W'mm Now CONSTRUCTION ov f nwrNsuumu HARD HATS & AREA ALLVISIiOASNUsi tNEtR HI•VIZ CLOTHING PLEasE ExcusE INAi FlEU OffItE REQUIRED TNEINCONVENIENCE AUfNONRD1fN50NNFl OXLY :6- COMING SUMMER 2018 Packet Pg. 16 28 Units + 7,600 New Commercia Pnct ,Iron, c A I I Of 1 Main Streei in J Ill _11 _f� 1In v .. . .l 4 }} r � -ter J II I: - -F -0119 ` j17 SSUE I- NJ Westgate� 1. I, .S . A • ' 1V• j lag l. ti 1�i r+� '�� 11 1�. f1M I1 a� �t ."t' J . m1.oFo It 14032 ond+� Wa` -�� =��, �11�= m� �•M ��,;�� w� Rf��. �Mi _ : �� ter+• 1 . �� k� {" �� il off C A. J LIE 7 t - if - - }e+ R'• S- -'r _may• �i 91 Units +3,100sf v New CommercialISSUED F 1i 14 Beach Walk Apartment Awlmhmpw303 — Edmonds Mmiiilw�� 7--.- t Or 9 Units W o New Residential ISSUED Dougs azda- 22130 Hignway 99 OU F '4 1 1�► i yyyyAl r � r 12,000 sf New Comci APPLIE Graphite Studios 202 Main Street ."C a Artist studios, art gallery, cafe, plus 3 residential units APPLIED The Shops at Aurora 8431 — 244t" Street SW AM_ -IMINEW RETAIL ENTAIL 9,950 sf New Commercial APPLIED 5.A.a 0 a m m r a r c m E a 0 m m 0 r O co r O N I d L a. N d V d co > d r C d E t V 2 r a Packet Pg. 23 Cummings Apartments 20904 _ 72nd Avenue W 4 Units New Residential APPLIED �St. . V73326 Highway 99 Ind �a M� mumm WON r -viui AIR®Q �� FIN mmmI m m Ir ;-'�z ! 193 Units — -- - - New Residential - DESIGN REVIEW HomeStree��"-.-i 10 — ■ _ tl=, tic MUM ■rl� off it Law 6,763 sf New Commercial ii DESIGN REVIE Paradise Heights 546 Paradise Lane IV Emir- 17, � 171 a IF, I 711 17, 7slll� 1 ■ t. ax �i P �I I -1 12 Units New Condo DESIGN REVIEW Westgate Woods 9531 Edmonds Way 10 Units New Townhomes EPA gt I ■■'■I Iii �� iil� _ 121 DESIGN REVIEW I I I " d 19 i-O m I Packet Pg. 29 *A Port's 471 Adamira Marine Retail I Wayoljo JX 6,650 New Comm!erqci'iat- I A DESIGN REVIEW -nsot, ACIVIC le - � s � th ��s6 North H EADOwS �.c Sprague St AV k� THE GREAT LAWN _ w - T Edmonds 4 - � -An" IT r U. �. ,., _,• �•�r NEW - PRE -AP Tenant Improvement Projects `r6.9• rA "5's'i'fY�'Y4Y.:i� ill D �f '�111ij, u - Kid's Foundation Academy Daycare Tenant Improvement Projects Edmonds Recovery Center i` yg Kruger Clinic 1I SWEDISH 11G11 BUILDING IN Tenant Improvement Projects Edmonds Villaao Single -Family Development L ilk" . �'� •y rip �� Bra W� '-- tt's Corne j well - - y r� �' � .Jit f • • Iy�, ;a7•i. � S 1 r 3 7 �./ 1 i r^ � v t Homes ew ISSUED 4 ; =` P t own�Ki i tise .. '_ _ e • -��- _ - - � :may �.. r"" M*Ietzner Plat 8609 — 244t" Street SW 11 Units New Townhomes APPLIED 5.A.a Pi w kilm O Q a CL 0 m m 0 r O Co O N to d d 1 N d 41a > Q Packet Pg. 39 Special Projects E Highway 99 Subarea Ran &Code Update Urban Forest Management Ran Shoreline Management Ran adoption Housing Strategy 5 Corners Feasibility Assessmnt EdrrondsCom-rurity Development Code Update Store -water LID Integration Public Works Standard Details Update LEAN project (plan review/ permitting efficiency) �.a► Technology Update Boo, New Fbrnit System TRAKT Implementation Team of a dozen key people from multiple City departments Will establish platformfor improved public access, improved electronic permitting, and further enhanoerrents Scheduled to be "live" during February 2019 � 5.A.a w kilm Q Packet Pg. 42 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2018 Public Hearing on the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Although old growth trees in most parts of Edmonds were removed long ago, today, a variety of trees can be found on every block. The City of Edmonds has, for many years been involved in the protection, planting, and management of trees. The subject is not without controversy. Edmonds has certain regulations in its code about the cutting, maintenance, and planting of trees. Permits are required for removing trees in environmentally critical areas. It also has a Street Tree Plan, identifying types and locations for planting trees along specific streets, and a Comprehensive Plan that refers in several sections to the desirability of trees. Furthermore, the City has a Parks Department and Public Works Department that provides services for trees in parks and the public rights -of -way. The City also sponsors or co-sponsors events for tree planting and tree care. A City Council -appointed Tree Board carries out a range of duties and activities, including annual Arbor Day planting. Edmonds is a certified city in the Tree City USA program. About two years ago, a proposal came forward, initiated by the Tree Board, to amend the code in a way that would set significant tree requirements on private property. The resulting draft ordinance was met with a mix of support and resistance. After a public hearing on the proposal, the Planning Board recommended that the draft ordinance not move forward for adoption and that tree issues be considered in an alternative manner, particularly through an urban forest management plan. [NOTE: "Urban forest" is a term that refers to all the trees in an urban area.] The City Council accepted the Planning Board's recommendation and, in the following year, allocated funding to develop an urban forest management plan. The primary focus --though not the only one --was to consider forest issues on public property. In addition, the plan was intended to identify opportunities for encouraging good tree management on both public and private property. The Department of Development Services, in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department, took the lead in hiring an experienced consultant to help develop the urban forest management plan. In April 2017, as part of an initial outreach program, members of the consultant team (led by Davey Resources Group) and City staff met with the Tree Board about their interests and ideas for the plan. Additional research and stakeholder information followed. In July 2017, the consultant and City staff met with the Planning Board to get the Board's initial input. (See attached minutes, Exhibit 1, from that Packet Pg. 43 6.A meeting.) Other public information and input opportunities have included: Press releases and local news articles Special City webpage with information updates Public Open House - June 22, 2017 Online survey (posted for about 3 months) Tree Board meeting - April 5, 2018 Public Open House - April 19, 2018. Following the April 2018 meetings, the City received several written public comments (see Exhibit 2). Minutes from the Tree Board's April 5 meeting are attached as Exhibit3. Highlights from the April 19 Open House are attached as Exhibit4. Staff Recommendation Consider information and prepare a recommendation to the City Council. Narrative OVERVIEW The draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), dated May 2018, is attached as Exhibit 5. It is slightly revised from the March 2018 version reviewed in public meetings held in April. The revisions reflect minor corrections and clarifications to the background information. Probably the biggest change is that the "Benefits" section has a brief new section about "Challenges" for the urban forest. Also, a reference to forest information from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has been added. The actual recommendations for future City action were not modified (except for any "housekeeping" changes). [NOTE: The May draft still is missing some photos that can be added later. It also does not yet have an approximate time period or level of cost for achieving the proposed objectives. Presumably, some objectives and actions, if adopted, could be part of regular City activities during the next year or so; others may take additional resources.] According to the draft UFMP, about 30% of the City is covered by tree canopy. The majority of tree canopy is on private property, where owners maintain the trees. The City has a role in regulating some aspects of private tree management and also in encouraging/educating people to plant and protect appropriate trees. Meanwhile, the City directly manages and is responsible for all trees on City property and in the public right-of-way. Recommended goals and actions comprise a large part of the draft UFMP. These include: 7 "urban forest" goals 8 "municipal" goals 6 "community" goals. Although the 21 goals are categorized for ease of reference, many of them are interrelated. That is, "municipal" and "community" goals are not exclusive of one another. Also, each of the goals is Packet Pg. 44 6.A associated with multiple actions. For example, the goal of conducting an inventory of publicly -managed trees to document tree condition and risk (UF Goal # UA 6, page 64 of the draft plan) has four key implementation actions: (A) Develop a tree inventory policy for public trees; (B) Develop a standard tree inspection protocol; (C) Integrate inventory data into easily accessed software or data management system; and (D) Develop a policy and responsibility for keeping inventory data up-to-date. Achieving each of the goals and actions (as ultimately adopted) will take time and resources. Some of them may be relatively easy and others more difficult. The draft plan also notes that monitoring and measuring results of the strategies will be important. The Planning Board is encouraged to pay particular attention to the proposed goals and actions on pages 59-80 of the draft plan. Adoption and implementation of UFMP goals will require considerable attention and resources over the coming years. NEXT STEPS The May 9 public hearing is another opportunity for the public to comment on the draft UFMP and for the Planning Board to consider information. (See Exhibit 6 for the presentation that will be given on May 9.) After the public hearing --either on the same night or later --the Planning Board may make a formal recommendation to the City Council about actions to take. If the Planning Board wishes to recommend any changes to the background part of the draft UFMP, that would be helpful in finalizing the draft before it goes to the Council. (Staff is working with the consultants on adding background information to the draft UFMP, for example, regarding tree species, diseases, and insect damage.) Any proposed changes to the plan's recommendations--i.e., the Objectives and accompanying Actions, should be identified as part of the Board's formal recommendation to the City Council. Again, the Planning Board may make its formal recommendations on May 9 after the public hearing or may set aside time at a subsequent Board meeting to finalize recommendations. The Board's next meeting (after May 9) is May 23. By that date, additional information may have been added to the background sections of the draft UFMP. On June 19, the City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on the draft UFMP. Further Council consideration is expected at a June 26 meeting. Another tentative date, July 3, is for additional discussion and potential action. Potential Council actions may include: 1. Adopting the proposed UFMP without substantive change; 2. Making specific changes to the proposed UFMP before adoption; 3. Requesting changes to be made and then re -presented. Once a plan is adopted, implementation would begin. Attachments: Exhibit 1: July 27, 2017 Planning Board Minutes Exhibit 2: Writtern public comments Exhibit 3: April 5 2018 Tree Board notes Exhibit 4: Highlights of 04.19.18 Public Open House Exhibit 5: Draft UFMP Packet Pg. 45 6.A Exhibit 6: Presentation for May 9 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.a UPDATE ON DEVELOPING THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Ms. Hope explained that the City is currently working to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that will primarily focus on managing trees on public properties and in public rights -of -way. She introduced Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, who was present to provide an update on the plan. Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, introduced the other members of the consulting team: Keeley O'Connell with Nature Insight Consulting and Ian Lapport from the Davey Resource Group. He explained that the definition of an urban forest includes both public and private trees within the City limits of Edmonds. Wherever the trees are, they provide benefits to the entire City. The UFMP is being developed as a guiding document for forested land on City properties, public rights -of -way and critical habitat areas. It should fall under the Comprehensive Plan, align with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, and provide an overarching guiding document for the Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments. The plan will contain both long and short-term goals based on adaptive management principles. The intent is that it be a long- term planning document with the expectation that it would go through routine revision exercises over time as community values change. Mr. Scott said a UFMP is important to promote a shared vision, communicate the value and benefits of trees, and allow multiple city departments to manage all of the challenges and opportunities that come up relative to trees. The plan is intended to create a pathway for pro -active management. The process starts by determining what the City has and wants, and then identifies goals that will help the City move towards its vision. Mr. Scott reviewed that the process thus far has included stakeholder interviews with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff, Development Services staff, Public Works Staff, and the City's Tree Board. These meetings have provided opportunities to share thoughts, visions, and challenges with working with trees in the City. The team has also done document research to pull together all code and Comprehensive Plan language related to trees. An Urban Tree Canopy Assessment was completed, and one community visioning session was held on June 22nd. The team is poised to release a virtual open house for those who were unable to attend the visioning session. Mr. Scott stated that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment started with a 2017 aerial imagery and used a computer -automated process (GIS) to identify the existing tree canopy, impervious surfaces, grass/vegetation, bare soils, and water. As an example, he displayed a graphic of the Edmonds Marsh. He summarized that the results of the assessment show that the City's tree canopy covers about 30% of the City. He explained that the information obtained via the assessment allows for a GIS overlay on various other mapping elements. For example, the data can be viewed based on: • Land Type (commercial, public and private properties). He noted that 80% of the existing tree canopy is located on private lands, so a good portion of the UFMP will require some volunteer buy -in from the community in order for it to be successful. • Forest Fragmentation. About 190 acres of the forested area is of core canopy that provides for habit for wildlife. For movement, more of this type of canopy is needed. There is a potential for a stronger rebuild moving north to south across the City using perforated canopy and patch canopy. Canopy Benefits. To date, trees in Edmonds are storing 188,000 tons of carbon, valued at $6.8 million in environmental benefit or avoided environmental degradation. Annually, trees in Edmonds provide $1.2 million in stormwater benefits, $147,000 in air quality improvements, and $222,000 in carbon sequestration. If the trees are removed, air quality would go down and illness would increase. Mr. Scott provided a graph to show how the City's 30% tree canopy compares with other cities in the region. He noted that both Bonney Lake and Lake Forest Park have a 40% canopy cover. The City of Edmonds' canopy is very similar to that of Shoreline and Redmond. Lastly, Mr. Scott reviewed the timeline for the project, noting that the consulting team is currently drafting the UFMP, and the online survey is still open. The draft UFMP will be submitted to the City in August and September, and this will be followed by a review period. The consulting team will present the draft plan to the Tree Board, City Council and Planning Planning Board Minutes July 26, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 47 6.A.a Board. There will also be an additional public open house. He stressed the importance of public feedback as the document moves forward. He concluded that a second draft of the UFMP will be available by November, followed by a final draft in December. It is anticipated that the City Council will approve the document in the spring. Mr. Scott advised that public voting boards were provided at the June 22nd open house to solicit public opinion. It appeared that the majority of those in attendance lived in the bowl area, and there was strong concern that the plan would have negative impacts to the Tree Code. Concern was raised about the previously -proposed tree code, and most indicated they did not want the UFMP to go that direction again. He emphasized that the UFMP is not intended to revise City Code, only to propose options that, if desired, would get you down the road into the future. He reviewed the results of the six questions that were asked as follows: • What tree benefits do you most appreciate? Most attendees indicated that water quality, wildlife habitat, air quality and beauty/aesthetics were most important. • What types of outreach and education are preferred/valued? The plan will include a component of education and outreach to change people's attitudes and culture. Attendees specifically recommended education and outreach pertaining to species selection and tree pruning. • What is/are your biggest concerns for trees in Edmonds? Many attendees were concerned about trees blocking views, but others were more conserved about healthy, mature trees being lost, canopy loss, and loss of wildlife habitat. • What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? A UFMP can result in increased activity sponsored by the City or it can be reduced, as well. Most people indicated a desire for the City to take care of its hazardous trees, and maintaining access and clearance on roadways. There was no support for doing nothing moving forward, which means they want some level of care from the City. • Where would you like to see more trees planted? Responses were spread nearly even across all of the options (parks, open spaces, commercial properties, streets/medians, parking lots, and private properties). The consultant team translates this to mean that anywhere trees are planted in the City provides a value to the community. • What are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property? Most attendees indicated that education and outreach, as well as free or low-cost trees, would be the most effective way of encouraging tree planting and preservation. Mr. Scott invited the Board Members to share their ideas, for planting more trees along City streets, as well as opportunities for education and community building. He also invited them to voice their issues and concerns. In addition, he encouraged Board Members to participate in the on-line survey, which can be found at https:Hsurveymonkey.com/r/EdmondsUFMP.com. For more information about the value and benefit of trees, he encouraged them to visit the following websites: https://.treesare og od.org, hlWs://www.treebenefits.com, and https:Hitrectools.org. Board Member Rosen asked how many people attended the public open house, and Mr. Scott answered that about 50 people were in attendance. Board Member Rosen said Mr. Scott noted a 2.3% decrease in the City's tree canopy since 2005 and asked if this represents a steady decline or was it caused by a single event. Mr. Scott answered that the methodology is not conclusive on cause. Board Member Rosen asked if the analysis identifies where the losses occurred. Mr. Scott replied that the change analysis was a statistical exercise that did not produce a map. Board Member Rosen asked how the City's current rate of tree canopy loss compares to that of other jurisdictions. Mr. Scott said he does not have that information. Board Member Lovell commented that much of the information presented to the Planning Board could be considered "off the shelf." He said he attended the I't public open house and filled out a comment card, as did a number of other people who attended. However, the consultant's presentation did not include any of the comments received to date. For example, some people suggested that the City hire a full-time arborist, and it is likely that someone else suggested that the City create an Open Lands Trust Fund. He suspects that a number of comments were received suggesting that the City not regulate trees on private property. Mr. Scott agreed that the presentation was somewhat "off the shelf." He noted that a summary was Planning Board Minutes July 26, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.a prepared of the public comments received at the meeting, and they will be considered as part of the planning process. Board Member Lovell asked if the comments received to date represent any sort of trend. Mr. Scott said a number of people have come forward voicing opposition to regulating trees on private property. There is also a number of people who are passionate about trees and want to regulate trees on private property. He said he is hoping the online survey will provide a greater indication of public sentiment. There is no urgency to close the survey at this time, and they are hoping to get more people to respond. Vice Chair Monroe referred to the goals that were presented by Mr. Scott. He suggested that rather than "placing trees in Edmonds," a more appropriate goal would be to "place the right trees in Edmonds." He noted that some of the public trees are not the right species, and they end up invading sidewalks and sewer systems. This should be addressed in the plan. He also noted that, although the consultant provided a slide indicating the "benefits" of trees, there was no information about the "costs." Mr. Scott responded that the consulting team is working with data from the Public Works and Parks Department to address the costs associated with the care of trees. The biggest challenge is that the City does not have an inventory of the existing trees they are spending money on or trees that have unresolved issues. The only data he has found is a list of all the sidewalks that are heaving, likely caused by trees. He said the plan will include a list of trees that are subject to mortality because they are not in the correct place for the species. Vice Chair Monroe asked how the UFMP and Tree Plan would impact the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Ms. Hope recalled that the Highway 99 Subarea Plan talks about using the City's Street Tree Plan as an indicator of the types of trees that should be planted. The Street Tree Plan has a section that specifically refers to the Highway 99 Subarea, but it needs to be updated at some point in the near future. Information provided in the UFMP could inform this update. Mr. Scott said it is important to recognize that the UFMP will be a strategic plan for the City, and the elements contained in the Street Tree Plan are more operational planning tools. For example, to learn the right trees to plant along a street boulevard, you would go to a tree planting pallet list contained in the Street Tree Plan. The UFMP will refer to the recommended tree planting list contained in the Street Tree Plan. Board Member Robles asked if the aerial photographs are only a data point, or are there other means for measuring trees, such as measuring the mass of the tree stock to determine the difference between a shrub and a large tree. Mr. Scott said the analysis used a multi -spectral imagery, which differentiates between tree canopy and low-lying vegetation. He agreed to provide more information about how the differences are identified on the maps. Rather than imposing more barriers on development, Board Member Robles asked if there are incentives the City could offer to developers to retain trees or build structures that are not susceptible to tree damage. He recalled that the Board is also working on an emerging "aging in place" plan that would allow property owners to build an extra dwelling unit on a single- family lot, saving it from being redeveloped to a greater density. This would result in tree retention, as well. He asked if the consultant has considered other tangential activities that could have an impact on the City's effort to retain trees. Mr. Scott answered that the UFMP would not reach that level of detail, but it may describe some incentives to encourage alternative building placement to encourage retention of larger trees. Another solution that other cities are exploring is developing a type of "tree bank." This would allow developers of properties that do not have enough space to accommodate trees to pay into a fund for planting to occur in another part of the City. Board Member Robles asked if the canopy analysis accounts for tree growth. Mr. Scott answered no and explained that the analysis can only describe the quantity of a forest and not the quality. He has heard reports from the Parks Department that there are a number of alder trees that are aging and in decline. They are having to spend a significant amount of money to replace them. He explained that the mortality rate for the urban forest canopy would require some additional study, and it is very typical for a city to move from a canopy study to a tree inventory as a benchmark for studying tree growth. Board Member Robles commented that if the City has an idea of how much the trees are growing, it will also have a better idea of how many are being lost. This would allow them to better structure the plan to address the delta. He said he is looking forward to seeing a higher level of data at some point in the future. Mr. Scott said the scope of the current project is to establish some benchmarks, identifying what the City has and does not have. This additional information will likely be identified as a goal item in the UFMP. Board Member Robles suggested that the UFMP could recommend a program that allows property owners to self -register the trees on their property. Given that trees grow at a certain rate, property owners could receive credits for tree growth. Mr. Planning Board Minutes July 26, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.a Scott said there is a lot of precedence for this approach with the citizen science movements going on. With the advent of handheld mobile devices, they are able connect property owners to the trees on their property and give them ways to participate in the fact-finding process. Board Member Robles suggested that this concept be included in the list of things the City wants to do. Board Member Lovell asked if there is anything the consultant can show the Board that represents what the final report will look like. Mr. Scott referred to the City of Kirkland's UFMP, which was recently done by his firm. He agreed to provide a link to the document. There is emerging research and precedence in the industry that will provide guidance for the plan. Board Member Lovell commented that there is a strong interest that emerges to compare Edmonds with other cities in the region. It would be helpful to have information showing what the cities that have greater tree canopy than Edmonds look like in 2017. A lot of development has occurred in these communities since 2011 and 2012, and their tree canopy has likely decreased as a result. Mr. Scott said each of the cities pay for the analysis to be done, and he can only provide information from cities that have made their findings publicly accessible. The comparison provided in his presentation was based on the knowledge he had from doing work in the cities. Board Member Lovell asked if the City could order a colored graphic spectrum analysis from the cities included in the comparison. Mr. Scott said it would be uncommon, but the City could certainly do that. On the flip side, he would expect that most of the cities would be updating their analysis by 2022. Another way that cities keep an eye on canopy change is via permit processes. Although the permits may not require tree retention, noting it on the application would at least provide the City with a record of the number of trees lost. Board Member Rosen asked if there is an ideal percentage for tree canopy based on best management practices and expert knowledge. Mr. Scott answered no. The ideal percentage varies from city to city. American Forests used to promote a 40% tree canopy that every City should have as a goal, but they have since retracted to recognize that different cities have different capabilities. Vice Chair Monroe summarized that Lake Forest Park's 40% canopy may not be better, it is just different. Mr. Scott agreed and added that Lake Forest Park has a different character than Edmonds. Board Member Robles noted that the United States Forest Service (USFS) does Lydar surveys of their assets, and perhaps cities could get together to fund a similar study. Mr. Scott agreed that is possible. He noted that USFS ran a Forest Inventory Assessment in 2013 for not only forested lands, but various urban areas, as well. This information is available to the public. Board Member Robles asked if this type of study would be a better asset than the City's current methodology. Mr. Scott answered affirmatively, because it talks about the quality of the forest. The condition assessment is missing from the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) survey, but the UTC survey is still very cost effective. Board Member Robles commented that, although it would be too costly for Edmonds to do its own Lydar survey, perhaps cities could get together to perform a Lydar survey on a larger stretch of land. Mr. Scott suggested that Lydar is becoming more accessible and definitely will be part of the future. Mr. Chave noted that the City has done some Lydar work, and it is available online. Board Member Cloutier said he appreciates that the objective of the UFMP is not to maximize the tree canopy, which would be impractical, but to find the right balance. It's important to make this clear to the public because there tends to be a reflexive reaction of "all or nothing" either way. He reminded the Board that the City Council recently adopted a resolution supporting the Paris Climate Accord. As part of that resolution, there were specific objectives for having Edmonds transition to a completely carbon -free energy source. Given the City's location, that pretty much means solar energy. He suggested that efforts to promote the use of solar photovoltaic energy should be done in conjunction with efforts to increase or find an optimal tree canopy. He noted that concerns about trees shading yards could be related to the need for solar access for energy or for gardens. He expressed his belief that the Street Tree Plan will need to be revised in concert with implementation of the UFMP. Board Member Cloutier suggested the UFMP should also include another tier of vegetation other than the very large trees. For example, someone with a solar easement may still want vegetation on the ground. This would provide all of the benefits that vegetation provides, just not at the scale of a huge Douglas Fir. Mr. Scott said the challenge is that woody plants will sequester carbons, but not as much because they don't have the same leaf area. Studies show that while it is a challenge to grow large trees in the urban environment, they provide the most long-term benefits. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that "halfway there is better than none." Again, he suggested that another tier of vegetation be considered in places where a massive tree is not appropriate. Mr. Scott said the UFMP will be strategic, allowing the City to make decisions that Planning Board Minutes July 26, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 50 6.A.a certain trees need to be removed. Planting trees in other places will allow the City to balance the canopy out to create a sustainable urban forest. Right now, the City does not have adequate information to make these balanced decisions. Due to the way the City is oriented towards the water, Board Member Cloutier cautioned that anything that affects views will multiply any opinion by 1,000. Views will be the primary consideration for most people. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that trees planted within the public rights -of -way have obscured the views of the Sound that was once enjoyed. Chair Rubenkonig commented that the Board is interested in facts, which will inform them as to the best way to address the concerns raised by the citizens relative to trees in Edmonds. While she appreciates the information provided by the consultant, she felt it would be helpful to have a historic overview of what has happened with the tree canopy over time. Perhaps this could start with the 1960s photograph in the Public Works Building that shows how well treed the downtown area was. They need to look at what has been done to the tree canopy as a result of the City's policies and the way that business has been conducted. This information would help the Board consider the changes that are needed for the future. Mr. Scott said the challenge with digging that far back is that aerial imagery from that period is black and white and not as detailed. It is a safe assumption that the entire area was originally forested and later settled. The Planning Department has indicated that most of the City has been developed at this point, and it is a matter of zoning amendments that have allowed for greater density and resulted in loss of tree canopy. Chair Rubenkonig agreed that different tools would need to be used, but she would like historic information to be part of the report. Chair Rubenkonig said she does not consider the City's 30% tree canopy to be good enough. She suggested that the City of Kirkland may have a greater percentage of tree canopy because they have a stronger tree policy within their development regulations. She commented that her firm has worked on development projects in the City of Kirkland, and she knows that they require a much higher tree retention, as does the City of Redmond. She summarized that the cities with greater tree canopies may be reflective of more stringent tree retention policies. Chair Rubenkonig suggested that in addition to addressing the issue of "planting the right tree in the right place," the UFMP should also address using the right installation for trees that are planted. If a tree is planted in the right way within a sidewalk area, it can prosper. Improper installation is often the cause of trees impacting sidewalks. She noted that, via the survey and community open house, the public has indicated a desire for more educational information on how to plant trees correctly. Mr. Scott commented that the UFMP can create great opportunities for community engagement by giving the City direction towards setting up these relationships so that citizens can become stewards of their own land. Chair Rubenkonig stressed the need for benchmark figures from the consulting team. She recalled that when the Board conducted a public hearing on the Tree Board's previous recommendation, she got the feeling that citizens take trees very seriously, particularly those on their own property. Most people have good intent to be good stewards of the land. However, a lot of tree cutting has occurred in recent years as a result of people becoming afraid after major windstorms have occurred. Many have felt the need to protect their properties. Ms. Hope reminded the Board that the UFMP will come back to them for future work as the plan progresses. It will also be presented again to the Tree Board. There will be a number of opportunities for the Board and members of the public to comment as the plan progresses. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Ms. Hope reviewed the Board's extended agenda, noting that the August 9th agenda will include a presentation on completion of the Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington University (WWU). She reviewed that the WWU students and faculty did a tremendous amount of work, and highlights of their work will be presented to the Board. The highlights will also be made available online. The second item on the August 9th agenda is a presentation of information that has recently been published about growth trends in the Central Puget Sound Region. This information will help provide context for how Edmonds is performing as part of the larger region. Planning Board Minutes July 26, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.b Edmonds UFMP Draft, March 2018 Comments on Part 1 "What Do We Have?" by Steve Hatzenbeler, Citizens' Tree Board 1. Page 1, column 2, "abundant": the use of subjective terms like this should be avoided. 2. Page 2, column 2, "comprehensive": No on -the -ground assessment was completed, so I would be hesitant to call the review comprehensive. 3. Page 2, Table 1, $7.74: This was inflated in 2017 due to the UFMP expenditures. Not an accurate representation of typical per capita investment. 4. Page 3, column 2, "the City does not have a method to take inventory or track the history, status, or location of public trees": Seems like this is something that should be changed/fixed. Is DRB recommending that the City start tracking it? 5. Page 5, column 2, "they also look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic public places": I don't think this is accurate. Is City staff (besides the Parks Dept) really looking for opportunities to plant trees? 6. Page 6, column 2, "20-year timeline concluding in 2048 (2038)... achieved by adapting the Plan according to five-year cyclical review of operational objectives.": Is the City committing to these 5- yr cyclical reviews of operational objectives? 7. Page 7, column 2, "...especially focusing on public land and rights of way. For private lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives to encourage good tree management practices.": This sentence implies that the Comp Plan focuses on public right of way and land, but I don't think that is actually in the Comp Plan. This should be reworded. 8. Page 9, column 2, Intercepting Rainfall: It may be beneficial to add context here that relates rainfall interception to reducing stormwater runoff and urban flooding. I think people will recognize these as problems in Edmonds. 9. Page 11, Table 3: Reduced atmospheric carbon (pounds): This is pounds per year, correct? 10. Page 12, column 1, "Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed as 34% of the total land base (Edmonds, 2017).": This seems like awfully old data. Why not use the current data in the TCA. See Land Cover Map 1 on page 22. 11. Page 12, Table 4: This is not mentioned in the text so it's hard to understand its value/place in the report. 12. Page 13, Table 5: This data would benefit from being discussed in the text of the report. 13. Page 14, column 1, Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic, and Health Benefits: may be useful to mention a counterpoint here that trees in view areas may contribute to lower property values and strained neighbor relations. View areas are a significant complication in many parts of Edmonds, and seem to not be accounted for in the UFMP so far. 14. Page 15, column 1, "...to understand and manage the urban forest has depended upon which trees are being considered and where trees were located.": This is really awkward wording and should be rewritten to get the point across. 15. Page 15, column 1, "In 2015, one of the efforts of this board was a proposal to the City for updated tree -related municipal ordinances.": This is an incomplete representation of what happened, and if it needs to be brought up in the UFMP (the value of mentioning it is questionable, in my opinion), it should be more completely explained. Development Services was intimately involved in the proposed ordinance every step of the way, it was not just the Tree Board's proposal. 16. Page 16, column 2, "It is important that the City plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole, not just critical areas.": If this is the case, shouldn't we address the other 83% of the canopy that's not in public property and rights of way? Packet Pg. 52 6.A.b 17. Page 17, column 1, "...should be integrated into land use and development codes.": Is this meant to suggest that land use and development codes in Edmonds will be updated to include tree retention requirements? 18. Page 18, column 2, "...care for the urban forest is mandated.": This statement implies the entire urban forest, not just the 13% of it that happens to be on public right of way. 19. Page 18, column 2, "...strategies to improve the care and conservation of all trees.": All trees. So how does this UFMP improve care and conservation of trees on private property? 20. Page 19, column 2, "Current operations in the City that care for the community trees do not keep suitable records of their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP.": This sounds like something that should be addressed/fixed. 21. Page 20, column 2, "...provide benefits to the community beyond property lines.": This point should be hammered home more strongly; it is very important for the community to understand trees as a community resource, not just individual trees on single parcels. 22. Page 21, column 2, "...suitable planting sites (1,651 acres)": Is this only on public property and rights of way, or does it also include private property? 23. Page 25, column 2, "Haines Wharf is another example where the potential canopy (40.6%) is much higher than the existing canopy (11.9%).": It should be noted that big increases in tree canopy cover at HW Park would affect views on the hill above the park. This will not be practical or accepted by the community. Situations like this will reduce the effective potential gains in canopy gain at HW Park and other places like it, and the potential tree canopy gains should be adjusted to reflect that. 24. Page 29, Table 10: View impacts (or potential view impacts) should be factored into this table, maybe with a negative weight factor. This would lower the priority of planting in areas where views could be affected by tree planting. View impacts cannot be ignored by this plan. 25. Page 30, Table 11: Much of the high and very high priority planting areas are in view and private property areas. I don't think view impacts should be ignored. The impact on views should be factored in and reduce priority of certain areas. 26. Page 31, column 1, "Edmond's": Correct spelling (numerous spelling errors throughout document). 27. Page 31, column 1, "The stored carbon is valued at $6.8 million.": In my opinion it would be valuable to provide an explanation of what this means, and how a value is assigned to stored carbon. 28. Page 32, column 1, "Use GIS canopy and land cover mapping to explore under -treed neighborhoods and identify potential planting sites.": Seems like this should be included in the UFMP. This statement suggests that identifying future planting sites would be done later by urban forest managers --who don't exist in Edmonds. 29. Page 32, column 1, "Incentivize tree planting on private property, particularly in high/very high planting priority areas.": But be wary of impacts on views. Views just don't seem to be factored into this UFMP yet, and in Edmonds, they can't be ignored in a successful and meaningful UFMP. 30. Page 32, column 2, "Define canopy goals and identify actions that will support these goal(s).": Isn't this UFMP supposed to define the canopy goals and identify actions that support these goals? That seemed to be one of the primary reasons the UFMP was proposed a few years ago. 31. Page 34, Table 13: Should be 2017, not 2016. 32. Page 34, Table 13: The total is inaccurate, and should be $319,542. 33. Page 38, column 2, "Currently the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542 towards total community forestry expenditure": Specifically in 2017. This statement suggests that the $319k expenditure is a budgeted annual expense, which it is not. Packet Pg. 53 6.A.b 34. Page 38, column 2, "...per capita investment of $7.74.": Significantly inflated in 2017 due to the cost of the UFMP. 35. Page 39, column 1, "Create regulations...": This is odd wording; "These regulations are designed to" create regulations? Should be stated differently. 36. Page 39, column 2, "All street trees are managed by the Public Works Department.": Seems to more commonly be managed by Parks, not Public Works Packet Pg. 54 6.A.b From: K Keefe [mailto:wheekawheek(agmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:06 PM To: Nelson, Denise Subject: UFMP Comments Hello, below are my comments regarding the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan for Edmonds. First of all, thank you to the City for opening up this process to the public for input and examination! I think efforts to protect, maintain and foster health trees are supremely important. My main comment would be to encourage the City to either implement, or find out how to implement, more control over trees (and there removal) on private property. I understand that ability to do so is -possibly- limited on private property, because trees are that, property of the owner. However, I think that trees should be considered a very important benefit to the community as a whole, and therefore more strongly regulated. If, as stated in the document, private owners control the majority of the tree canopies, then I believe a great deal of the focus from the City should therefore be on protecting those trees. If that amount of homeowners cut down all of those trees the City would only be left with a 17% tree canopy. Although it may seem a stretch, this could feasibly happen with current lack of regulation. And what is stopping homeowners and developers from doing this? Do we want to see an Edmonds that is void of it's beautiful trees? Off site land owners may not care much whether or not there are trees on the property, and often times it is easier to cut down the trees to make way for development, rather than to try and preserve them. Good, health, mature trees take a long time to grow. While developers may have to plant new trees in place of any of those removed, it is not an apples to apples exchange. A small, cheap, (possibly not native) deciduous tree purchased at a home improvement store does not provide the same benefits to wildlife, and to the air, as a long standing, native mature tree does. I believe it is extremely unfair and unwise to allow that kind of exchange. Please consider more regulations on private property owners, for the sake of the beautiful community we live in. Thank you, Killy Keefe Edmonds,WA Packet Pg. 55 6.A.b Killy wheekawheek@gmail.com "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix "Dawn is breaking everywhere. Light a candle, curse the glare." Touch of Grey, The Grateful Dead. "She knew how animals would act, she understood what animals thought, but you could never be sure about people." From "The Long Winter" by Laura Ingalls Wilder What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected. N Chief Seattle Packet Pg. 56 6.A.b From: Danielle Hursh [mailto:hurshdc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:02 PM To: Nelson, Denise; Kiwi Fruit Subject: Comments for the 4/5 Tree Board Meeting Hello, I am unable to attend the Tree Board meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm. I wanted to submit my public comments about the draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). First of all, I very much appreciate that the City of Edmonds is pursuing an UFMP and the public input that has been solicited in creating it. One of the reasons I moved to Edmonds was for its lovely serene environment - one that is greatly enhanced by the City's trees! I've reviewed the draft UFMP and agree with most of the points made. I would like to see the City set a goal of at least maintaining the current percentage of canopy cover - as development increases we will continue to see a decline in canopy cover unless additional steps are taken to preserve the trees/canopy cover we currently have. I do think the City of Edmonds can/should do more to protect trees on private property - especially property that is in the process of being developed or redeveloped. There have been several recent development projects in my neighborhood where the City said the developers would do their best to preserve the trees - instead the lots were clear cut. Its easy for developers to clear cut old trees and plant "replacement" trees; however this is not the best approach for our neighborhoods, wildlife, or environment. "Replacing" second growth evergreens (50+ years old) with small deciduous is not an equitable approach to our tree canopy or urban forest. I urge the City to consider additional rules/restrictions to help preserve trees on privately owned property. Thank you! I look forward to hearing more about this work and seeing the finalized Urban Forest Management Plan. Danielle Hursh 23627 101 st Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 206-218-8695 Packet Pg. 57 6.A.b Subject Matter Notes BY: P.B. Lovell RE: UFMP [Urban Forest Management Plan] April 7, 2018 PBL had volunteered to attend and feedback substance of Tree Board meeting on 4/5/18, which featured a presentation of the DRAFT Urban Forest Management Plan under development for the city by the consultant: Davey Resource Group [Ian Scott]. This writing reflects my notes from said meeting/presentation with potential additional reference points for PB members in conjunction with continuing reviews of the UFMP. Notes in no particular order or priority. Board members should read both substance and commentary of the presentation contained within My Edmonds News, posted April 5, 2018 [by Larry Vogel] for his more detailed account of the presentation. The procedures from here as to necessary revisions to the UFMP and any subsequent substantive actions to be taken by the City appear to provide for a public review by the City Council before any substantive revisions to the draft Plan are undertaken. This would mean that the PB, after our scheduled review and discussion on April 11 and the public hearing currently targeted for May 9 would take no final action' but could make comments and recommendations on the draft Plan. (which might include any recommendations for changes relative to subsequent City Council action). [Note that an additional public open house is scheduled for April 19 at which further input from citizenry would be gathered]. These three input 'flows' [Tree Board review, Public open House, PB review/discussion] would be compiled and forwarded to Council for their discussion and further input from the public before any substantive revisions to the UFMP are undertaken by Davey. (However, some corrections and clean-up to the background information may be done ahead.) Process from that point forward would be determined later. Specific comment/feedback points gleaned from the Tree Board meeting of April 5: • Public comments received as to some shortfalls within DRAFT Plan data, specifically ➢ Tree species statistics applicable to Pacific NW appear to be lacking ➢ Plan refers to a 20 year process, but elsewhere refers to 'completion' as 2048 ➢ Scientific data does not appear to be drawn from our area of the country, particularly as to rainfall, tree species, diseases, and other environmental data. • Community 'responses' thus far [survey] only represent 175 responses —more needed. • Goals of both community and municipal participants should be to preserve current 30.3% canopy citywide. • DRAFT Plan identifies actions for which staff/dollar inputs would be needed. For the City to implement Plan—amounts/projections will need to be carefully considered. • More discussion and direction needs to be undertaken to clarify both role of the UFMP and any subsequent resultant Code revisions with respect to public property trees vs. private property owners— citizens need to support UFMP canopy maintenance goals for city, but plan should not dictate private property rights. • UFMP could incorporate guidance for potential future land development code revisions to accommodate more effective land -clearing and tree preservation criteria. 4. PBL is in process of collecting old historic photos on Edmonds hopefully illustrating early land clearing and subsequent 'growth' of trees within the city —this would be to assist PB discussion Packet Pg. 58 6.A.b April 20, 2018 Comments on the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan (March 2018) Ms. Shane Hope Director of Development Services City of Edmonds My concerns about Tree Board and City of Edmonds moving forward are: I thought that Tree Board would have as its mission to streamline some of process to comply with the tree -related ordinances that City has. Instead of having to go from Person A to Person B to Person C, streamline the process to have a Person A, known to be the Tree Authority for City, to answer any questions that might arise. That's not what is happening and I am disappointed. As a taxpayer, I am dismayed and appalled at the poor quality of work that the report contractor, Davey Resource Group, is submitting for us to peruse or even read thoroughly. Much of the science that is cited is based on studies in California. Many of the statistics cited in this report originate from California. Has the writer or researcher of this expensive report walked around with a knowledgeable arborist to see what trees grow well and are native to the area and take pictures if necessary? If the Edmonds City Council approved an over six figure amount for this report, we are not getting our money's worth!! Trees are lovely. The big tall green conifers are one of many reasons we chose to move to Edmonds. However, one would hope and desire practical uses and implementations of trees. Edmonds planted street trees 20 years ago, but now homeowners are responsible for them, along with rigid guidelines that are not clear, are hidden away, unless one asks many levels and layers of people. How is that the best utilization of staff or trees?! How does that foster good will for citizens of the city? Also the city plants or requires new homeowners or developers to plant trees in the sidewalk area. Guess what? The sidewalks are buckling, the street sweeper must be employed and paid, and the street sweeper truck must operate to pick up all of the leaves, the sidewalks must be grinded or replaced to prevent falling by those of us who walk the streets of Edmonds for fun or business. Are all of the costs and tedium worth the city's very rigid, costly agenda? Are all of those costs reflected in the Tree Plan? Also if this new plan for trees encourages the coordination of at least three departments of the City's workforce, why is it that only one area, Development Services, shows up for these public meetings? I find that irregular, at best. If all three groups of the City workforce are to be held accountable, wouldn't each group or entity want to show an interest or learn from the public what their concerns might be? Respectfully submitted by, Minna Dimmick 546 Walnut St. #302 Edmonds, WA 98020 505-463-7106 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.b On Apr 19, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Jenny Anttila wrote: Hello Council Members, There are certain points that do have to be addressed:- 1) Trees in the common areas that are the "showcase" for Edmonds that are planted on the sidewalks and main streets. They provide beauty and shade and should be maintained by the City and be under your area of domain. Some of them overgrow and homeowners do call the City to ask for action. 2) Any new trees planted by the City on sidewalks, or otherwise, should be the appropriate tree for the space. 3) Trees in areas not under the Edmonds Council control are: those trees in your citizens own yards. You cannot mandate costs or rules for cutting them down (if too big or diseased, or incur costs for replanting if required by home owners). These trees are not your business or your area of control with fees or fines. 4) Hedges along sidewalks should be under your access with notifications should these hedges overgrow into the sidewalk or grow higher than a 6' wooden fence. We have limited sidewalks in this town, and to allow a homeowner to let their hedges (or large plants) impede sidewalks is wrong. 5) We do not want a town where we are paying fines and under strict rules and regulations with regard to our own homeowner trees. Many people plant the wrong trees that grow out of control or are now too old to afford to apply for permits for cutting them down, have to pay a fee for that, and then have to pay for an approved arborist to replant trees they don't need or want in their yards. If the City is trying to pass these types of laws you will have a fiasco in the City chambers soon. 6) The City already has rules on trees being protected if they grow by a stream (which we have many in this town). Thank you, Jenny Anttila Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 60 6.A.b Rec'd: Sat 4/28/2018 12:39 PM Dawna Lahti edmonditel@hotmail.com Dear Diane: In the end, it was your penned e-mail address that endured, so here is my note in lieu of my presence at the tree meeting on the 9th of May. It appears that I've organized my notes according to the easel displays: C-2 "outreach to arborists" is too weak. There needs to be something that you require of the for the privilege of working in Edmonds (which will always decrease the canopy and so is a net loss to our community). Perhaps they need to defend any tree -topping, which causes disease and death of healthy trees, to the city arborist and then pay a special fee graduated according to trunk diameter. They will pass this on to the homeowner, of course, but it will also be a nuisance to them and they will be less likely to suggest it as an option. The regulation needs to extend to lumberjacks, too, who have a saw and can climb a tree but don't necessarily know the downside of their trade at all. C-5 the Heritage tree program needs to involve the history and art groups of Edmonds and should have a mapping on the Edmonds website, an app to tour the trees by sidewalk as well as a paper map to hold as they do so (for those with that comfort zone). This program will utterly fail if not thoroughly planned before it is implemented. And it will be worse than worthless unless the trees are offered protection simultaneously with the status. M-8 protecting canopy: 5-10 year plan is too short for trees. Soon you will have a bunch of 5- 10 year old trees and nothing else as all the rest are unprotected. Probably I miss the mark here. but I'm right about the need for a longer view for NW trees that outlive us by generations. Rotation of planning is important to consider. The iconic oaks at the fountain won't last forever. Where are young oaks to be planted now to make sure we still have such shade in a prominent place a generation or two from now? Variety of street trees by neighborhood gives a sense of place as Seattle demonstrates. Variety and a planting schedule make for a lovelier result. Where pocket parks are designed (as on Dayton) be certain to consider shade trees. People don't gravitate to cement in any season. We acknowledge global warming, so why not act like it is coming. This document ignores the view interests in Edmonds. That is the elephant in the room, but it needs to be addressed head on. Every tree is in someone's potential "view", so without specific regulation and zoning, we end up with a hot hardscape of a city with "views" of the sun in your eyes. This document ignores the aging- hippie desire to have solar -panels on your own roof (which encourages you to cut your own trees and everybody else's). This is a city and the place for solar panels is in a sunny field in Eastern Washington. I'm being facetious, but the reality of these two questions has everything to do with any conversation about trees in Edmonds. Respectfully, Dawna Lahti Packet Pg. 61 6.A.b May 2, 2018 Edmonds City Council 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Councilmembers, In response to Councilmember Buckshnis' request that residents voice opinions regarding the March 2018 draft Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), I submit this comment document to the Edmonds City Council. I have reviewed the draft UFMP, prepared by Davey Resource Group (Davey), from my perspective as an Edmonds native and current resident, combined with 30 years of professional experience as a scientist employed in environmental consulting across various states and internationally. The past 20 years of my professional experience have been in the development, review, and management of environmental impact analyses related to the National Environmental Policy Act. My review holds the draft UFMP to the same standard as I expect from my draft Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements: a scientifically objective document that informs decisionmakers in creating sound public policy. The Tree Board has adopted the slogan "Right Tree, Right Place" to summarize their objectives. According to the draft UFMP, 87 percent of the current tree canopy is on private property, largely outside of the City's control, making education a centerpiece of any successful urban forest management strategy. If the City plans to turn the slogan into action, namely to help private landowners answer the question "What is the right tree in this place?" and encourage them to plant and maintain trees to serve that objective, it is essential to create a science -based UFMP that addresses benefits and costs of trees within Edmonds. Unfortunately, the draft UFMP is stunning in its lack of a basic scientific foundation, especially in the context of the unique characteristics of Edmonds. Those of us who have had to opportunity to live in other regions of the country recognize the many unique characteristics of the Puget Sound area as a whole, and Edmonds in particular. Some of those characteristics are socio-geographic—our proximity to an urban area with world -class amenities and a vibrant economy —while others relate to the caring and community -involved people who live here. But it's the natural environment that separates us from many other cities. It's the water, the mountains, the weather, the topography, and the trees. It is in tailoring the draft UFMP to these characteristics of Edmonds that it fails —much of the draft UFMP feels like it was cut and pasted from a tree plan for a city in California or Nevada. Ross Dimmick 546 Walnut Street #302, Edmonds WA 98020 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.b Much of my review of the draft UFMP focuses on the Introduction, pages 7 through 14, which presents the benefits of the urban forest. These benefits are key to developing the Urban Forest Asset Goals, the management objectives of the urban forest, described beginning at page 57 of the draft UFMP. Each management objective has a stated rationale, risk, and benefit that ties to the benefits described in the Introduction. If science does not support the benefit, or if the benefit comes at great cost, then the management objective must be reconsidered. My comments follow. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft UFMP. Sincerely, Ross Dimmick cc: Ms. Shane Hope, Development Services Department Ross Dimmick 546 Walnut Street #302, Edmonds WA 98020 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.b Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 1 1 Comment 1: The National Tree Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/calculator), used to determine tree benefits shown in tables on pages 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, is 1) more limited in its applicability than described in the draft UFMP, 2) far too inaccurate to produce meaningful results for a planning document, and 3) not transparent in its data sources and calculations. The quantitative evaluation of benefits described in the Introduction (see tables on pages 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) is derived from the National Tree Benefit Calculator (http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/), co -designed by Davey Tree Expert Co. The calculator accepts four inputs: zip code, tree species, tree diameter, and nearest land use (e.g., single-family residential, small commercial business). From these four inputs, the calculator produces five different benefit values for a tree, corresponding to the draft UFMP tables cited above: stormwater diversion, carbon (COA energy, air quality, and property value. More limited in its applicability than described in the draft UFMP. In its descriptions and calculations of tree benefits within the Introduction section, the draft UFMP confuses the three major categories of trees in Edmonds that the plan is intended to address: city -owned street trees, trees in city -owned parks, and trees on private property. On page 9, "Benefits of the Urban Forest," the draft UFMP states "Individual tree owners can calculate the benefits of trees to their property by using the National Tree Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/calculator) or with i-Tree Design (www.itreetools.org/design)." The description at the website of the National Tree Benefit Calculator states that the "tool is based on i-Tree's street tree assessment tool called STREETS." As the name would suggest, i-Tree STREETS applies only to street trees, and is not designed to be applicable to "individual tree owners." It is also not applicable to trees in city -owned parks. Therefore, the tables in the Introduction apply to only a very small percentage of trees in Edmonds, street trees, likely comprising well under 1 percent of the Edmonds tree canopy. Far too inaccurate to produce meaningful results for a planning document. The calculator website itself describes the calculations as "a first -order approximation." So, what does this mean? Edmonds is included within a "Pacific Northwest" region, extending from the U.S./Canada border almost to California, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Cascade Range. Entering the zip code from Aberdeen, with more than double Edmonds' annual average rainfall, or Salem, Oregon, situated in the farmlands of the Willamette Valley, produces exactly the same quantities and dollar values for a given tree. With the differences among locations in this region, particularly climate, property values, and baseline air quality, these values cannot be the same. For Davey to rely on such a crude tool for a paid report is unacceptable. Davey needs to use the original documents that form the scientific basis for these calculations and adapt them to the unique Edmonds setting, particularly precipitation frequency and intensity, temperatures, baseline ambient air quality, and the mountain/water viewshed (a key consideration in property value impacts). Not transparent in its data sources and calculations. Central to any scientific document is the concept of reproducibility —the reader should be able to achieve the same results by following the methodology presented in the document and its references. On a high-school math test, this is called "show your work." Davey's system does not provide verifiable sources or calculations of tree benefits. As such, it is not possible to determine whether calculations are based on science that is relevant to our environment in Edmonds, or even applicable to the question being asked. Packet Pg. 64 6.A.b Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 12 Within my own work, I have been contracted on occasion to prepare documents to update existing environmental impact analyses based on new information. It is frustrating (and expensive for the client) when I have to reconstruct an analysis from scratch because the original author failed to adequately document their calculations. For a UFMP to be useful for implementing a long-term strategy, it must occasionally be updated to reflect: • New science. Urban forestry is still a relatively new scientific field and strategies now being implemented to manage urban forests will lead to new science on benefits and costs and case studies on what works and what doesn't. • Changes in development patterns. Edmonds continues to feel pressure from the heated Seattle housing market, encouraging denser development in the form of apartments and townhouses. • Changes in the natural environment. The draft UFMP's description of our current urban forest is a snapshot in time that is ever -changing. Because the draft UFMP poorly documents its methodologies and calculations, it will be difficult and expensive for the City to update the UFMP to suit future needs. The City needs to ensure the transparency of all analyses and reproducibility of data to allow for occasional updates of the plan and to track progress against urban forest management goals. Comment 2: The relationship between the urban forest and energy use, CO2, and carbon sequestration are inadequately described and/or erroneously calculated. Pages 11 and 12 of the draft UFMP claims that urban forests help reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases through 1) sequestration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass, and 2) lowering the demand for energy used in heating and air conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions associated with electric power generation and natural gas consumption. The draft UFMP claims that energy savings are achieved by: shading dwellings and impervious surfaces; transpiration, the release of water vapor through tree canopies causing atmospheric cooling; wind reduction, helping to avoiding winter heat loss; and green roofs, putting native trees and vegetation on rooftops. To test some of these statements, I used the i-Tree Design (www.itreetools.org/design) tool as suggested in the draft UFMP. Somewhat randomly choosing a house on Alder Street between 6t" and 7tn avenues, I used the design feature of the tool to place a single western red cedar, of 8-inch diameter at breast height, in the front yard (south of the house). Other information about the house was determined from a recent real-estate listing (constructed before 1950, no air conditioning) and entered into i-Tree Design. The results related to CO2 and energy use over the next 20 years were stated by the tool as follows: $-44 of savings by reducing -2,463 lbs. of atmospheric carbon dioxide through CO2 sequestration and decreased energy production needs and emissions • $0 of summer energy savings by direct shading and air cooling effect through evapotranspiration • $-303 of winter energy savings by slowing down winds and reducing home heat loss Note that the dollar savings and CO2 reduction values are negative. With the absence of air conditioning, typical for houses in Edmonds, the effect of a single cedar tree was to increase energy use and, correspondingly, CO2 generation by shading the house from sunlight in during the heating months of fall, winter, and spring. According to the latest U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Packet Pg. 65 Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 13 6.A.b approximately 57 percent of homes in Edmonds are heated by CO2-generating fossil fuels. Other tree types and placements within i-Tree Design may produce more favorable results for the house analyzed but are unlikely to show energy savings given our relatively mild winter climate and, typically, a lack of air conditioning. But other tree placements may increase shading and energy consumption in neighboring houses, which i-Tree Design does not model. This "neighbor effect" is particularly severe in Edmonds —of the 1,001 communities in the U.S. larger than Edmonds (2016 U.S. Census Bureau Estimates), only 5 are further north: Everett, Marysville, and Bellingham, Washington; Minot, North Dakota; and Anchorage, Alaska. This means that the shadow cast by a tree in Edmonds, especially the tall conifers native to this area, is long during the late fall and winter months, nearly 300 feet at noon for a 100-foot-tall tree. While it is true that the urban forest sequesters carbon through growth of biomass, the draft UFMP does not address the fate of that carbon. Because urban trees are seldom used for wood products, sequestered carbon is eventually returned to the atmosphere as part of the carbon cycle as trees die and rot or are cut down and chipped or used as firewood. Theoretically, a mature urban forest will release as much carbon as it takes in. This explanation provides needed context for the reader to better understand the relationship of carbon sequestration and the urban forest. Characteristics of Edmonds, particularly lack of air conditioning in most homes, low sun angles, and abundant large conifers, cast doubt over claims that urban trees lead to net reduction in COz from energy savings and carbon sequestration. The draft UFMP lacks any region -specific discussion of factors that potentially affect its conclusions and its own modeling tool shows that net COz production and energy use can increase in relatively common situations. It is inexcusable for the draft UFMP to omit region -specific factors in drawing its conclusions and inappropriate to state any conclusions without a thorough scientific analysis. Comment 3: The costs of trees to the City are not adequately described nor calculated. On page 34, the draft UFMP focuses its cost analysis on City expenditures for planting, maintenance, and removal of trees, along with management and the cost of volunteer activities. The draft UFMP also lists City departments and weekly estimated hours per week spent on urban forest -related activities. This cost analysis appears to ignore other urban forest costs to the City. The following costs should be quantified through interviews and data supplied by City staff, as well as the best available science: • Assessment and repair of hardscape damage. A casual stroll around downtown Edmonds will illustrate damage and repairs to sidewalks (Figures 1 and 2), gutters, and curbs from street trees. Other damage may occur to stormwater drainage systems from tree roots. • Street sweeping. Our wettest month, statistically, is November, when leaves shed from trees reach their maximum. Also, our most severe windstorms tend to occur during the rainy months, requiring the street sweeper to clean up leaves, boughs, and small limbs to maintain stormwater drain performance. • Catch basin and storm drain cleaning. Accumulation of leaves, needles, and other tree debris can clog storm drains and require cleanout of catch basins. Packet Pg. 66 Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 14 6.A.b Figure 1. Multiple sidewalk repairs from tree - root damage, 5th Avenue South Figure 2. Sidewalk replacement and repairs from tree -root damage, 5th Avenue South Packet Pg. 67 6.A.b Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 15 There is a long list of other potential indirect costs, including: • Carbon emissions. Pruning, tree removal, and street sweeping, among other activities, generate carbon emissions from use of power equipment such as saws, chippers, trucks, and sweepers. In determining net carbon value, the cost of these emissions must be included. • Damage and injury from falling trees. • Disruption to traffic during tree maintenance. • Opportunity cost. The presence of trees precludes other potential uses of the space. Recent scientific literature' addresses other potential costs, including utility company tree maintenance and tree -related repair costs, which are passed on to ratepayers, as well as economic costs of power interruption. The UFMP should list and evaluate whether these costs are relevant to Edmonds, and, if so, should include them in the cost analysis. Comment 4: The draft UFMP focuses only on urban forest management costs borne by the City. The cost of trees to private landowners is all but ignored, despite representing 87 percent of the urban forest canopy. On page 34, the draft UFMP states: "Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds' urban forest produces about $1,567,000 in environmental benefits and is maintained with an annual budget of approximately $319,542." Subject to the caveats in my comments regarding the accuracy of these numbers, this statement directly compares a benefit from the entire tree canopy with the cost only to the City government. Obviously, the costs to private landowners for maintaining their 87 percent of the canopy, including direct and indirect costs of pruning, leaf raking and blowing, debris disposal, moss treatments, pressure washing, gutter cleaning, and hardscape repair, far exceed the cost to the City. These activities also generate carbon emissions which need to be included in the cost. If the draft UFMP intends to provide some sort of cost/benefit analysis, it needs to include the costs to all parties. Comment 5: Despite being shown as the largest environmental benefit (by dollar amount) provided by the Edmonds tree canopy, the derivation of the stormwater management value remains an enigma. On page 31, the draft UFMP states that the Edmonds tree canopy "Reduces 42.8 million gallons of stormwater runoff, a benefit worth nearly $1.2 million." Note that this is 76 percent of the quantified benefit for Edmonds. Two numbers are important to understanding this benefit: derivation of the value of 42.8 million gallons of stormwater runoff diverted, and the cost per gallon assigned to that runoff, approximately 2.8 cents. According to the draft UFMP, the 42.8 million gallons was derived from the i-Tree Canopy model, which, in its web version, does not seem to produce estimates for stormwater diverted. The complete input and output from this i-Tree Canopy model should be included as an appendix for review. During the April 19 Open House for the draft UFMP, I asked Ian Scott and Ian Lefcourte, both of Davey Resource Group, how the 2.8 cents per gallon value for diverted stormwater was derived. Neither could ' Two examples are: Vogt, J.M., Hauer, R.J., Fischer, B.C., 2015. The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: a review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41: 293- 323. Song, Xiao Ping, Tan, Puay Yok, Edwards, Peter, Richards, Daniel, 2018. The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29: 162-170. Packet Pg. 68 6.A.b Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 16 tell me, but Mr. Lefcourte said he would follow up on that information (the latest email I received from Mr. Lefcourte said that he was checking with his geographic information system personnel). This value is also used in the treebenefits.com model for calculating the benefits of individual trees, and in benefits calculations in Table 2 of the draft UFMP. Through my own research, I found a value of 2.779 cents per gallon in a report not cited in the draft UFMP (McPherson et al. 2002, Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting); however, the reference cited by the McPherson report as its source did not appear to support the value. The difficulty in trying to track down how the largest quantified benefit in the draft UFMP was derived should highlight a basic inadequacy with the document —its lack of transparency. Davey appears to be asking us to take their word for it. All the documentation showing how these numbers are derived need not be presented in the narrative of a plan that is intended for a non -technical audience, but it should be included as an appendix to verify accuracy and to reduce the cost of future plan updates in response to better data, changes in costs, and changes within the urban forest itself. Comment 6: The canopy air quality benefit appears to ignore tree -generated pollen and volatile organic compounds. On page 31, the draft UFMP states that the Edmonds tree canopy "Improves air quality by removing 42.2 tons of pollutants (CO, NOz, Oa, SOz, and PMlo), valued at $146,823." 1 was unable to find any accounting for the costs of pollens and biogenic volatile organic compound emissions (volatile organic compounds generated by trees). Tree pollen levels are known to be high in this area, with visible accumulations on cars and other surfaces, particularly in the spring. Pollen is known to have direct health effects in this area, mostly as a nuisance either left untreated or treated with over-the-counter or prescription medications; however, among some individuals, pollen can initiate an allergic reaction that can, in turn, trigger asthma symptoms. The cost of both pollens and biogenic volatile organic compound emissions should be included in the calculation. Two additional questions should be answered within the air quality analysis in the draft UFMP: are air quality values based on the mix of trees (particularly deciduous versus conifers) that we have in Edmonds? What is the source of baseline air quality data used for Edmonds? Comment 7: Mitigating the urban heat island effect is mentioned, but the draft UFMP presents no information on the magnitude of the urban heat island in Edmonds, or whether one even exists. At various places, the draft UFMP refers to trees mitigating the "urban heat island effect" through shading of impervious surfaces; however the draft UFMP never presents data to establish whether Edmonds even has a measurable urban heat island effect. On April 24, 2018, Seattle set a daily record high temperature with 77°F recorded at SeaTac Airport. The high temperature recorded at the Port of Edmonds weather station that day was only 60.5°F, more than 16°F cooler. With Edmonds' position at the confluence of Puget Sound, Admiralty Inlet, and Possession Sound, the relatively cool temperature of these water bodies in the summer, and the prevalence of an onshore flow, all of Edmonds, even along the Highway 99 corridor, tends to be cooler in the summer, sometimes much cooler, than communities located further away from the water or in the South Sound. The draft UFMP should either eliminate any mention of urban heat island effect or present data defining the magnitude of the urban heat island effect for Edmonds and science determining that mitigating the effect would have a net environmental benefit (e.g., not increase COz emissions through increased fall/winter/spring heating needs). Packet Pg. 69 6.A.b Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 17 Comment 8: To be useful in achieving its goal of enhancing wildlife habitat, the UFMP must list which wildlife species need habitat to ensure that cultivating the correct types of trees is encouraged. Wildlife habitat is mentioned numerous times as a benefit of the urban forest, but there is no list of target wildlife species the City is attempting to provide habitat for. Without this list, a particular tree may or may not provide suitable habitat. Some species have experienced population decline because their habitat requirements are too specific. On page 9, the draft UFMP states "there is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree resource management that no single species should represent greater than 10% of the total population, and no single genus more than 20%." The UFMP needs to present a list of target wildlife species and explain how the diverse forest goals help rather than hinder these species. On pages 7, 14, 18, and 28, the draft UFMP mentions that trees provide "critical habitat" for wildlife. The term "critical habitat" has a specific regulatory meaning under the Endangered Species Act. Is that the intended meaning here? If so, for which wildlife species is the Edmonds urban forest considered critical habitat? Comment 9: Apparent math discrepancy. On page 25 of the draft UFMP are the statements "The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Map 3). Edmonds' parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%." This would indicate that park canopy covers 151.7 acres (344 acres x 0.441), yet the canopy cover of just the five largest parks (Table 7, page 26) is 210 acres. Packet Pg. 70 041�'Your Comment Batters! Name (Optional): -16 A16Z /� )T &-g[.i-t-i,61-- i Email (optional): **More space on back side** Your Comment Matters! offE� Name (Optional): PAI tI ,PAS v I I Email (Optional):_ ,RX Your Comment Matters! ,-4-k. /,,50` V 3 ® a .407 Your Comment Matters! E o j,21e,n t -• - - c L �L I S q F P N t LU f a r) �� d ' V Q **More space on back side** Packet Pg. 71 6.A.b 0111 Your Comment Matters! lame (Optional): mail (Optional): / UII�FeL t **More space on back side** c ca a c Your Comment Matters! E M Name (Optional): r Email (Optional):. NL 0 J LPL j� d g o f V �V` c s M as 00�d 3 *More space on back sideL** a c a� E E 0 u 0 a L d rt+ N t x w c m E R r r a Packet Pg. 72 1 6.A.c Notes of ti `-' Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board r City Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA April 5, 2018 6:00 pm 1) Call to Order Doug called the meeting at 6:00 am. Roll Call/Introductions Attendees: Tree Board Members: Steve Hatzenbeler (absent), Doug Petersen (chair), Vivian Olson, Barbara Chase, Frank Caruso (vice chair), Bill Phipps, Gail Lovell, Suzanne Juergensen (Alternate) Diane Buckshnis as City Council Liaison Carrie Hite and Shane Hope Directors from City Ian Scott and Keeley O'Connell from Davey Resource Group — Consultants for Urban Forest Management Program (UFMP) Audience Members that signed in: Ed Beaulier, Phil Lovell (Planning Board), Larry Vogel (MyEdmondsNews), Gary Nelson, Ross Dimmick, Minna Dimmick, Peter Kalapaca, Wendy Wisdom, Chris Walton, Kristi and Steve Bowman, Joe Scordino, Karen Fionito, Dawna Lahti, Joe Schmous, Todd Echlebarger, Carreen Rubenkonig (Planning Board), Eric Sull. 2) Approval of Agenda Moved and approved with no changes. 3) Audience Comments (We respectfully request that guests limit comments to 3 minutes or less) Ed Beauliere — He had a California Redwood in a little jar and said that maybe Edmonds might want to consider a grove of Redwoods. He said that trees are being removed all over the city and that folks are being contacted to have their timber purchased from timber buyers. Chris Walton — He said he was totally in favor of supporting any aspect that related to trees. He said he had many questions when reading the report: 1) there was some analyses of a 6% reduction in canopy and it was unclear as to how that happened? 2) There was public trees of 12% and private land of 88% on private land and could not understand how the report only addressed the 12% of trees on public land? 3) There was a goal to increase canopy from 30% to 50% and yet it doesn't correlate with the 6% reduction comment as well as only focusing on the 12% of Tree canopy. He wanted to know how to increase tree canopy on both public and private land. Gary Nelson - He enjoyed the graphics of the report but that there were many errors in the report: one timeline error concluded in 2048? P 7 says Edmonds is oldest City in Snohomish Cty and he questioned that fact. One table lists the prominent specifies of trees in Edmonds and he didn't think list was long enough. Talked of GMA guidelines and private property rights. James Clarke has named misspelled. Priority of planting and blockage of views is a big issue and report didn't seem to touch upon this factor. P 37 gave a long list of pests but nothing prominent to Edmonds — anyone could have provided that list. Survey — it's clear that 40% from Bowl (view) area answered the questions and these people want control of the trees and protection of views. Ross Dimmick — He is a scientist and writes EIS statements for a living and likes to focus on "purpose and need" and "what and why". From a scientific perspective, this report is a disaster as example, it refers to USFS region of HI and CA and the intercepting rainfall was in accurate as was the increased soil capacity. The fundamental science was quite disappointing from this report. Wendy Wisdom — Report needs a lot of work in the area of habitat and wildlife and that snag trees are very important to the that eco system. Dawna Lahti — She had not finished report but found that the report did not have a vision. The goals were not clear in terms of private or public property or the issues of snags or corridors. Packet Pg. 73 6.A.c 4) Approval of Meeting Notes Moved and Approved with no corrections. 5) Old Business/Discussion • Appoint Student Rep. to Citizen Tree Board Vivian Moved and Frank seconded the approval of Leslie Smith. • Tree board pamphlet final bids for printing Moved by Vivian and seconded by Barbara that Shane would have Denise print 500 copies of the tri-fold brochure. • Update on upcoming events activity o Discussed the Earth Day Celebration at Yost Park. Diane will buy the snacks and Gail will buy the coffee. It is April 21st starting at 9am. Doug is filling in for Steve (absent) for meeting on April 6, 2018 with Jennifer Leach (City of Edmonds). o Barbara is working with Debra Dill (City) on the Summer Market Tree Give Away. o Gail and Frank are working are working on Edmonds in Bloom Tree Identification. UFMP presentation by Ian Scott of Davev Resource Group (Power Point Presentation Part of notes o Please refer to the entire Power Point Presentation for the full breakdown of overview, structure, principals of adaptive management and goals. Each slide was highlighted with the main themes being that the City is reactive rather than proactive. The City doesn't know the condition or inventory of the urban forest. Comments were later made that some felt the City Staff did have a pretty good understanding of the street trees and tree inventory. Davey's rebuttal was that it is not documented. o Examples of the City Resources were provided as well as city resources utilized. Comments were brought forth regarding questioning this table and Davey's rebuttal was that the information was given by staff personnel and only identified Administration and now volunteer groups. o Survey was reviewed of which the data showed: 40% from Edmonds Bowl; 15% from Seaview area (view area) and 29% from other neighborhoods and consensus was city is in reactive management mode and regulations on private property should be limited. Comment was made that the survey was skewered because it is based on over 50% of the population is in view area. o Goals were then provided on How to get to the 50% canopy or to sustain a no new loss in canopy and that City needs to move toward proactive management. City should establish a departmental working team that could document trees and work towards work plans that have adaptive management. Community goads were also given to assist in moving towards tree sustainability and adaptive management. o Next Steps came forth with meetings and public hearing at Planning Board then revisions and then update to Council. Council Member Buckshnis requested that the Council be part of the "draft revision stage" so that Council can provide the necessary input to the draft and that it would not fall on the planning board. QUESTIONS and Comments: • Tree Board Commissioner Phipps - How did the plan come up with planting 700 trees a year. Davey's Group said that was an example of a number to be used so to complete a no -net loss concept. Phipps than stated that it seemed that this goal needs to go beyond the inventory of public trees. • Chair Petersen — Stated that the report needs a lot of work and that the "tree" solution for public property and private property seem different and that the models should reflect a solution for the entire canopy. • Tree Board Commissioner Chase — Stated that there should be a list of preferred trees and deal with the goals of diversity. Some trees are more resilient and the report didn't really address the diseases and the trees affected. • Tree Board Commissioner Phipps asked to look at the priority of planting slides and said that the majority of red area on the map was right below 9t" avenue which is in the area of views and that it would appear to be fragmented and no one in Edmonds would want big trees below 91" Avenue. Packet Pg. 74 6.A.c Vice Chair Caruso (who has his doctorate in plant pathology) indicated that the report needs to provide specific pest to the Edmonds region and he named a few that should be highlighted. He also said that the conifers were not really discussed and he agreed with Ms. Chase that there needs to be more distinction and diversity in the report. Tree Board Commissioner Phipps brought up that there was not recommendations or discussion regarding a Tree Ordinance and that the report merely cited all the areas in the code that related to trees. Davey's Group stated that it was not the intent of the report to advise on any code and that Best Available Science would be of use for any code. Chair Peterson brought forth an email question regarding the cutting down of very old evergreens and replacing them with flowering trees and that cutting down a Douglas Fir and replacing it with a deciduous tree is not even addressed in the report. It was also commented that developers are just clear cutting a lot and building. Davey's Group responded that clear cutting and retaining trees is a Development Code issue and not a function for this report. He did say it is important to keep in mind "how much canopy is at risk" and what are mortality rates and this all needs to be documented in a proactive manner. Tree Board Commissioner Olsen brought up the issue of the California Redwoods and that the City needs to be cognizant as to where to place these trees that grown majestically and can be hundreds of feet high. New Business • Logo and Banner. Discussed and looked at material for banner and then discussed a runner and table cloth. Moved by Vivian and seconded by Frank to spend up to $400 for the banner (3x3 square) and table runner. • Suzanne provided a three -fold brochure of an example "small trees" and/or "trees in small places". She was asked to send that to Diane and she will have the City try and convert it to a word doc or pdf for Tree Board Members to review. 6) Tree Board Member Ideas and Comments 7) Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:45 8) Future Meeting: May 3, 2018 April 19t" in Brackett Room is next Public Open House regarding the Urban Forest Management Program Packet Pg. 75 6.A.d Highlights of Public Open House On Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) April 11, 2018 6:00 to 7:00 pm Brackett Room, City Hall Attendance: About 20 people, plus City staff and consultants, attended. Format: Large display boards with highlights about the draft UFMP were placed around the room for public perusal. Staff and consultants mingled with public attendees and responded to questions and discussion A slide presentation was given at about 6:45 pm showing key information about the draft UFMP. A "dot exercise" followed the presentation. (See last section below.) Written comments were invited. In the comment box provided at the event, 4 attendees provided comments. These are included verbatim in the public record. Here is a summary: o Like the "Tree Bank" idea o Need a strong and far-reaching street planting plan and public parks tree planting plan o Want a revised tree ordinance to address tree canopy loss on private land o Thanks for your efforts o Concern about potential development on a specific property that has large trees and eagle nest o Manage species diversity o Establish a Heritage Tree program o Concern that UFMP conflicts with state Growth Management Act, which encourages urban growth at 4 to 6 dwellings per acre. Dot Exercise: All attending members of the public were invited to participate in a "dot exercise" to indicate their top priorities for the objectives that were identified in the draft UFMP. Each participant was given 6 dots Packet Pg. 76 6.A.d and instructed that they could use their 6 dots all on one item or spread them around. Here are the results, in order starting with the top -rated, based on the number of dots: Highest -rated objectives: Coordinate efforts of the City, Tree Board, and other interested parties to participate and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events (9 dots) Update development regulations to ensure appropriate language for protecting trees and/or tree canopy as part of the development (6 dots) Manage tree population age distribution for diversity (5 dots) Second -highest objectives: Maintain citywide canopy coverage (4 dots) Plant suitable trees and schedule phased replacement for unsuitable species (4 dots) Conduct an inventory of public trees to document condition and risk (4 dots) Create a dedicated urban forester/arborist staff position (4 dots) Plant trees annually (3 dots) Third -highest objectives: Maintain Citizens' Tree Board (2 dots) Identify key areas to increase canopy (2 dots) Maintain a routinely -updated Urban Forest Management Plan (2 dots) Perform a periodic review of tree ordinances (2 dots) Update Street Tree Plan (2 dots) Establish a Tree Fund (1 dot) Provide outreach to arborist businesses licensed in Edmonds (1 dot) Establish a Heritage Tree program (1 dot) Formalize relationships with organizations that share common objective impacting urban forest sustainability (1 dot) Document the ecosystem services provided by public trees (1 dot) Packet Pg. 77 6.A.d Encourage tree species diversity (1 dot) Train staff to maintain expertise and professional qualifications (1 dot) Establish a formal interdepartmental working team of City staff (1 dot) Packet Pg. 78 'F- LIP .OF Ur 14W 0 14A Ar 46 a kV Urban Forest Management Plan DRAFT May 2018 me mil 6.A.e Q Packet Pg. 80 6.A.e City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan DRAFT May 2018 `nc. 1S9V DAVEY Resource Group Prepared for: City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group, Inc. 6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A Atascadero, California 93422 Phone: 805-461-7500 Toll Free: 800-966-2021 Fax: 805-461-8501 www.davey.com/drg Packet Pg. 81 6.A.e Acknowledgments CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS Shane Hope, AICP, Director Development Services Carrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair Gail Lovell, Position 2 William Phipps, Position 4 Barbara Chase, Position 5 Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6 Vivian Olson, Position 7 Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt. CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - Chair Matt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1 Daniel Robles, Position 2 Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5 Alicia Crank, Position 6 Todd Cloutier, Position 7 Mike Rosen, Alt. CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Mike Nelson, Position 2 — Council President Diane Buckshnis, Position 4 — Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Position 1 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3 Dave Teitzel, Position 5 Thomas Mesaros, Position 6 Neil Tibbott, Position 7 OF EDP O +� DAVEY#. IM:i Resource Group Inc. 1$90 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.e Table of Contents Executive Summary Scope & Purpose Plan Foundation Introduction Community Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest What Do We Have? Edmonds' Urban Forestry History Regulatory Framework Regional Plans and Legislation Regional Urban Forestry Resources Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies f - ",.iwid Existing Urban Forest Practices What Do We Want? Stakeholder and Community Input How Do We Get There? Urban Forest Asset Goals Municipal Resource Goals Community Resource How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Table of Figures Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Appendix D: Open House Summary Report Packet Pg. 83 6.A.e Executive Summary Scope & Purpose The purpose of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)istoprovide aguide for managing, enhancing, and growing trees in the City of Edmonds over the next 20 years. The plan also includes long-range goals to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover. Publicly -managed trees along streets, in parks, and at City facilities are collectively referred to as the community urban forest. Privately owned trees are also considered part of the urban forest in this plan because of their function and contribution to the sustainability of the overall urban forest in Edmonds; however, the City recognizes that it has a limited role in the care of private trees. Recognizing the significance of environmental and socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP aims to: Illustrate the value and benefits of trees. Promote shared vision and collaboration between community residents. Establish benchmarks and metrics to monitor the long-term success of management strategies. Enhance the health and sustainability of the community urban forest. Increase the vital benefits that the trees provide to Edmonds and the region. • Ensure that resources are in place to support the care and management of the community's trees. E.- W., - I This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for the long-term and short-term in support of this purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to adequately manage community trees. It is intended to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the exploration and implementation of the actions as funding and resources permit. The development of the UFMP included a comprehensive review of existing policies and regulations, currentfunding and maintenance levels, analysis of the extent, condition, and composition of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns, and community input. Plan Foundation Spending any amount of time outdoors in the Citywill reveal the abundant and diverse natural resources that surround the residences and businesses in Edmonds. Besides the obvious amenities available to a city on the coastline of the Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help people achieve the unique experience referred to as; "an Edmonds kind of day." All of the trees in Edmonds make up the City's urban forest tree resource. Without active management, this urban forest is at risk. In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive Plan that formally recognized that the community places a high value on the conservation of the urban forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is intended to be an element that aligns in support of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP aligns with the intentions of, "providing a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a 1 scope & Purpose Packet Pg. 84 6.A.e way which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Comp Plan, 2016). The following principlesforurban forest management set the framework for the UFMP: • Optimize the ecosystem services provided by trees. • Control tree maintenance costs to the com- munity. • Create pathways to stable and predictable funding. • Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with trees. The structure and organization of the UFMP are based on the understanding of what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This structure, referred to as adaptive management, is commonly used for resource planning and management (Miller, R.W.,1988) and provides a good conceptual framework for managing community forest resources. The plan development process involved a comprehensive review and assessment of the existing community tree resource, including composition, value, and environmental benefits. The process explored community values, existing regulations, and policies that protect community trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders, internal and external, who played a role in the planning, design, care, and advocacy around the community forest. These stakeholders include the general public, City departments, the Citizens' Tree Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD). Each of these stakeholders contributed to the development of this Plan. Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017) The City What What Acres 6,095 DO We DO We Population 41,840 Have? Want? Land Cover Tree Canopy 30% Grass & Vegetation 27% Impervious Surfaces 34% Bare Soils 2% Open Water 7% Tree Canopy Cover HOW HOW DO Maximum Potential Canopy 57% High Priority Planting Acres 384 Are We We Get Doing? There? Investment Tree Care Per Capita $7.74 Executive Summary Packet Pg. 85 6.A.e What Do We Have? Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region, Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown in population, the forest has been urbanized and divided for parks, homes, and businesses. Recognizing the role of trees in the community and the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape Plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals for the community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015, elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy that has since been the source for many of the City's tree management decisions. In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest is generally understood to be required by the Growth Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by the City's Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents define the reach of existing regulations and policies within which care for the urban forest is mandated: Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental Quality Goal A - "...Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community - based environmental regulations." • Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016) - Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation Goal 4 — "Preserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education." • Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest and increase tree canopy in Edmonds. • Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners. Streettcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate Sustainable Practices. In redesigning the corridor, it is critical that the new interventions improve the street's performance. This includes enhancing the street environment and gateways for pedestrian benefits through an Urban Forestry program in the Downtown/ Waterfront area. The urban forest is a combination of both public and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct control of and responsibility for are defined as the community tree resource. This includes public trees in parks, along rights -of -way, and around City facilities. Managing any resource begins with defining what is being managed and establishing benchmarks along with clearly defined goals and expectations. While public trees along major arterials and high -profile areas are well-known and routinely cared for by City staff, other public street trees are expected to be maintained by the adjacent property owner. Aside from individual development applications, the City does not have a method to take an inventory or track the history, status, or location of public trees. In addition, providing adequate care for trees requires a level of knowledge and a skill set that many property owners do not have. The planning process for this UFMP included an assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of historical change estimates that the City has lost 114 acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%. The primary challenges and opportunities for urban forest management are: Private owners control the majority of tree canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit tree removal. There is limited knowledge about the condition of trees in the urban forest. • There is an estimated 1,619 acres of priority tree planting space to expand the urban forest canopy. .3 Executive Summary Packet Pg. 86 Land Cover 6.A.e Wa 71 Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% .anopy npervious 34% Figure 1: Land Cover fi -%� T 4 4 r _ r } 4 t j vet ! L 'ram [i... .`:'•r. r.IM ., ... ... ..,. _ Tree Canopy Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation Impervious Surfaces Bare Soil - Open Water N A 0 0.5 1 Miles Map 1: Land Cover a. C a Executive Summary 4 Packet Pg. 87 6.A.e What Do We Want� on trees as problems are discovered, but they also • look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic public places. The plan development process included substantial outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds' urban forest. Through open house forums and public meetings, the City has found an engaged set of residents with varying opinions on matters pertaining to the care of the urban forest. City Staff were also consulted during plan development, with City code and public safety being the main considerations when making tree care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive approach to tree management by performing work In general, stakeholders from both the community and City Staff share the following desired outcomes for the UFMP: • Preservation and Enhancement of Tree Canopy • Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the Community Tree Resource • Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and Habitat • Increased Outreach and Education • Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and Non-profit Groups 5 Executive Summary Packet Pg. 88 6.A.e How Do We Get There? The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan are proposed to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: • Urban Forest Asset Goals - which are intended to improve the urban forest re- source over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. • Municipal Resource Goals - which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City depart- ments. • Community Resource Goals - which are intended to build stronger community en- gagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. How Are We Doing? The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching framework for urban forestry operations, policies, and programs. It presents a high-level review of urban forest management in the City, including historical context and an exploration of the benefits of Edmonds' trees. Building upon that information, the Plan connects the community's vision for the urban forest with appropriate goals and actions. This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a 20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of operational objectives. The success of the UFMP will be measured through the realization of goals and will be demonstrated through increased value of the urban forest and increased environmental benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore, the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP will be how successful it is in meeting community expectations for the care and preservation of the community tree resource. Executive Summary 6 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.e Introduction Trees play an essential role in the community of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring communities, and wildlife. Research demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve the local environment and lessen the impact resulting from urbanization and industry (UEP, 2017). Trees improve air quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature. In addition to these direct improvements, healthy urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were found to add an average of $8,870 to homes' sales price as well as reduce time on the market for home sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies on the business benefits of trees have shown how retail districts promote longer and more frequent shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban trees support a more livable community, fostering psychological health and providing residents with a greatersense of place (Kuo, 2003). Communitytrees, both public and private, soften the urban hardscape by providing a green sanctuary and making the City of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work, and play. The City has emphasized the importance of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so much so that public trees are defined as a valued community resource, a critical component of the urban infrastructure, and a part of the City's identity. Community Edmonds was founded in Snohomish County along the coastline of the Puget Sound in 1890. Early settlements were built in the City to access natural resources, where shingle mills became the primary industry. Although construction of the Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was expected to be the main source of growth in the City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the town grow and prosper. Edmonds' population, from 2017 State estimates, is 41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square miles. It is the third largest city in the county after Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is expected to be 45,550. Community Vision for the UFMP Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of the City as an attractive, sustainable community for all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees as contributing to that vision and directs that an urban forest management plan be used as a guide for decisions on managing the forest resource, especially focusing on public land and rights -of -way. For private lands, the UFMP would guide education and incentives to encourage good tree management practices. % Introduction Packet Pg. 90 N r �•1' T IV 17 - +S - •'L -.0 J 1.. 4Fqb- ' I r d IF _ r. �q • ti � •ti �% dr t 1 + RI = a ti T 1 NAP { i $4 r ALdm ti 6.A.e Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate the effects of urbanization and development, which protects and enhances lives within the community. This is increasingly evident as communities calculate the benefits of their urban forest using a complete inventory or sample data in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service i-Tree software tools. This state- of-the-art, peer -reviewed software suite considers regional environmental data and costs to quantify the ecosystem services unique to a given urban forest resource. Individual tree owners can calculate the benefits of trees to their property by using the National Tree Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/ calculator) or with i-Tree Design. (www.itreetools. org/design). The National Tree Benefit Calculator was developed by Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company to aid in the understanding of the environmental and economic value trees provide on an annual basis. In general, there are five (5) important ways in which trees provide benefits: Water Quality, Carbon Sequestration, Energy Savings, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic benefits. Water Quality Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human health and wildlife, including salmon populations. Requirements for surface water management are becoming more stringent and costly for both developers and the City. By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into stormwater management planning, runoff volumes, peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need for constructing stormwater management facilities and the cost of treatment to remove sediment and other pollutants. Trees improve and protect water quality by: • Intercepting Rainfall — Trees intercept rainfall in their canopy, which act as a mini - reservoir. Some water evaporates from the canopy and some slowly soaks into the ground, reducing the total amount of runoff (Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy interception also lessens soil compaction, which in turn further reduces runoff. • Increasing soil capacity and infiltration — Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall and snowmelt resulting in slower percolation rates and increasing the filtration of contaminants (Xiao, et al., 2007). • Reducing soil erosion — Tree roots reduce the flow and volume of stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and other pollutants from entering streams, rivers, Lake Washington, and the Puget Sound (WA Department of Ecology, 2011). • Providing salmon habitat — Shade from trees helps to cool warm urban runoff, which poses a threat to anadromous fish, like salmon. Shade from trees provides lakeside and riparian habitat for salmon and cools water temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen, which is essential to salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership, 2012). In Edmonds, a mature (8" DBH) Bowhall Maple growing along a residential street would intercept an estimated 477 gallons of stormwater from city storm sewers in 2017 avoiding $13.25 in stormwater management cost (www.treebenefits.com, 2017). Among the signature trees of the Edmonds streetscape plan (2015), chanticleer pear intercepts the most stormwater runoff (509 gallons valued at $14.16) per tree. Japanese stewartia intercepts the least stormwater runoff (153 gallons valued at $4.26) per tree. 9 Introduction Packet Pg. 92 s.. s F P Overall Overall Benefits ifv InterceptStormwater Common Name Scientific Name Stormwater Benefits cared for to 13 Value + Runoff (gallons) 6.A.e Carbon Sequestration As environmental awareness continues to increase, governments are paying particular attention to global warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes the Earth's surface it is reflected back into space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the Earth's surface. Many chemical compounds in the Earth's atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane (CHj, nitrous oxide (N,O), carbon dioxide (CO), water vapor, and human -made gases/aerosols. As GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back into space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature of the earth may result in changes in weather, sea levels, and land -use patterns, commonly referred to as "climate change." In the last 150 years, since large-scale industrialization began, the levels of some GHGs, including COz, have increased by 25% (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces greenhouse gases. The carbon -related function of trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO) in two ways: Directly —Through growth and the seques- tration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass. Indirectly — By lowering the demand for heating and air conditioning, thereby reduc- ing the emissions associated with electric power generation and natural gas consump- tion. In Edmonds, a mature (8" DBH) Bowhall maple growing along a residential street would annually reduce over 148pounds ofatmospheric carbon (www. treebenefits.com, 2017). This can be represented as about $0.46 in benefits both in carbon sequestered, and avoided. Among the signature trees of the Edmonds streetscape plan (2015), Japanes stewartia reduces the most atmospheric pounds of carbon (195 pounds valued at $0.62) per tree. Chanticleer pear reduces the least atmospheric carbon (148 pounds valued at $0.48) per tree. Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Species Bowhall Maple Acerrubrum 'Bowhall' $95.00 $142.00 $0.46 Columnar Norway Acerplatanoides $106.00 $144.00 193 $0.61 maple 'Columnare' Chanticleer pear Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' $49.0 Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba'Blagon' $76.00 $119.00 186 $0.59 prachaun ash Frax►nus pennsylvanica $83.00 $124.00 $0.52 Johnson' Japanese Stewartia $33.00 $63.00 195 $0.62 stewartia M pseudocamellia I 11 Introduction Packet Pg. 94 6.A.e Energy Savings Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation solutions to keep rates low for their customers, reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately, to be good environmental stewards. Energy services delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by Snohomish Public Utility District (SNOPUD). This organization recognizes how trees can reduce energy consumption and encourage Edmond residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017). Urban trees and forests modify the environment and conserve energy in four principal ways: • Shade dwellings and impervious surfaces — Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed as 34% of the total land base (Edmonds, 2017). Shade from trees reduces the amount of radiant energy absorbed and stored by these impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the urban heat island effect, a term that describes the increase in urban temperatures in relation to surrounding locations (Simpson & McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also reduces the amount of energy used to cool a structure (Simpson, 2002). Bowhall Maple Columnar Norway maple Chanticleer pear Goldspire ginko OFprachaun ash Japanese stewartia • Transpiration —Transpiration releases water vapor from tree canopies, which cools the surrounding area. Through shade and transpiration, trees and other vegetation within an urban setting modify the environment and reduce heat island effects. Temperature differences of more than 9°F (5°C) have been observed between city centers without adequate canopy cover and more forested suburban areas (Akbari, et al., 1997). • Wind reduction — Trees reduce wind speeds by up to 50% and influence the movement of air and pollutants along streets and out of urban canyons. By reducing air movement into buildings and against conductive surfaces (e.g., glass, metal siding), trees reduce conductive heat loss, translating into potential annual heating savings of 25% (Heisler, 1986). • Green Roofs — Native trees and vegetation on rooftops can help reduce the urban heat island effect, decrease the heat loss through rooftops and provide a beautiful addition, not only for enjoyment to humans, but also contribute to the success of the community's ecosystem by increasing habitat for all living creatures (Department of Energy, 2004). Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Species Acerrubrum'Bowhall' $95.00 Acer platanoides $106.00 'Columnare' Pyrus calleryana Laanticle ' 48.00 Ginko biloba 'Blagon' $76.00 Fraxinus pennsy vanica Johnson' $83.00 Stewartia pseudocamellia $33.00 $142.00 $144.00 $68.00 $119.00 V124.00 $63.00 26 $1.31 22 $1.15 $1.22 18 $0.91 12 $0.61 a M a Introductior 12 Packet Pg. 95 6.A.e Air Quality Urban trees improve air quality in five fundamental ways: • Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and smoke) • Absorbing gaseous pollutants • Shade and transpiration • Reducing power plant emissions • Increasing oxygen levels They protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate matter (PM,,,), including dust, ash, pollen, and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in the tree canopy where they are eventually washed harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (0), nitrogen dioxide (NO), and sulfur dioxide (SO). Shade and transpiration reduces the formation of 03, which is created during higher temperatures. Scientists are now finding that some trees may absorb more volatile organic compounds (VOC's) than previously thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010). VOC's are a class of carbon -based particles emitted from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other human activities. By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce emissions from the generation of power. And, through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase oxygen levels. PLACEHOLDER: Picture Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Species Bowhall Maple Acerrubrum 'Bowhall' $95.00 Columnar Norway Acerplatanoides maple 'Columnare' Pyrus calleryana Chanticleer pear �hanticleer' Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba 'Blagon' Wrachaun Fraxinus pennsylvanica as 'Johnson' Japanese stewartia $142.00 $1.25 $106.00 $144.00 $1.02 $48.00 $68.00 $1.38 $76.00 $119.00 $0.84 $83.00 $124.00 Stewartia $33.00 $63.00 $0.55 pseudocamellia 1.3 Introduction Packet Pg. 96 6.A.e Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic, and Health Benefits While perhaps the most difficult to quantify, the aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from trees may be among their greatest contributions, including: • Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics • Shade and privacy • Wildlife habitat • Opportunities for recreation • Reduction in violent crime • Creation of a sense of place and history • Human health • Reduced illness and reliance on medication and quicker recovery from injury or illness Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage of property values, through higher sales prices where individual trees and forests are located. While some of the benefits of forests are intangible and/or difficult to quantify (e.g., the impacts on physical and psychological health, crime, and violence), empirical evidence of these benefits does exist (Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1986; Kuo & Sullivan , 2011). However, there is limited knowledge about the physical processes at work, and their interactions make quantification imprecise. Exposure to nature, including trees, has a healthy impact on humans (especially children), such as increased worker productivity, higher test scores, reduced symptoms of ADD, and faster recovery times following surgery (Faber et al., 2006). In addition, trees and forests have positive economic benefits for retailers. There is documented evidence that trees promote better business by stimulating more frequent and extended shopping and a willingness to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf, 2007). Trees further generate socioeconomic and health benefits by generating better school performance, less workplace illness, increased concentration, all of which yield an increase to overall productivity. In addition, the trees throughout the built environment (and especially among vacant lot conversions and streets) promote active living connectors and reduce crime rates. Thus, trees provide for their community by generating new economic income and removing judicial system costs (Wolf, 1998). In addition, trees and forestlands provide critical habitat (foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals, birds, and fish and other aquatic species, along with limitless opportunities for recreation, offering a healthful respite from the pressures of work and everyday stress. Table 6: Aesthetic and Socioeconomic Benefits from Most Prominent Species Columnar Norway Acer platanoides $106.00 maple 'Columnare' Pyrus calleryana Lhanticleer pear $48.00 -A& 'Chanticleer' Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba 'Blagon' $76.00 xinus pennsylvanica Leprachaun ash $83.00 'Johnson' $144.00 207 $88.10 $68.00 70 $29.66 $119.00 151 $64.51 Ir $124.00 V 166 $70.67 Japanese stewartia Stewartia pseudo camellia $33.00 $63.00 61 $25.93 a Introduction 1-. Packet Pg. 97 Challenges Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest requires the coordination of many different stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with many other elements of the city. This can result in conflict or challenges including: Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure - Tree canopy of a small -forested area that is surrounded by non -forested land cover. Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to the community. Storm events, accidents, improper maintenance, and the natural death of trees can all create structural weaknesses for trees and the surrounding area. • View Issues - Edmonds is known for the majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is possible for trees to block these views if they grow too large or were planted in improper locations. • Maintenance - Trees are living infrastructure. As such, they require active and regular maintenance. Structural pruning, irrigation, and the management of pests and diseases are some critical maintenance practices that must occur to ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest. Choice of Tree Species - Different tree species have different needs, growth patterns, and resistances to pests and diseases. A diverse palette of species improves the resilience of the urban forest. 15 Introduction Packet Pg. 98 6.A.e Q Introductior 16 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.e What Do We Have.? To effectively manage the urban forest, it's essential to have knowledge and understanding of what exists today. This section lays the groundwork for the UFMP with historical context, current policies and practices and understanding about the existing state of the urban forest. History of Urban Forestry in Edmonds Trees have been an important part of the City's character and economy since its founding. However, to understand and manage the urban forest has depended upon whichtreesare beingconsidered and where the trees were located. This is evident from the various locations where trees are referenced in the City code as well as the variety of departments whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds had been designated by the National Arbor Day Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has had city staff in different departments managing tree issues within the City for decades. Recognizing the role of trees in the community and the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015, elements of this plan introduced tree care policy which has been the source for much of the City's tree management decisions ever since. In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board to assist in the development of tree ordinances and to encourage the planting and maintaining of trees. This is an early example of the City taking steps towards management of tree resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this board was a proposal to the City for updated tree - related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree codes, through a public comment period, were rejected in part due to public concerns about private property rights, but also because the City felt that it had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the recommended codes. From these related events, it's clear that the community has assumed an increasing level of care for the urban forest that would benefit from long- term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from the State and Federal Government for environmental stewardship requirements have also played a significant role in defining the level of care for the urban forest that exist in Edmonds today. Of special note are three policy sources that directly influence the management of urban forestry and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on the development and operation of Edmonds urban forest are discussed below. 17 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 100 6.A.e Growth Management Act (1990) In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated and unplanned growth posed a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique among states, the Act requires that municipalities prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide for growth and development in a manner that is locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines critical areas as: "Critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: a. Wetlands; b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d. Frequently flooded areas; and e. Geologically hazardous areas. PLACEHOLDER: Picture Cities are required to include the best available science in developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Further to that end, jurisdictions must review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances per an update schedule. Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps with the protection of the urban forest. The trees in the urban forest increase soil security to protect wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the branches and canopy provide ample real estate for wildlife to call home. It is important that the City plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole, not just critical areas. This notion is reinforced in Washington Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which specifies when classifying forest land resources that "Cities are encouraged to coordinate their forest resource lands designations with their county and any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities should not review forest resource lands designations solely on a parcel -by -parcel basis." Edmonds has established environmental qualitygoals in support of the legislation and in order to protect critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying policies for the jurisdiction's critical areas program. a a What Do We Have? 18 Packet Pg. 101 6.A.e The Comprehensive Plan (2016) As an overarching guiding document, the Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions and plans into one cohesive document. The Comprehensive Plan is structured by element, then goals, then policies. The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These elements include goals and policies that can be directly supported through this UFMP. These are the community sustainability elements of the plan and include goals and policies associated with: • Sustainability • Climate Change Goals and Policies, including support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US Mayor's Climate Change Agreement • Community Health • Environmental Quality Theurbanforestisa keycomponentofthe community sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks to protect environmental quality and sets the first policy (A.1) as to: Ensure that the city's natural vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced..." A.2 sets to protect and retain the urban forest, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. This includes techniques such as tree retention, which should be integrated into land use and development codes. As the urban forest grows, so too does the habitat and environmental quality. The community culture and urban design element's implementation involves tree policy as well. In this element, the streetscape section defines the many ways that trees enhance the community: "Trees are an asset to the community. They help absorb stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife, clean pollution from the air, and give both summer shade and aesthetic pleasure." In this way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the policy commitment to Community Health, through the preservation and expansion of the urban forest. Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006. The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a "Complete Streets" program which accommodates the needs of all users along streets, including a safe space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree management component. This section concludes with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017. The community sustainability element also includes two other sections that are interconnected with the urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas. Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate change, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No. 1130. A crucial component of these climate change policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with several benchmarks: 1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green- house gases in the state to 1990 levels; 2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of green- house gases in the state to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; 3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reduc- ing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon through many ways including; reducing energy demand for shaded buildings, acquiring carbon dioxide for the photosynthesis, and sequestering carbon. The potential for carbon sequestration is determined by maximum tree sizes, lifespans, growth rates, and tolerances to urban stress. Therefore, growing long-lasting and healthy trees directly contributes to the success of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan climate change goals. 19 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 102 6.A.e The PROS Plan (2016) The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the management and development of Edmonds' parks, recreation and open spaces, and the services provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. The PROS plan has been regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves. Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community Cultural Plan on a six -year cycle, in alignment with the requirements of the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility for federal and state grant programs. To this end, the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is also an important tool in meeting Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and achieving the important citywide goals outlined in the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically addresses urban forestry. Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access to natural resources for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education. The eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting areas with critical habitats and natural resources. Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective 4.5, which states "Expand the urban forest and increase tree canopy in Edmonds". Under each goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal 4 is: "Steward the urban forest using appropriate maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal and replacement policies and providing information about urban forestry to property owners." This demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the people of Edmonds as manifested through existing official documents addressing the urban forest and urban tree canopy. Summary Considerations for UFMP These documents demonstrate the existing regulations and policies within which care for the urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope defined within these documents that the values of the Edmonds community, and Washington State at large, require that urban forest management include strategies to improve the care and conservation of all trees. This includes consideration for improving and preserving trees near waterways, critical areas, habitats, and on private parcels. Equipped with this policy background and mandate to manage the urban forest, it's essential to plan with as much knowledge about the community tree resource as possible. a What Do We Have c v Packet Pg. 103 6.A.e Community Tree Resource Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights - of -way and around City facilities are the community tree resource. These trees can be the most actively managed population by the City and provide the best indicators to showcase its vision of a well - managed and sustainable urban forest condition. A well -managed urban forest is healthier and more resilient to pests, disease, and climate fluctuations. As a result, a well -managed urban forest is also more cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve over time, managers revise their strategies for individual tree species based on past performance and emerging prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds, are often a combination of well -adapted, high- performance species mixed with some species that may be less desirable and require more attention. There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree resource management that no single species should represent greater than 10% of the total population, and no single genus more than 20% (Clark et al, 1997). Achieving a diverse population of trees can help to minimize detrimental consequences in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or other stressors that can severely affect an urban forest and the flow of benefits and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) are both examples of unexpected, devastating, and costly pests and pathogens that highlight the importance of diversity and the balanced distribution of species and genera. Current operations in the City that care for the community trees do not keep suitable records of their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP. Public trees along major arterials or high -profile areas of the City are well-known and routinely cared for by City Staff, but as an overall management tool, the City does not maintain data about these trees as a collective inventory of their green infrastructure assets. Managing for appropriate tree species can help control maintenance costs, reduce damage to infrastructure, and manage the need for pest and disease control measures. 21 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 104 6.A.e Tree Canopy Cover The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is the driving force behind the urban forest's ability to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al, 1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits. Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from above. Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy is critical to developing and implementing sound management strategies that will promote the smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds' urban forest and the invaluable benefits it provides. In addition to understanding the tree canopy as a whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is often categorized by the amount of fragmentation. Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy will vastly improve when there is less fragmented canopy, and there are more linkages between multiple patches of forest. These categories of canopy include: • Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists within and relatively far from the forest/ non -forest boundary (i.e., forested areas surrounded by more forested areas). • Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests and relatively small clearings (perforations) within the forest landscape. • Patch Canopy -Tree canopy of a small - forested area that is surrounded by non - forested land cover. • Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests, and large core forests and large non -forested land cover features, approximately 328 feet. When large enough, edge canopy may appear to be unassociated with core forests. The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment in June 2017 using a heads -up digitizing approach and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf -on aerial imagery captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall assessment does not distinguish between publicly - owned and privately -owned trees because trees provide benefits to the community beyond property lines. The results of the study provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy within Edmonds. The data developed during the assessment becomes an important part of the City's GIS database. It also provides a foundation for developing community goals and urban forest policies. With these data, managers can determine: • The location and extent of canopy overtime (tracking changes) • The location of available planting space (potential planting area) • The best strategies to increase canopy in underserved areas • The data, combined with existing and emerging urban forestry research and applications, can provide additional guidance in two ways: • Finding a balance between growth and preservation • Identifying and assessing urban forestry opportunities. What Do We Have? 22 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.e Canopy Cover Summary The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. By analyzing high -resolution aerial imagery, Davey Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: • 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and woody shrubs (525 acres) • 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground • 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy is unfeasible • 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying vegetation • 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) • From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from 32.3% to 30.3% • Total possible canopy is 57.4%, considering suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of 3,495 acres • Private properties have most of the canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and commercial (4.1%) properties. • Among parks in Edmonds, Snohomish County Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) low ,.' d � " t a;: yam.. „�'• S✓ �„y , , 4 , VIP tt AY ��, i � .�:�.,�►��. '�.'�._, cis.` � �• •.• f';:, �. ¢. •,y_�y,', ' ' Mom- + �.' �i•.•, i' 1 .-. •i.,. �'+�►�'}�i'+'r� �.�1�'j--� . -_; •-�'•-•f..2�•r.r;�, 1. '�• y• Fti 'f • •A t: r ti,-� , • l _ �..>♦.elk• tea. ,?•� 1•�f .c ♦. �i? ' "� l ♦,i� •irr'•- tip. •7_ i• _ .. Ay. . ��` f _ • ...Jw 2.3 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 106 6.A.e Land Cover Wa 71 Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% .anopy npervious 34% Figure 1: Land Cover ;mow S 3w .E, 51 — Tree Canopy Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation Impervious Surfaces - Bare Soil Open Water ; F# aj N �.� ry rr ) Miles Map 1: Land Cover CL G a What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 107 O Canopy Fragmentation As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds' existing UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the distribution of canopy (Map 2). The overall health of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and humans to interact collectively as a whole. Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy will vastly improve by creating linkages between multiple patches of forest. Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable management tool due to the importance of Edmonds' critical areas and environmental stewardship. The analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes the following: • 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy 8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy 55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy 26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top) leads to isolation and declining habitat quality. 1*4IT dd _` -ice} ...� _ �� ; � .� �.. � �, '_ I - � � - i •'�' •� ` 1� �f• v Y � Ir d 25 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 108 6.A.e Forest Fragmentation (Patch Forest 56% Core Forest 10% Perforated Forest 8% Edge Forest 26% Figure 2: Forest Fragmentation Patch Forest Edge Forest Jbi Perforated Forest = Core Forest I N A 0.5 Miles 0 Map 2: Forest Fragmentation a What Do We Have? 26 Packet Pg. 109 6.A.e Park Canopy Cover The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Map 3). Edmonds' parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%. Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site and size. Edmonds' largest park, Snohomish County Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and an average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second- largest, Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres of canopy cover, which represents 93.5% of the land area. The high canopy cover of Yost Memorial Park reflects that it is one of the few areas of native vegetation that remain in Edmonds. The park contains mixed stands of western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy (9.9 % canopy cover). Of the four largest parks (Snohomish County, Yost Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all have high tree canopy potential (greaterthan 96.7%). However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not currently near maximum potential canopy. An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the parks where there is a much larger gap between current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. For example, Mathay Ballinger Park has 54.4% canopy cover, but the potential is 93.8%. Haines Wharf is another example where the potential canopy (40.6%) is much higher than the existing canopy (11.9%). The 5 biggest parks are listed at right. 27 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 110 6.A.e Tree Canopy By Park Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Snohomish 118.55 117.05 98.73 County Park Yost Memorial 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45 Park Meadowdale 25.54 25.16 98.50 99.77 Beach Park Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66 Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 24.91 Under15% 15% - 30% 30% - 45% 45% - 60% - Over 60% N A 0 0.5 Miles 0 n a rjI El a M Q Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park What Do We Have? 28 Packet Pg. 111 6.A.e Critical Areas The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in Washington are required to adopt critical areas regulations. The GMA states that critical areas include the following categories and ecosystems: • Wetlands • Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas • Frequently flooded areas; and • Geologically hazardous areas Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree canopy can reveal the important relationship that trees provide in the conservation and protection of these environments. Two critical area designations are especially importantto urban forest management in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep slopes (Tables 8 & 9). Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority habitats and species that have been identified for conservation and management. DRG analyzed the relationship between forest fragmentation and the following priority habitat and species list categories: • Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding and Refuge) • Nesting Habitat (great blue heron) • Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon) • Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle) • Wetlands Area Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife. In Edmonds, most of the biodiversity areas and corridors are in core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest. This is congruent with what theory would suggest, because corridors are continuous areas of habitat. Nesting habitatforthe great blue heron is comprised of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre - nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area, habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests. In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to reduce human noise pollution during the breeding months (February - September). Nesting habitat in Edmonds is located primarily in non -forest areas (58%). This value warrants further investigation to determine optimal canopy levels. Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in -stream physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.). However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly influenced by watershed processes beyond the waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian Table 8: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) 2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 9W118.33 10.5 ir 16.53 51.36 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21 Wetlands Area ?9 What Do We Have? 80.65 5.48 13.56 1.76 59.36 Packet Pg. 112 6.A.e condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road location and maintenance, watershed hydrology, and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non -forest areas. The second largest forest fragmentation category for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%). Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined by areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies of water and generally buffered from human activity (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area located in edge type forests of Edmonds. However, nest trees are often among the largest trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in 18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest. Around wetlands, the Washington Department of Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from adjacent land uses (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland - dependent species that require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers could be described by their canopy fragmentation, where 73.6% of wetlands were classified in non - forest areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge forest, with only 2.2% in the core forest. The protection of steep slopes against landslides and erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the prevention of soil erosion: • Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing absorptive and evaporative losses that reduce rainfall available for infiltration. Roots extract moisture from the soil which is lost to the atmosphere via transpiration, leading to a lower pore -water pressure. Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear strength. It is important to understand the significance of steep slopes because of their influences on local wildlife and habitat quality. For example, increased erosion can negatively impact spawning salmon by increasing sediment and particulates in streams and other water bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation that prevents erosion protects critical habitat for wildlife. Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees, 66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious, 19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil. Table 9: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Biodiversity Areas And Corridor Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron) ensitive Aquatic Habitat Area Sensitive Habitat Area Wetlands Area 251.82 10.76 58.64 8.65 2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01 118.33 8.89 29.85 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80 80.65 6.79 16.81 73.60 a M a What Do we Have? 30 Packet Pg. 113 Source ♦�°♦Di� ♦fie°. ♦c `h+� i�� ♦♦s ��t� � � :•cif 1'�. 4P' - �1s �-�N �•y- 1��♦�i��' ♦♦ .s ♦ ♦ s � ♦>`. ♦ ♦♦o i♦Q1 1 Div i 11^�� 1♦1� ♦1 a 'C � ♦ ♦ a. 1 � i s1 . _ ♦ ♦�i�i ♦♦ i ♦♦ : I �♦ i ♦i �i00� ♦ ♦ �'� r ••!♦s♦., ♦1a•.'Oi ♦. 1 ♦ � O a � ♦e. •i i� ♦ 1 .' �e a ♦♦i : n ♦Y♦ oe "y♦' � •,1� O:� ♦ ♦ u i �(I t Ys �� a . �� 10♦'�♦♦0 1A1 �.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦. ,♦♦1♦.♦1O 1� p♦D! ♦♦'4 0♦♦. ikl 14, i� -,a i �� !o +Q 1 ^�1♦`1♦d�� ♦111:1:..♦:1. �• . .♦ ♦ O♦�nv . `` ♦w♦� s{ 'q � •11 t�.�♦1♦ 1 y 6 .y ., - �i' ♦♦i1i` !s!i!tlm r ♦1i1i i♦'. � �i ♦ � �� •:�'1 �♦ � is rc<.< � e ; :arm♦: f,0.♦�. r b nj J ♦♦Y1+X 'e d'10� � , Y f♦♦•� Y�••♦••�••OwO •�'• o� iwi •♦ • O�.♦I►OQ JkA AM .76 CRC s • c � �-' °e ��♦ ��.- � ' U. Priority Level Potential Acres Overall Benefits Figure 4: Overall Environmental Benefits 6.A.e Edmond's land cover data was used within i-Tree Canopy to model the environmental benefits from the entire urban forest (all public and private trees). The trees in Edmond's are providing air quality and stormwater benefits worth nearly $1.6 million annually. To date, trees in Edmonds are storing 187,590 tons of carbon in their leaves and woody biomass. The stored carbon is valued at $6.8 million. Annually, tree canopy in Edmonds provides the following environmental services: • Reduces 42.8 million gallons of stormwater runoff, a benefit worth nearly $1.2 million. • Improves air quality by removing 42.2 tons of pollutants (CO, NO2' 03, SOz) and PM10)1 valued at $146,823. • Sequesters 6,294 tons of carbon, valued at $221,885 annually. Sequestration 14% Sto rmwater Management 76% Air Quality 10% 33 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 116 6.A.e Summary Considerations for UFMP The UTC assessment establishes a GIS data layer that can be used in conjunction with other map lay- ers to prioritize planting sites and increase canopy cover strategically. Edmonds' existing tree canopy covers 30.3% of the City, and decision -makers can set a target canopy cover goal to pursue. With this UTC assessment, urban forest managers have the following opportunities: • Use priority planting site analysis to identify new tree planting locations to reduce erosion and soil degradation. • Use GIS canopy and land cover mapping to explore under -treed neighborhoods and identify potential planting sites. • Incentivize tree planting on private property, particularly in high/very high planting priority areas. • Increase canopy with tree planting in areas of patch and fragmented canopy to reduce forest fragmentation and improve wildlife habitat and corridors. Conducting outreach to the community with this report as an important tool for engaging public interest and support. • Define canopy goals and identify actions that will support these goal(s). • Develop clear policies and standards to meet the 30% native vegetation requirement codified by ECDC 23.90.040.0 (Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels) in undeveloped (or redeveloped) Subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream or stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland buffer. Currently, forestry operations in the City do not document the community tree resource according to industry best management practices. A public tree inventory is important because it provides information on species diversity, forest age, and relative performance of different tree species. An inventory that is maintained with continued up- dates also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban forest managers have the following opportu- nities: Establish and continually update a public tree inventory. Integrate maintenance cycles with the public tree inventory database. Study genus/species compositions to ensure best -management diversity recommendations are being followed What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 117 6.A.e Existing Urban Forest Practices There are three departments within the City of Edmonds that have influence over the management of the urban forest; Development Services (DS), Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PRC). Although they share and communicate any issues related to tree care and urban forest management, decision - making authority is determined based on the location of the trees. There is no specific staff person or leadership team with overarching responsibilities for guiding the management of the entire urban forest in Edmonds. Tree Maintenance Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree life, but is especially critical for young trees as they benefit from early structural pruning and training. Table 12: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest Management in Edmonds Permits for Tree Removal Trees on Private Development Permits for Tree Property Services Pruning Permits for Tree Planting Hazardous Tree Parks, Inspections Tree Pruning Trees in Parks Recreation and g Cultural Services Tree Removal Tree Planting Public Works I Hazardous Tree Trees within and Utilities Inspections City Rights -of- (with Parks' Tree Pruning Way assistance in Tree Removal downtown) Tree Planting Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground level with minimal cost when a tree is young. However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into very expensive structural issues and increase the risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may be impossible to correct the issue without causing greater harm. Over -mature trees require more frequent inspection and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage when it is most beneficial and cost-effective. At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related to trees are identified by City Staff, work is prioritized based on existing and available budgets. Planning associated with tree management on public properties is minimal with priority attention given to ensuring the successful establishment of new tree plantings and responding to hazardous tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department performs certain routine tree inspections and provides limited proactive maintenance activities (typically associated with the care of trees after planting to encourage successful establishment). Within City rights -of -way, tree issues are uncovered as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks and streets, where trees are only identified when infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly, in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance when safety concerns are observed through routine park maintenance activities. 35 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 118 6.A.e Tree Maintenance Budgets The majority of tree maintenance costs are accounted for as general line items through the parks department budget. As part of the annual Tree City USA application, departments will summarize their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds' urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita, which is more than the minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA designation and more than the $7.50 national average reported by the National Arbor Day Foundation. Documented Edmonds' expenditures have been in the range of $3 per capita in prior years. Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds' urban forest produces about $1,567,000 in environmental benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of approximately $319,542. Service Levels To assess current urban forest workload and staffing levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were identified as persons who work with tree issues on at least an intermittent basis every week. From those who are involved with forestry issues or operations on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were identified with a quantifiable amount of time each week working with trees or tree -related issues. Table 13: 2017 Urban Forestry Expenditures Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848 Tree Maintenance $79,779 Tree Removals $37,565 Management $62,771 Volunteer Activities $134,579 TOTAL $319,542 Budget Per Capita $7.74 UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000 Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental cooperation. These general conclusions about the shared responsibilities among staff resources at the City are very important when the City evaluates future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently, no one single position is designated as a Full -Time Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry. Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels City Services Common Urban Fore t Related Activitle;N Estimated Hours per Development plan review for Permit Intake compliance with tree and Review protection codes 2 Public inquiries (online, phone, and counter) Code Investigating and resolving Enforcement & tree complaints Complaint Investigating and resolving 2 infrastructure damage Investigation complaints Tree planting and Parks & Public establishment Tree Structural pruning on smaller 40-60 Maintenance trees Inspection and identification of hazardous trees Contract Managing contract tree crews 1 Management Emergency Community Service Requests 0 Response Response Management Urban Forest Management Comprehensive Plan stewardship (Long-range) Federal, state grant <1 Planning procurement Tree City USA applications Volunteer events Community Coordinated tree planting Education Action Neighborhood association 1 and Outreach support Website content and public education Tree Board Addressing public issues 1 Meetings related to trees d M Q What Do we Have? 36 Packet Pg. 119 6.A.e Staff Training The science of arboriculture, and the management of urban forests are domains that are increasingly recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials are increasingly requested by many municipalities as evidence of competency. Bachelor's degrees in Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences, and Horticulture are often the base requirements for leadership roles in urban forest management. Professional credentials can also demonstrate competency, with the most widely accepted credentials in Washington State coming from the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The City provides on -going training to any staff handling tree maintenance equipment, including chainsaw, chipper, and lift -truck safety. Stakeholder interviews revealed that landscape maintenance workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on structural pruning or tree care. The following is a summary description of staff resources and training within individual City departments: • In Development Services, staff are trained to interpret ordinances related to trees, but rely on reports by ISA certified arborists when necessary to render decisions. Staff within development services have backgrounds in Urban Planning and one (1) person with has an advanced degree in Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists within development services staff. • The Department of Public Works and Utilities has a director with advanced degrees in Biology and Aquatic Biology. In addition, the department has engineers on staff who can successfully consider relevant tree issues in terms of asset and infrastructure management, but tree care expertise is not required for any staff in this department. Tree- related issues are resolved based on previous experiences and through hired consultations with ISA certified arborists when necessary. • The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has two staff members who provide expertise on urban forestry topics. The first is an ISA certified arborist who is referenced by all City departments and citizen groups for opinions on the best practices associated with tree care. There is also a staff member who has an advanced degree in Forest Ecology who works with citizen groups on tree planting and stewardship projects. .37 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 120 6.A.e .'�I. 00Y NJ yetR.l Yp. d .J f :3x.. a Q What Do We Have? 38 Packet Pg. 121 6.A.e Major and Emerging Diseases and Pests Another important aspect to tree maintenance is staying alert to managing emerging diseases and pests that can be costly to control with individual trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest, these are potentiallycatastrophic matters to consider. Further information on the pests and diseases that threaten the forest ecosystems in Washington can be found on the USDA's Forest Service website (https:// www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/forest-grasslandheaIth/ insects-diseases/?cid=stelprdb5287906). Among the many diseases and pests that affect trees, City Staff and residents remain alert to the following: • Asian Long -Horned Beetle (ALB), is an invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety of trees in the United States, eventually killing them. The beetle is native to China and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start to show about three to four (3 — 4) years after infestation, with tree death occurring in ten to fifteen (10 - 15) years depending on the tree's overall health and site conditions. Infested trees do not recover, nor do they regenerate. There are a broad number of tree species this insect will feed in and most common deciduous trees in Edmonds are at risk. • Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed Asian Long -Horned Beetle py � 1 hundreds of millions of ash trees in North America. The EAB is a destructive, non- native, wood -boring pest that exclusively kills both stressed and healthy ash trees two to three (2 — 3) years after infestation (NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native to Northeastern Asia. EAB larvae feed on the vascular tissue of trees and populations grow exponentially. This pest has been identified as moving slowly into the Western U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest for Ash tree populations. • Dutch Elm Disease (DED) has devastated American elm populations, one of the most important street trees in the twentieth century. Since first reported in the 1930s, it has killed over 50 percent of the native elm population in the United States (NASPF, 2005), although some elm species have shown varying degrees of resistance. • Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. SNC is known as a "cast" disease because it causes the premature shedding of needles (or casting) from the tree. resulting in sparse tree crowns and reduced growth. Although it is called "Swiss" needle cast, the fungus is native to the Western United States throughout the range of Douglas -fir. SNC disease symptoms Emerald Ash Borer 39 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 122 6.A.e include chlorotic (yellow) needles and decreased needle retention, resulting in sparse crowns and reduced diameter and height growth (OSU, 2017). Mortality from this disease is considered rare, but tree care and maintenance of this disease can be expensive and necessary in an urban setting. • Douglas -fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a moth found in Western North America. Its population periodically erupts in cyclical outbreaks (Wickman et al., 1998). Outbreaks of the Douglas -fir tussock moth appear to develop almost explosively, and then usually subside abruptly after a year or two. The caterpillars feed on the needles of Douglas fir, true fir, and spruce in summer. Forestry management to prevent tree damage from tussock moth outbreaks include four activities: early detection, evaluation, suppression, and prevention. These four activities must be well integrated to ensure adequate protection from the pest. • Other Diseases and Pests. Information on specific diseases and insects that damage trees in our region have been identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Current online information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/ ForestHealth. Swiss Needle Cast Tree Acquisition and Quality Control Discussions with City Staff involved in acquiring and planting trees did not reveal any standard practices to ensure the quality of the trees during acquisition. As trees are planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties managed with new trees Tree City USA The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit conservation and education organization founded in 1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow. It is the largest nonprofit membership organization dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards of quality urban forestry management: maintaining a tree board or department, having a community tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day. Currently,the Cityof Edmonds dedicates$319,542.20 towards total community forestry expenditure, and with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has recognized this per capita investment, as well as recognizing the City of Edmonds' community tree ordinance and observance of Arbor Day. a Douglas -fir Tussock Moth What Do We Have Packet Pg. 123 6.A.e Regulatory Framework The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several components relevant to urban forestry in the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. These regulations are designed to: • Authorize the power of government to manage the urban forest • Define street trees and, as appropriate, municipal responsibilities for their care • Enumerate tree related fees and penalties • Create regulations associated with tree clearing on private land • Require tree protection during construction • Classify critical areas or buffers These different regulations cover tree related topics on a range of land types, and all influence the direction and management of urban forestry programs. The following summaries outline the chapters and sections of city code. Authorization of Power The legitimacy of Edmonds' city government to manage forestry domains and the definition of those domains fall under the authorization of power: • Chapter 18.45 provides for the City's Planning Division Manager to direct and enforce City codes related to land clearing and tree cutting on public land and private property. It exempts Public Works, Parks and Fire Departments in specific situations where safety is an issue. • Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director of Public Works to enforce and inspect work done to maintain City street trees in healthy condition, or remove trees from the public right-of-way as necessary. • Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree Bboard, made up of Edmonds City residents in order to encourage civic engagement for active stewardship of the urban forest. The powers and duties of the Tree Board are to advise and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council as appropriate on tree related matters. Street and Public Trees The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible for the planting and maintenance of public trees. These trees are on public property parcels or select locations in the rights -of -way. Other planting strips are the responsibility of adjacent land owners: • Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction and maintenance, declares that the responsibility is with the abutting property owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent planting strips. This includes all tree care. • Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on the regulation of street trees and trees on public property. All street trees are managed by the Public Works Department and require permits for all persons who wish to plant, remove, prune or otherwise change a tree on a street, right-of-way, parking strip, planting strip, or other public place. This code chapter also includes language defining abuse and damage to street trees. Tree Related Fees and Penalties To facilitate compliance and remediation for disregarding public tree codes, the City provides penalties as a punitive deterrent: • Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive discretion for trees that are damaged from disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for trees less than 3" and $3,000 for trees larger than 3". Fines can be tripled related to trees in critical areas, buffers, or areas dedicated to public use, including public right-of-way. 41 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 124 6.A.e Private Land Clearing Land clearing on private property is often a critical challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry canopy goals. Individual private property rights and objectives of private landowners can frequently be at odds with the community aspirations for the urban forest. Chapter 18.45 contains regulations associated with trees on private properties for land clearing and tree cutting. This code provides for a variety of purposes that would preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the City and prevent indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees. This chapter also implements policies of the State Environmental Policy Act. It provides special exemptions in 18.45.030 for improved single-family lots, partially improved single-family lots or certain unimproved lots, allowing private property owners in these categories to maintain or remove trees at their discretion without permits. Additionally, these land clearing codes provide exemptions for utility vegetation maintenance or tree work by City departments when situations involving danger to life or property are found. Tree Protection During Construction As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees. Regulations to protect trees during construction are a mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are developed. Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are being retained during a land development project are also protected. The codes describe the protected area on a site as being within the drip -line of the tree and attempts to limit damage to trees by controlling the impact to trees within this area. Critical Areas and Buffers Washington State has special laws to protect critical areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable and environmentally significant areas. • Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections and management requirements for trees located near wetlands, streams, or steep slopes. Tree pruning or removal is restricted or prohibited without a report from an ISA certified arborist, ASCA registered consultant, or a registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for replacement trees. What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 125 6.A.e Regional Urban Forestry Resources Regional urban forestry resources are organizations that provide services to aid in the protection, maintenance, and development of the urban forest. These range from active volunteer groups in the City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state and federal government agencies. Some of the organizations and programs described below have been used by the City. Others may be good choices for the future. PLACEHOLDER.0 Picture WASHINGTON COMMUNITY ]FORESTRY Washington State Urban and Community Forestry Program Under the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides technical, educational, and financial assistance to Washington's cities and towns, counties, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is: "To provide leadership to create self-sustaining urban and community forestry programs that preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for public benefits and quality of life." A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of financial assistance programs including; Community Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of financial assistance, their availability in a given year, and their associated dollar amounts are dependent on continued funding through annual grant allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF communicates events, educational opportunities, and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter. The Washington Community Forestry Council advises the DNR on policies and programs. The program does this by teaching citizens and decision - makers about the economic, environmental, psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees. The program also helps local governments, citizen groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy trees throughout Washington. The council was established under RCW 76.15. 43 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 126 6.A.e FORTSRRA FORTERRA Green City Partnerships The Green City program helps urban communities in the Puget Sound region effectively steward their natural open spaces through best practices. FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term plans, and community -based stewardship programs to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in our urban environments. Specific services include: • City-wide forested park and natural area assessment • Strategic and restoration planning • Volunteer program development and guidance • Education and training for volunteers • Restoration tracking systems • Green City outreach and community engagement • On- the- ground stewardship projects and event support The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core goals: • Improve the quality of life, connections to nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities by restoring our forested parks and natural areas • Galvanize an informed and active community • Ensure long-term sustainable funding and community support These unique public/private partnerships bring together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders to create a sustainable network of healthy forested parks and natural areas throughout the region. i • � .� 111 1 Municipal Research and Services Center The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local information from parks and recreation departments, land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations to promote and manage urban forestry resources. Example resources include local urban forestry programs in Washington State, legal references, and related articles. PLACEHOLDER: Picture What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 127 6.A.e r I future wise j Futurewise Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent sprawl to protect the resources of communities in Washington State. Futurewise was founded to help support implementation of Washington State's Growth Management Act, and to focus on preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions and development. Futurewise provides data analysis and research, community and environmental planning and policy development, community engagement and outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy, legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services are all provided through strategic collaboration with businesses, governments, community organizations, and nonprofit partners. w COLLEGE of the ENVIRONMENT The University of Washington Restoration Ecology Network TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN) is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional center to integrate student, faculty and community interests in ecological restoration and conservation. Students in the program are required to complete capstone projects, where students of different academic backgrounds work together to complete a local restoration project. Students learn how to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration project while working in teams. The Capstone spans three academic quarters beginning in the fall. Communities collaborate with the program to develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the community and excellent learning experiences for the students. 45 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 128 6.A.e EarthCorps EarthCorps is a human capital development program where corps members learn leadership skills by working collaboratively, leading community volunteers, and executing technical restoration projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration events, monitor plant growth, adapt management plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and communities to offer volunteers who are passionate about conservation and restoration. The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on- PLACEHOLDER: Picture going, locally -based, expert care for one of the City's key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown to include three more sites: Brackett's Landing, Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park. The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and how to perform actions that improve the ecological health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents. Actions include removing invasive weeds such as Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas in need of water retention and weed suppression, and replanting with native plants to foster greater biodiversity. What Do We Have? 46 Packet Pg. 129 6.A.e Urban Forestry Practices: Case Studies In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that there are urban forestry practices emerging from other municipalities that could eventually add value if developed within the City. Through stakeholder interviews and discussions with City Staff, three urban forestry practices were selected as important for further consideration in implementation of this UFMP: Tree Banks (orfee in -Lieu programs), Heritage Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This section explores some examples around how other cities have adopted these programs. Tree Banks - Fee -based alternatives to tree replacement Often in the course of urban forest management, there can be logistical challenges associated with replacing trees at the same site where trees are removed. An increasingly common solution is to provide developers and residents with the opportunity to pay fees in -lieu of meeting their landscaping requirements. Providing a fee or financial guarantee option creates a system for funding tree planting projects or even more sophisticated landscape restoration projects that improve the overall health and condition of the urban forest. Precedence for this option can be found at the National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in - lieu fee program as: "A program involving the restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation of aquatic resources through funds paid to a governmental or non- profit natural resources management entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements... Similar to a mitigation bank, an in -lieu fee program sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in -lieu program sponsor." Snohomish County Here, the government provides options for permit applicants to engage the county, their own contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is not possible at the proposed project site: • 'Applicants may choose to perform the off -site mitigation work on private property either themselves or through their own contractor, subject to all other provisions of Section 30.62 SCC, or applicants may enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with the County pursuant to RCW 82.02.020 under which the County will perform the mitigation work on public property within the same sub -drainage basin or watershed resource inventory area (WRIA)." (POL-6210 REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING OFF -SITE MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER SCC 30.62.330) The following cities are examples of fee in -lieu programs related to urban forestry. There is some variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as where the funds collected get administered. City of Redmond The City of Redmond calculates fee in -lieu to include the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee also includes all costs associated with establishment care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations: • RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement Fee A fee in- lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the Administrator after careful consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an offsite location. 47 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 130 6.A.e The amount of the fee shall be the tree base fee times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section. The tree base fee shall cover the cost of a tree, installation (labor and equipment), maintenance for two years, and fund administration. ii. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal Permit. iii. Fees collected under this subsection shall be expended only for the planting of new trees in City -owned parks, open spaces or rights - of -way. http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-wa/ export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid=005.009&file=doc- 005.009-pid-80.pdf City of Renton The City of Renton has much more limited code language. Fee in -lieu options are still at the City's discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and installation. No funding for establishment care is required in this code. However, the code does directly designate the funds to be allocated to the Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides more discretion to the City with how the funds get allocated: • PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree requirements in previously developed area. In addition to the above requirements, the following also apply: Where new street trees cannot be planted due to portions of rights -of -way having been previously paved or otherwise rendered unsuitable to plant trees, a fee -in -lieu of planting is required. Such fee shall be determined by the Community Forester per City Policy and deposited into the Community Forestry Fund. https://library. municode.com/wa/port_angeles/codes/ code of ordinances?nodeld=TIT11STS1 CH 11.13STTR_11.13.050STTR E N R E Heritage Tree Programs - Recognizing Historical Significance of Trees In many cities around the nation, trees are often recognized for their historical significance to the community. This recognition is commonly referred to as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These programs provide communities with a way of officially recognizing trees, and with the recognition, can offer a variety of benefits to the community, including: • RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When ♦ Increasing public awareness of trees and the a the Administrator determines that it is urban forest infeasible to replace trees on the site, payment into the City's Urban Forestry • Drawing attention to and protecting unique Program fund may be approved in an and significant trees o amount of money approximating the • Reinforcing how trees are one of the key r current market value of the replacement components of a city's unique character and trees and the labor to install them. The City M sense of place w shall determine the value of replacement ♦ Engaging citizens with the purpose and c trees. http://www.codepublishing.com/ activities of a city's urban forestry program E WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/RentonO4O4/ Renton0404130.html ♦ Encouraging public participation in the a a identification and perpetuation of heritage City of Port Angeles trees throughout the City The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in -lieu option, but it only appears to relate to street tree replacement requirements. Another distinction in this code is the fee is determined by the Community Forester (a city staff position): What Do We Have? 48 Packet Pg. 131 6.A.e City of Seattle In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program that eventually became co -sponsored by the City. Seattle's program provides the broadest set of categories for designating a tree as a heritage tree. Trees can be designated according to the following categories: Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity. Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its age, its association with or contribution to a historic structure or district, or its association with a noted person or historic event. Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community. Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue, or other planting. City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had a heritage tree program in place since 1998. Unlike Seattle, which already regulates the care of exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on private property, the City of Vancouver uses this designation to protect trees on private properties where tree removal permits would not ordinarily be required. This is a voluntary program for private property owners, thus protecting the rights of the property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/ publicworks/page/heritage-trees). City of Lynnwood Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined in municipal code. Although many aspects of this program are similarto other cities, their specific code language binds all successive owners of the tree to the protection obligations within this designation. This language has the added benefit of ensuring long-term protection and care for the tree unless it is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070). Arborist Business Licenses - Ensuring Best Practices in Tree Care Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require a general business license to work as an arborist. This is not uncommon, but many cities are now recognizing how the complexity of city codes associated with tree care and the expectations of the community necessitate special licensing for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care industry professionals and researchers in the science of arboriculture routinely convene as the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community has companies that are adequately trained and qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing that ties the business with these organizations is increasingly popular. The following cities were selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of different approaches for arborist business licensing: City of Herrington • Herrington, KY — Businesses that practice arboriculture must submit an application to the City for a Tree Contractor license. The application identifies the business as practicing arboriculture and requires proof of sufficient insurance (http:// www.cityofherington.com/pview. aspx?id=32514&catl D=547). City of Lincoln • Lincoln, NE — In Lincoln, applications for tree services and arborists not only require proof of insurance, but also proof of ISA credentials or a tree worker test administered by the parks and recreation department. http://Iincoln.ne.gov/city/ parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm City of Denver Denver, CO — Denver has two classes for their "Tree Service License." This is a distinct feature of their licensing process. Licenses 49 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 132 6.A.e can be issued to businesses working on "Large Trees;" which require workers to leave the ground, or an "Ornamental" license, designed for companies doing landscaping work on small trees that do not require an aerial lift. https://www. denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/ Porta Is/747/documents/forestry/tree- license-info-packet.pdf City of Spokane • Spokane, WA —Spokane has a commercial tree license that businesses must secure if they are doing work on public property trees (e.g.,street trees and park trees). https://my.spokanecity.org/urbanforestry/ permits/ Summary Considerations for UFMP Historical practices and regulatory requirements provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular, the City has special authority over property it owns or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to direct the City's urban forest management activities. Instead, the City has multiple departments that are guided by codes and policies for site -specific decisions without overarching strategic level guidance of the forest. An example encountered by public works staff is when a tree removal is being considered. One tree may need to be removed and replaced for safety reasons, but additional trees may get removed and replaced to maintain the aesthetic of the streetscape. Without overarching urban forest strategies, removals of trees for simple rights -of - way improvements can be seen as reactive solutions resolved through political discourse instead of planned practical decisions for city managers. This reactive approach to urban forest management also extends to the tree care budget. The City does not maintain sufficient tree related information (such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry benefits models show how trees in Edmonds provide environmental and economic benefits that are much greater than their reactive management costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage this disparity and direct forest management toward proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree maintenance pruning, and tree inspections. With the City having authority to care for approximately 12% of the City's entire tree canopy, other methods to encourage or require tree planting/ protection will be needed for the community to have influence over tree care in the remaining 88% of the forest. Some strategies that have been engaged in at other municipalities include the fee in -lieu programs to support variances in any tree replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs that protect special trees, and arborist business licensing to encourage best practices in tree care. Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued or greater engagement, the City may realize more grant -funded opportunities, volunteer resources, and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve its urban forest management goals. PLACEHOLDER: Picture What Do We Have? 50 Packet Pg. 133 6.A.e What Do We Want? Stakeholder and Community Meetings Community Input Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency stakeholders. Connections and relationships that develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes of the urban forest outreach process. This provided a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds' urban forest. As community awareness and actions associated with urban forestry move forward, it will be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the value of their contributions to their community in the trees that grow around them. Stakeholder Interviews In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting met with several municipal and regional urban forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews occurred over two days and included urban planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree board representatives, and City staff leadership. Their valuable contributions guided the framework of the UFMP. Virtual Open House Throughout the development process, the City hosted a website that provided community access to the planning process. In addition, the website provided access to videos of public presentations, surveys, and invitations for public comments. This approach provided further opportunities for public input outside of scheduled community meetings. The first public meeting was held with the City of Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board on May 4, 2017. During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values about the urban forest were explored with members and visitors in attendance. Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall to share information about the UFMP development process and gather input from community residents. The open house included a presentation and a brief discussion with the audience to answer clarifying questions. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster boards. Each poster board contained a broad topic followed by initial suggestions generated through the prior stakeholder interview process. Attendees were invited to express their opinions using dots (where green = a positive "vote"/ agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/ hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative "vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion). Attendees were invited to use as many dots of each color as necessary to express their opinion of each suggestion on each poster board. In addition, each poster board provided an area for Additional Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered to the poster board for other attendees to review and "vote" on. A third meeting which was with the Planning Board, occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity to solicit public participation early in the UFMP development process. The results of these public meetings helped the City to understand the needs and concerns of the community and guide the development of the online survey. 51 what Do We want? Packet Pg. 134 6.A.e %-�O k n1!Pits II What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 135 6.A.e Online Community Survey From the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey was developed with the intention of understanding and benchmarking Edmonds' community values and views on the urban forest. Survey data was collected online. The survey platform only allowed one survey response per household to control for multiple entries from a single respondent. The survey closed in September of 2017 with 175 responses having been gathered through the summer (Appendix C). Responses increased following the public open house and a presentation to the planning board. Although the intent was to gather feedback from a broad representation of the community, 40.9%ofthe respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had less than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3% of the combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not affiliate within the survey -defined neighborhood groups. The results showed how seventy-five percent (74.9%) of respondents "strongly agree" that public trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents "agree" or "strongly agree" that Edmonds needs more public trees. The most popular location for more trees is 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% PLACEHOLDER: Picture in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf courses (11.2%). When asked to rank the environmental benefits most valued from the urban forest, respondents expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least important at 4.6% (Figure 5). Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit Improved Air Quality Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Carbon Storage Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Environmental Benefits Energy Savings Other 53 What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 136 6.A.e PLACEHOLDER: Picture On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees as the most important intangible benefit, followed by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then 40 35% 30 25 20 15% 10% attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic benefit (Figure 6). Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0% Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded Attractive to Shaded Improve retail Increased Property Passive recreation Shaded Parkin€ Trails,sidewalks, Residents streets/Buffer areas and Values and bike trails from vehicles neighborhoods Intangible Benefits What Do We Want? Packet Pg. 137 6.A.e PLACEHOLDER: Picture In general, respondents are satisfied with the current level of maintenance, with 69.8%saying they "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" When asked to rank various options for the level of maintenance that public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to receive hazard maintenance (Figure 7). Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would like to see the City help preserve trees on private property. Education and outreach were considered the best ways to encourage tree planting and 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% preservation on private property, with 79.0% of respondents identifying these as their preferred methods. Respondents were asked to select the types of education and public outreach they would like to see offered by the urban forestry program. The most popular educational materials were website resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks (55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%). Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations 10% 0% - Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the None -Keep them natural (Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear) but not necessarily every tree) Maintenance Expectations 55 what Do We want? Packet Pg. 138 6.A.e Summary Considerations for UFMP Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further improve the urban forest through increased public outreach and community engagement. Public engagement on urban forestry issues has demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied with the City's activities on public property, but prefers to have the City only provide guidance and education as opposed to regulation when it comes to stewardship of trees on private property. There is general agreement from survey respondents that trees impact views for many residents, and the issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds' identity as a community. Scenic views are also considered a property right of long-established development. At the same time, appreciation of trees —especially "the right trees in the right place" —is a value shared by almost everyone. PLACEHOLDER: Picture PLACEHOLDER: Picture What Do We Want? 56 Packet Pg. 139 6.A.e How Do We Get There? Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of Edmonds will be able to enhance management of the urban forest through implementation of actions recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based on the precedence established by the City with other long-range planning documents. Additionally, growing and improving Edmonds' urban forest are slow processes. Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and anotherten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity. For this additional reason, it is essential that urban forest planning consider at least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired state of the urban forest. The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan will address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: • Urban forest asset goals, which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next twenty (20) years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. To accomplish these goals, the most common tactic will be to increase the amount of information the City maintains about its urban forest resource. This includes activities like routine tree canopy assessments and a public tree inventory, both of which are fundamental to management and are substantial expenses to an urban forestry program requiring significant consideration. • Municipal resource goals, which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. The common tactics for accomplishing these goals center around developing policies that promote routine tree inspection and formalized tree management strategies for City -owned trees. These goals encourage the City to improve its awareness and mitigation of tree hazards and eliminate barriers to effective urban forest management. • Community resource goals, which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The common tactics for accomplishing these goals coordinate with the public and encourage the participation of citizens and businesses to align with the City's vision for the urban forest. The research into current and historical efforts in urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the understanding of the urban forest resource as well as improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations. The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al. (2011) were used as a standard to assess the current urban forestry practices in the City, and provide the management reference necessary to frame the following recommended goals for this plan. 57 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 140 dp ti wr, lob JL ..... . . . . . k i. -.i�x Ar Urban Forest Asset Goals Objectives OF Goal #UA1- Maintain Citywide Canopy Coverage Performance Measure -Tree Canopy Cover (% of City land covered by tree canopy) Rationale - Edmonds has no set canopy goal. The current canopy 30.3% (1,844 Acres) is less than the 2005 Canopy cover (1,988 acres). This means that the City has lost an estimated 6.2% (144 acres) since 2005. Risk - Diminished canopy cover can increase flooding, urban heat island effects, and energy use, reduce air quality, and degrade asphalt road surfaces. Canopy loss also negatively impacts wildlife travel corridors and decreases habitat. Benefit - Canopy cover can help optimize the ecosystem services provided by the urban forest. Actions: A. Develop and adopt an overall canopy goal for Edmonds. B. Adopt a City policy to avoid any net loss to the overall tree canopy. C. Conduct urban tree canopy (UTC) analysis every ten (10) years to determine changes and progress towards community canopy goals. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 59 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 142 Objectives OF Goal #UA2 - Identify Key Areas To Increase Canopy Performance Measure -Tree Canopy Cover (% of City land covered by tree canopy) Rationale - Tree canopy in parks, steep slopes, and fragmented forest areas have potential to reduce erosion risk and improve wildlife habitat. Risk - Lack of tree canopy can result in erosion risk and reduced wildlife habitat. Benefit - The City can develop efficient strategies for increasing canopy and targeting specific areas to improve and distribute the benefits provided by the urban forest. Actions: A. Identify areas where tree plantingwill enhance overall canopy cover, improve stormwater management, and/or protect existing natural resources. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 60 Packet Pg. 143 6.A.e Objectives OF Goal #UA3 - Manage Tree Population Age Distribution for Diversity Performance Measure - Distribution of trees per DBH Class (%) in city parks and public Right -of -Way Rationale - Maintenance costs and expensive end -of -life tree care are more evenly distributed when a population has an ideal distribution of tree ages (approximated by DBH). Risk - City Staff suspect an uneven age distribution in many parks and natural areas. There is concern about increased risks of whole tree failure due to a growing number of trees in decline. Serious and substantial expenditures on tree removals can be necessary in even -aged populations that reach the end of their useful life in a few years. Benefit- Annual costs for care of public trees can be more evenly distributed over many years. Actions: A. For any tree inventory efforts, collect DBH to estimate tree age. a. Create removal plans for the eventual decline (particularly for large and risky trees). B. Develop specific age distribution goals for different populations. a. Type: Coniferous/Evergreen. b. Size: Small/Medium/Large. C. Identify mature/over-mature trees that have reached the end of their lifespan and plan for their gradual replacement. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 61 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 144 6.A.e Objectives OF Goal #UA4 - Plant Suitable Trees and Schedule Phased Replacement for Unsuitable Species Performance Measure - % of public trees in population considered suitable species* Rationale - Species demonstrating poor performance in the City should not continue to be planted. Phased removals of existing poor -performing species should be considered for key areas* Risk - Unsuitable species require substantial maintenance and must be replaced more frequently. Benefit - The community will have lower tree maintenance costs. Actions: A. Document and track tree species information when performing work to understand and identify unsuitable tree species. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 62 Packet Pg. 145 6.A.e Objectives OF Goal #UAS - Manage for Species Diversity Performance Measure - Species Distribution on City properties and public rights - of -way (%)* Rationale - No species should represent more than 10% of the population and no genus should represent more than 20%. Exceptions may be made for native species in naturalized areas. Risk - Predominance of a few species can lead to substantial impacts from pests or diseases that tend to be species -specific, and storms that may predominantly damage certain species. Benefit -The urban forest will be healthier, more resilient, and sustainable. Actions: A. Establish diversity policies. a. No single species represents >10% of the resource. b. No single genus represents >20% of the resource. c. No single family represents >30% of the resource. B. Increase species diversity in the public tree resources. C. Identify and maintain a broad palette of regionally compatible species (including native species). D. Reduce reliance on overused species. E. Choose pest and disease resistant varieties when available. F. Develop a publicly accessible list of desirable and undesirable tree species. a. Periodically update the list according to Washington State invasive species guidelines. G. Establish policy that prohibits planting of invasive tree species on City property. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 63 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 146 6.A.e Objectives OF Goal #UA6 - Conduct an Inventory to Document Tree Condition and Risk Performance Measure - % of City -managed property with Documented Tree Inspection Rationale - The City is not managing a database of trees. The City cannot quantify tree assets, risks, or liabilities associated with its trees. Risk - Without data on all publicly -owned trees, planning and prioritization of urban forestry activities are based on conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Benefit - The City can plan proactive tree management strategies and distribute workloads efficiently. Actions: A. Develop a tree inventory policy for public trees. B. Develop a standard tree inspection protocol. a. Identify and prioritize plant health care needs/requirements. b. Identify signs or symptoms of disease, pests, and abiotic disorders, including environmental stress (e.g., water management, soil conditions, and nutrient availability). c. Identify obvious signs of decline and/or failing structure. d. Identity and assess potential risks. e. Identify risk factors and mitigation strategies for mature, over -mature, and declining trees. C. Integrate inventory data into easily accessed software or data management system. a. Evaluate applications for smartphones/tablets to allow for updates to occur simultaneously as maintenance and/or inspections are completed. b. Coordinate with GIS and Information Technology staff to evaluate urban forest tree inventory software. D. Develop a policy and responsibility for keeping inventory data up-to-date. a. Establish workflows for City Staff that allow for access to inventory data by supervisory staff, and in the field. b. Integrate tree inventory data updates into tree work contracts. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There' Packet Pg. 147 6.A.e Objectives OF Goal #UA7 - Document the Ecosystem Services Provided by Public Trees Performance Measure - Number of Ecosystem Services Tracked by the City Rationale - Aligning with the City's Comprehensive Plan elements, the City would be favorably positioned to understand and optimize the ecosystem benefits provided from trees by documenting and tracking the ecological function of publicly -owned trees. Risk- If services are not tracked, the value ofthe asset is unknown and preservation and maintenance are more difficult to rationalize. Benefit - Urban forestry projects will be easier to identify, finance, and secure when cost -benefit relationships can be established and the information is shared with the public. Actions: A. Complete a resource analysis (using i-Tree or another model). a. Use i-Tree to evaluate the current composition, benefits, and benefit versus investment ratio of the community urban forest. B. Periodically review changes and improvements to benefits, composition, and benefit versus investment ratio. C. Consider results and alignment of UFMP goals, objectives, and actions. D. Report changes and progress in the State of the Urban Forest Report. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 65 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 148 6.A.e Objectives Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 66 Packet Pg. 149 Municipal Resource Goals Objectives Priority, Time, Cost Municipal Goal #M1- Maintain a Routinely -Updated Urban Forest Priority: Management Plan Time: TBD Performance Measure - Management Plan Age and Frequency of Revisions Cost: Rationale - For this plan to adapt to evolving circumstances and maintain relevance to the community and City Staff, periodic reviews and amendments are required. This high-level alignment with the community will ensure public support for urban forestry project funding. Risk - The plan may become unused and obsolete. Benefit - This will create pathways to stable and predictable funding. Actions: A. Review and revise the UFMP every five to ten (5 - 10) years. a. Adjust targets as necessary. b. Align City objectives and actions into the annual work plan. c. Periodically review the UFMP for alignment with community values and expectations for the urban forest. d. Determine community satisfaction measured through surveys or as evidenced by public support for realizing the Plan's goals and actions. i. Gauge the level of public engagement and support for urban forest programs, workshops, and issues. 67 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 150 Objectives Municipal Goal #M2 — Perform a Periodic Review of Tree Ordinances Performance Measure -Date of last revision of Tree Protection Ordinances Rationale - For the City to adapt to evolving circumstances, periodic reviews and amendments to the City Codes tree protections are required. Risk - Development activities on private property will not sufficiently protect trees, according to community values. Benefit - This will keep the ordinance updated and aligned with best practices and community values. Actions: A. Review and revise the Tree Ordinances every five to ten (5 — 10) years. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 68 Packet Pg. 151 6.A.e Objectives Municipal Goal #M3 - Train Staff to Maintain Expertise and Professional Qualifications Performance Measure - Annual Number of Urban Forestry Training Hours per FTE Rationale - Each City staff person who makes decisions that impact the urban forest should receive annual training specific to their duties. This will strengthen the qualifications of the urban forestry team and increase their capacity to effectively implement the plan. Risk - Staff may not be aware of most recent best management practices and industry standards. Benefit - Staff is more likely to manage urban forest risks and control costs using the best available science and practices. Actions: A. Establish a protocol for ongoing staff training on urban forestry issues. B. Establish training protocols for City Staff performing tree work. a. City tree crews will be supervised by an ISA certified arborist. b. City tree crews should be fully trained and certified for bucket work, climbing, and rescue. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 69 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 152 6.A.e Objectives Municipal Goal #M4 - Plant Trees Annually Performance Measure - Number of Trees Planted Per Year Rationale - To combat normal tree mortality, the City must engage in annual tree planting or risk a decline in the size of the urban forest. Without data to quantify the tree mortality rate, the number of trees that should be planted annually cannot be determined. However, the 2017 canopy assessment suggests there are 383 acres considered to be very high priority tree planting opportunities. Risk - The number of trees in the City will decline without active replanting. Benefit - This will guide the value of the ecosystem services provided by the urban forest and control costs by proactively directing the future state of the urban forest. Actions: A. Develop a tree planting and replacement plan as a supplement to the UFMP. a. Use GIS mapping data to identify and prioritize planting sites and to ensure coordination with planned improvements and construction. b. Classify and prioritize available planting sites based on: i. Space and minimum planting setbacks. ii. Soil characteristics. iii. Irrigation infrastructure. iv. Landscape objectives and tree density. v. Site constraints and existing infrastructure, including hardscape, utilities (overhead and underground), bridges, and culverts. vi. Invasive vegetation lack of native plants. c. Place an emphasis on Right Tree Right Place. i. Reducing hardscape and utility conflicts. ii. Matching tree species to soil and water conditions. iii. Matching tree species to planter size and intended use. d. Optimize shade and environmental benefits by planting large stature trees where feasible. B. Set a replacement ratio of planting three trees for every one tree that is removed in natural areas (3:1 ratio). C. Ensure funding for trees and planting sites are included in projects funded by Capital Improvement Funds (CIP). a. CIP-funded projects should include adequate consideration of trees and planter space, including the construction of planters and pavements that support mature tree development and tree health (e.g., suspended pavement, structural soils). Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 70 Packet Pg. 153 6.A.e Objectives Municipal Goal #M5 - Update Street Tree Plan Performance Measure -Updated City Policies on Street Tree Care Rationale - Planting and tree care policies established within the Street Tree Plan has been minimally updated since its original adoption. The City's Comprehensive Plan also notes that the Street Tree Plan should be reviewed and updated routinely. The plan should at a minimum comply with standards developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANSI A300 Series applies to tree care operations and ANSI Z133 safety requirements apply to employers and employees engaged in arboricultural operations. Risk - Without an updated Street Tree Plan, it is difficult for the public and city staff to know the range of appropriate choices for street trees and related information. Tree care practices and tree species selection could interfere with elements of the UFMP strategic goals. Benefit - An updated Street Tree Plan would identify a better range of choices for street tree species. This will also help optimize daily operations and tactics with alignment of long-term urban forest management strategies. Actions: A. A team composed of relevant City departments (especially, the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department) would review the current Street Plan, including previous draft revisions. The team will: a. Identify key concerns and potential updates for the Street Tree Plan. b. Get public input on proposed changes and take the revised Plan through the appropriate adoption process. B. Adopt as policy, the most current industry standards for all contractors and in-house crews engaged in tree care operations. a. City of Edmonds Tree Pruning Standards should adhere to current industry standards and best management practices (BMPs). b. Designate a City Staff member responsible for maintaining and updating standards in accordance with industry standards and BMPs. C. Ensure all public trees are on a regular pruning and maintenance cycle. a. Incorporate trees at City facilities and parking lots into regular maintenance and pruning cycles. b. Incorporate significant trees and trees close to trails and accessible open space areas into regular maintenance and pruning cycles. c. Incorporate street trees into regular maintenance and pruning cycles. D. Explore GIS coordination for workload management and use analytics for maintenance cycles (e.g., planning, scheduling, and routing). Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 71 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 154 6.A.e Objectives Municipal Goal #M6 - Create a Dedicated Urban Forester/Arborist Staff Position. Performance Measure — As part of the City budget process, consideration of adding a certified arborist to city staff resources. Rationale —The City has a certified arborist as part of its Parks and Recreation Department. The arborist helps advise on tree issues for City properties and rights -of- way. This is effective for current needs of the Parks Department. The City does not have a certified arborist as part of the Public Works Department or Development Services Department. Adding a city arborist to either the Development Services Department or Public Works Department would require additional cityfunding. Currently, the Development Services Department requires outside arborist assessments (paid for by the property owner) for various types of tree removal and pruning. Risk — Insufficient staff resources could limit active management of the urban forest. Without a certified arborist in the Development Services Department, the City would continue relying on outside expertise from certified arborists for issues of tree removal and pruning on private property. Without a certified arborist in the Public Works Department, public right-of-way work may be delayed. Benefit — Having a certified arborist in the Development Services Department would allow the Department to more quickly make decisions on tree removal and pruning issues. This would add to General Fund costs but would save private property owners time and/or money compared to obtaining outside professional expertise for every required tree management decision. It would also result in more consistency for such decisions. If a certified arborist were added to the Public Works Department, that person would be able to assist with tree maintenance issues without waiting for Parks Department staff to be available or contracting with a non -City arborist to do the work. Actions: A. Identify tasks and responsibilities for this position through an analysis of the level of need for a certified arborist (for example, whether half-time, full-time, or on contract) to assist the Development Services Department and/or Public Works Department. B. Further evaluate risks and benefits using contracted staff resources C. The City Council will consider the level of need and the availability of funds and, as part of a budget process, make a decision about adding an arborist to city staff resources. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 72 Packet Pg. 155 6.A.e Objectives Municipal Goal #M7 - Establish a Formal Interdepartmental Working Team Performance Measure - Number of Urban Forestry Team Meetings Annually Rationale - Team meetings ensure that Plan goals are routinely referenced and Plan obstacles can be addressed through collaborative problem solving, ensuring that all City departments cooperate with common goals and actions. Risk -Miscommunication with the public or misalignment of goals and priority actions may occur. Isolation from decisions and collaborations can result in limited Plan effectiveness. Benefit -The team will improve operating efficiency on urban forestry projects. Actions: A. Designate an Urban Forester within City Staff to provide leadership to the working team. B. Establish Quality Assurance protocols for urban forestry activities: a. Risk assessment/Risk management. b. Sidewalk repair inspections and recommendations for Public Works/ Engineering. c. Arborist reports, recommendations, and assessments (interdepartmental). d. Tree inventory data collection input/update. e. Tree inspections. f. Issuing service requests and work orders. g. Volunteer coordination/Public outreach. C. Develop an annual work plan to guide routine operations and objectives. a. Pruning schedules for maintenance contract(s). b. Tree planting and replacement plan. c. Prioritize risk mitigation actions and tree removals. d. Identify and prioritize trees for inspection/risk assessment. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 73 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 156 6.A.e Objectives MF Goal #M8 - Update Development Regulations to Ensure Appropriate Language for Protecting Trees and/or the Tree Canopy as Part of the Development Process Performance Measure — Ordinance Proposed to Update Tree -related Regulations Rationale — The City's development regulations address tree protection requirements in several places but staff and community have questioned whether the language is consistent, clear, and adequate related to the development process. Updating these requirements has been planned as part of a larger code update but has not moved forward as rapidly as intended. Some updates related to the urban forest could go forward sooner than the rest of the code update. This would allow for the tree -related code language to be reviewed and updated as appropriate to ensure that the city's tree canopy is maintained and not compromised due to development. Risk — If the regulatory language is not updated, tree protection requirements for development may not be clear or adequate and the tree canopy could be unnecessarily reduced. Benefit — Development and change are part of urban life. At the same time, management of the urban forest is important for overall quality of life. Code language that is as clear as possible, especially related to trees and development, will help ensure the best balance for the future. If a certified arborist were added to the public works department, that person would be able to assist with tree maintenance issues without waiting for Parks Department staff to be available or contracting with a non -city arborist to do the work. Actions: A. Building on the City's past experience with tree codes, on examples from other places, and on any other new information, the Development Services Department should review the Edmonds Community Development Code related to tree management and the development process. B. The Development Services Department should confer with the Tree Board and others on potential code changes. C. Move draft code changes forward under a broad public process before being considered for adoption by the City Council. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There' Packet Pg. 157 6.A.e Community Resource Goals Objectives Community Goal #C1- Establish a Tree Bank (Fund) Performance Measure - Dollars ($) in Fund Rationale - Establishing a tree planting funding mechanism whereby residents can pay in -lieu fees to fund planting trees in other areas of the City when any planting on -site is not a reasonable option. Risk - Residents and developers get frustrated with having to replace trees they do not even want. Benefit - Trees will be preserved, cared for, and/or planted in desirable locations with more City controls to ensure their successful establishment and growth. Actions: A. Establish a tree in -lieu fund. a. Ensure funds are dedicated specifically for tree care operations, including planting and replacement. b. Work with Finance department to develop appropriate fees and mechanisms for tree replacement. i. Perform in -lieu fee comparison in the region and increase in -lieu fee to reflect a regional fee structure. B. Identify opportunities for additional sources of revenue. a. Appraisal fees for trees damaged in vehicular accidents. b. Fines for malicious damage to public trees. c. Charitable contributions and 'in -memoriam' options. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 75 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 158 6.A.e Community Goal #C2 — Provide Outreach to Arborist Businesses Licensed in Priority: Edmonds Time: TBD Performance Measure - Number of Businesses Licensed to Practice Arboriculture Cost: Rationale - Establishing a specific licensing category for businesses that do tree work or landscaping in the City is a strategy to encourage alignment with City urban forestry goals without mandating best practice requirements on private property owners through City code. It will help to ensure these companies operate with high professional standards and help facilitate success with citywide goals and actions. Risk - Failure to engage with businesses practicing arboriculture can result in damage to public trees, private trees, and canopy loss. Benefit -This will lower costs associated with urban forest management through voluntary cooperation. Actions: A. Determine the number of companies doing business in landscaping or arboriculture. B. Host learning forums for businesses performing tree work. C. Host learning forums for general contractors about urban forestry and tree protection. How Do We Get There? 76 Packet Pg. 159 6.A.e Objectives Community Goal #C3 — Coordinate efforts of the City, Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board, and other interested groups to participate and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events. Performance Measure - Number of Volunteer Hours supporting Urban Forestry Rationale - Edmonds should seek neighborhood volunteers. This will create pathways for communication of urban forestry goals and actions to the public and foster volunteerism in the community. Risk - Failure to engage with neighborhoods can lead to misunderstandings and neighborhood distrust of City regulations and activities. Benefit - This will lower costs associated with urban forest management through voluntary cooperation. Actions: A. Collaborate and partner with City departments (especially Parks, Public Works, and Development Services), nonprofits and neighborhood groups for tree replacement and improvements to streetscapes. B. Develop outreach materials that communicate information about trees and the community urban forest. C. Develop outreach materials (pamphlets, articles, etc.) that communicate specific topics about trees, the urban forest, and environmental benefits: a. Communicate basics of tree care, including planting, pruning, and irrigation. b. Communicate benefits of trees and tree canopy, including environmental, social, and economic benefits. c. Communicate information about the community urban forest, including composition, health, and species diversity. d. Present recommendations for tree species for private property. D. Partner with Snohomish PUD, other City departments, nonprofits, and other groups to incorporate shared information and outreach goals when possible. Possible examples include: a. Right Tree Right Place — Power line friendly tree species. b. Safety considerations related to trees near energized lines and underground utilities. E. Provide educational opportunities where residents can learn about tree care, urban forestry, and meet other individuals with like-minded interests to build community. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: %% How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 160 6.A.e Objectives Community Goal #C4 — Maintain the Citizens' Tree Board Performance Measure - Number of Tree Board Meetings Annually Rationale - Having a community tree board that meets on a regular basis will increase community participation on urban forestry issues and help ensure success with Plan goals by raising community awareness of the urban forest. Risk - Public will not have a consistent City -sponsored group to participate in urban forest activities, provide input, and assist with public education. Benefit - This can improve community support for urban forestry funding. Actions: A. Develop and deliver an annual Tree Board Report. a. Update citizens on the urban forest activities and services that the Board has performed, including number of trees pruned or planted, and educational materials provided. b. Identify any urban forestry awards or grants that could be pursued by the City. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Do We Get There? 78 Packet Pg. 161 6.A.e Objectives Community Goal #C5 - Establish a Heritage Tree Designation Performance Measure -Number of Trees considered Heritage Trees Rationale - Community survey results show limited interest in regulations for trees on private properties. However, trees that are removed can be very slow to replace. The public can recognize the social compact of land ownership and educate the community by having trees designated as part of the City's heritage. Risk - There are limited controls for the public to ensure retention of substantial tree assets in the community. Benefit - Trees that are considered heritage trees to the community could potentially receive additional protection and perhaps financial compensation to the owner/steward of the tree. Actions: A. Develop a definition for Heritage Trees within City Ordinances. B. Develop a historic trees registry to celebrate and educate the public about the legacy created from tree stewardship. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 79 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 162 6.A.e Objectives Community Goal #C6 — Formalize relationships with organizations that share common objectives impacting urban forest sustainability. Performance Measure - Number of affiliations and/or partnerships with regional and national organizations. Rationale - Plan goals and actions should be relevant wherever possible to the strategies and goals of urban forestry and environmental planning documents at the regional and national levels. They should support cooperation and interaction among neighboring communities and regional groups. Risk - Failure to integrate UFMP goals with regional goals may limit effectiveness of Plan or risk conflicts with regional planning efforts. Benefit - Regional partnerships can create pathways to stable and predictable funding. Actions: A. Update existing planning documents to reference or validate the UFMP. B. Identify organizations with urban forestry leadership roles at the regional level. a. Prioritize and formalize relationships C. Maintain Tree City USA status. D. Qualify and apply for Society of Municipal Arborists (SMA) Accreditation, which requires: a. At least one ISA Certified Arborist on staff. i. ISA Certified Municipal Specialist preferred. b. An Urban Forest Management Plan. c. Tree City USA status. d. A Tree City USA Growth Award within the past five (5) years. e. Demonstrated preference to TCIA Accredited tree care companies when private arborists are contracted. f. Adherence to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards, and ANSI A300 tree care performance standards. g. A pledge of adherence to the SMA Code of Ethics and to promote SMA objectives. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: How Are We Doina' 80 Packet Pg. 163 6.A.e How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring the success of planning strategies. It is intended that the Plan serves as a living document. As new information becomes available, this section of the UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine plan updates, annual reports, and community satisfaction surveys. 5-10 Year Plan Update (Plan 2023) The UFMP is an active tool that will guide management and planning decisions over the next twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress and integration into an internal work plan. The UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates are intended to be flexible in response to emerging opportunities, available resources, and changes in community expectations. Therefore, each year, specific areas of focus should be identified. This can inform budget and time requirements for Urban Forest Managers. Annual State of the Urban Forest Report This report, delivered annually, should include numbers of trees planted and removed by the City, and any changes to the overall community urban forest (e.g., structure, benefits, and value). It will serve as a performance report to stakeholders and an opportunity for engagement. The report is also an opportunity to highlight the successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling blocks. This information can be integrated into urban forest managers' Annual Reports and used to pursue additional project support and funding from state agencies and Tree City USA applications. Community Satisfaction The results of the UFMP will be measurable in improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals and actions will support better tree health, greater longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However, perhaps the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP will be its ability to meet community expectations for the care and preservation of the urban forest resource. Community satisfaction can be measured through surveys as well as by monitoring public support for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan. Community satisfaction can also be gauged by the level of engagement and support for urban forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest stakeholders will help managers ensure activities continue to be aligned with the community's vision for the urban forest. 81 How Are We Doing? Packet Pg. 164 6.A.e PLACEHOLDER: Picture How Are We Doing? 82 Packet Pg. 165 6.A.e Appendices Appendix A: References American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017. http://www. tree benefits.com/calculator/ CensusScope, 2012, "CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data." www.censusscope.org City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens' Tree Board. City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington. City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Edmonds, Washington. City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/ Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997. Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313). Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and Urban Planning. Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington State Department of Commerce. Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, "Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?" State of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using and Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624. Finn Hill Neighborhood Alliance, 2012, "history of FNA", http://finnhilialliance.org/about/history-of-fhna/ Heisler, G.M., 1986, "Energy savings with trees." Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25. Hartel, D, 2003, "GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets", 2003 National Urban Forest Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information. i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of Environmental Management. 45:109-133 Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 83 Appendices Packet Pg. 166 6.A.e Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton,A. Guenther, C. Basu,ATurn ipseed, K. Jardine.2010, Efficient Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. <http://www. sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816> Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning and Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117. Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367. Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special Section. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155. Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior http://www.nps.gov/iwcf/ The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/ Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005.Forest Health Protection —Emerald Ash Border. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.htmi Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection —Dutch Elm Disease. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast. http://sncc.forestry. oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/ Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. < http://news. sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-poltution.htmi> Simpson, James, 2002. "Improved estimates of tree -shade effects on residential use," Energy and Buildings 34, 1067-1076. Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson.2000. Energy and airquality improvements through urban tree planting. In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference; Seattle. Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112. "Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1." Trees Near Power Lines I Residential I Snohomish County PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219. The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpi.org U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP). https:// www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban—forestry/ a a Appendices 84 Packet Pg. 167 6.A.e U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. "Green Roofs," Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy Management Program. Washington Department of Ecology, 2011 - Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control, http://www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.htmi Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externa lreviewd raft_j u nel52009. pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review forthe Bald Eagle. http://wdfw. wa.gov/publications/01825/draft-wdfwol825.pdf Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use Elementl). Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas -Fir Tussock Moth 86. https://www. fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/ Wolf, K.L. 1998, "Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho -Social Dimensions of People and Plants", University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1. Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers Research Review. 14, 3:39-43. Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential scale. Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188. Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188 85 Appendices Packet Pg. 168 6.A.e Appendix B9. Table of Figures �' a Ps Map 1: Land Cover Classes 4,22 Map 2: Forest Fragmentation 24 Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park 26 Map 4: Priority Planting Areas 30 Figures Figure 1: Land Cover Classes 4,22 Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison 23 Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation 24 Figure 4: Overall Environmental Benefits 31 Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit 51 Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit 52 Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations 53 Tables Table 1: Benchmark Values 2 Table 2: Water Benefits from Most Prominent Species 10 Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Species 11 Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Species 12 Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Species 13 Table 6: Aesthetic and Socioeconomic Benefits from Most Prominent Species 14 Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks 26 Table 8: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 27 Table 9: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 28 Table 10: Factors Used to Prioritize Tree Planting Sites 29 Table 11: Priority Planting Level Acres 30 Table 12: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds 33 Table 13: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures 34 Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels 34 Appendice- ou Packet Pg. 169 6.A.e Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Introduction: The survey questions provided a public feedback opportunity during the early stages of plan development. They were designed to solicit input from residents and businesses in the City of Edmonds and help guide the plan development by understanding about how respondents. The questions were arranged into 4 groups: • How do you value trees? • Your opinion about public trees. (City managed trees on streets and in parks) • Your opinion about private trees. (privately managed trees) • Who are you? (Simple Demographics) Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5) the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 = least valuable): Ilmprovec ' Quality Energy Savings FProtect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Carbon Storage Wildlife Habitat Other 87 Appendices Packet Pg. 170 6.A.e Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Strongly Agree 74.86% 131 Agree 21.71% 38 lisagree 2.297. Strongly Disagree 0.57% 1 Not sur 0.00% 0 Not Sure 0.57% 1 Other (please specify) 0.00% 0 Question 2 (Extended) 36.57% 64 24.00% 4 7 14.29% jA 4.57% 8 5.14% 9 13.71% 24 26.86% 47 21.71% 38 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 10.29M 8 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 36.00% 63 28.57% 50 45 22.29% 39 12.57% 22 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 49.71% 87 P5.71%14FRO 29.71% 52 10.86% 19 0.00% 0 175 2.88 17 175 3.3 1175]64.49 0 0 Appendices 88 Packet Pg. 171 6.A.e Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8) the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1= most valuable and 8 = least valuable): Attractive to Residents 14.86% 26 21.71% 38 16.00% 28 13.14% 23 Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29% 60 21.14% 37 14.86% 26 14.29% 25 _ Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 21.71% 38 17.14% 30 24.00 c 42 11.43% 20 Shaded Parking 2.86% 5 3.43% 6 8.57 c 15 9.71% 17 rover wand neighborhoo 14% 9 10.29% 1 ° 22 13.71% 24 Increased Property Values 4.00% 7 5.14% 9 5.14% 9 9.71% 17 Passive recreati0 9 6.86% 12 12.00 / 21 Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles713*14%/o 23 16.00% 28 12.00% 21 16.00% 28 Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds' public trees. Answered 60 Skipped 115 Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City's urban forest program? Please check all that apply. I was not aware that t I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City Other (please specify) 89 Appendices Packet Pg. 172 6.A.e Question 3 (Extended) W5.39 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86 % 12 2. 29% 4 7.43% 13 2.86% 5 2.29% 4 2.86% 5 175 6.29 9.71% 17 9.71% 17 4.57% 8 1.71% 3 29.71% 52 8.57% 15 17.71% 31 19.43% 34 175 3.03 1.143% 34 18. 9% 32 1F29% 25 6.29% 11 175 4.25 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 40 29.14% 51 175 3.05 15.43% 27 14.86% 26 20.00% 35 21. 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.290 11 175 4.89 Answered 175 Skipped i Question 5 (Extended) 36.69% 62 23.67% 40 52.07% 88 14.79% 25 0 Appendices 90 Packet Pg. 173 6.A.e Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue with trees in the public rights -of -way. Daily 13.02% 22 Weekly 11.83% 20 10.65% 18 Several Times AYear 34.32% 58 MI Nev jd 30.18% 51 Answered .• Skipped 61 Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees? lM] 11.I1ML it 9 Weekly 4.14% 7 /lonthly 2.96% 5 Several Times A Year 41.42% 70 Never 46.15% 78 9 A , "M Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees? 5.33k 9 Weekly 2.96% 5 k/lonthly 5.92% 10 Several Times A Year 43.20% 73 Never 42.60% 72 91 Appendices Packet Pg. 174 6.A.e Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds' public trees. Strongly agrees 10.65% 18 Agree 59.17% 100 Disagree � 11.83% 20 Strongly Disagree 8.88% 15 Not Su 9.47% 16 Answered 169 Skipped 61 Appendices 92 Packet Pg. 175 6.A.e Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable) None -Keep them natural Best possible care (all trees should look good) Clearance only (keep th ewalks and streets clear) Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees. jWngly Agree mMA7.87% 64 Agree 28.99% 49 Fsagree 17.16% 29 Strongly disagree 5.33% 9 not sure 10.65% Answered 169 Skipped Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply. a 59.17% 100 Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36% 102 59.17% 100 Golf Courses 11.24% 19 owntown 42.60% 72 Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77 Lmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34 Other (please specify) 17.75% 30 AnsweredOf 169 Skipped 93 Appendices Packet Pg. 176 6.A.e Question 10 (Extended) s= 3.55% 6 8.88% 15 10.06% 17 25.44% 43 45.56% 77 6.51% 11 169 1.92 15.38% 26 9.47% 16 21.89% 37 26.04% 44 23.08% 39 4.14% 7 169 2.67 6.51% 11 24.26% 41 27.81% 47 26.04% 44 10.65% 18 4.73% 8 169 2.89 52.07% 88 26.04% 44 14.20% 24 5.33% 9 1.78% 3 0.59% 1 169 4.22 21.89% 37 30.18% 51 23.08% 39 12.43% 21 8.28% 14 4.14% 16M 3.47 IL c a� E a� CU r_ m a� L O LL r_ M L Appendices 94 Packet Pg. 177 6.A.e Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban forestry program? Please check all that apply. iSeminars and workshops 1 44.38% 75 Interpretive trails and displays 59.76% 101 �Nebsite resources 62.72% 106 Online videos (e.g. YouTube) 24.26% 41 tree walk'sM 55 Informational brochures 43.20% 73 Other (please specify) 11.83% 20 Answered 1691 Skipped 61 Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public trees. Answered 40 Skipped 135 Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply) Trees blocking rrview 24.70% 41 Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15 Tree debris in 12.65% 21 Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114 anopy loss 0 7.83% 991 Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120 Other Concerns(please specify) 95 Appendices Packet Pg. 178 6.A.e Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select any from this list any statements you agree with. # d Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98% 20 Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37% 29 Trees near my property block views 29.34% 49 Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66% 113 Trees near my property are healthy 59.28% 9JI 1 want more trees near my property 25.15% 42 rl'have no trees near my property T 0.60% -11 I don't agree with any of these statements. 2.40% 4 Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction? Yes. The City should require property owners to preserve trees on private parcels where reasonably possible. JW 53.89% 90 No. This City of Edmonds should not concern itself with trees on private property. _ 17.96% 30 Not sure. This issue is more complicated. 28.14% 47 Appendices 96 Packet Pg. 179 6.A.e Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property? Please select as many as apply. ir Education and outreach 79.04% 132 Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34% 49 Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74% 48 Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09% 92 Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33% 59 Other (please specify) 22.75% 38 Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private property. ditional Comments Answered ., Skipped 131 Question 20: Which gender do you identify with? nswer Choices Male 1 28.66% 47 Female 59.76% 98 Gender Diverse" 1.83% 3 Prefer not to answer 9.76% 16 97 Appendices Packet Pg. 180 Question 21: What age group are you representing? 6.A.e Under 18 0.00% 0 18 to 25 1.22% 2 26 to 35 4.27 % 7 36 to 45 11.59% 19 46 to 55 21.34% 35 56+ 61.59% 101 Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below. Downtown/The Bowl 40.85% 67 Westgate 7.32% 12 ive Corners 8.54% 14 Perrinville 4.88% 8 IMeadowdale Ana4.27% 7 Seaview 15.24% 25 Lake Ballinger 10 22 / 2 HWY 99 3.05% 5 Ether (please specify) 14.63% 24 Answered .4 Skipped ill Appendices 98 Packet Pg. 181 Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply) 6.A.e am a resident of Edmonds 95.12% 156 1 am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98% 18 Flown a business in Edmonds 6.71% 11 I appreciate public trees 72.56% 119 1 have planted public trees as a volunteer 18.90% J1 I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98% 18 have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees 15.85% 31 None of the above 0.61% 1 16ther (please specify) 7 99 Appendices Packet Pg. 182 6.A.e Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) Answered 33 Skipped 142 Appendices 100 Packet Pg. 183 6.A.e Appendix D: Open House Summary Report On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input from citizens. The open house included a presentation by Ian Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and A from the audience to ask clarifying questions. The presentation provided attendees an overview of Edmonds' urban forest, an introduction to what will be included in the Urban Forest Management Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has completed to date. Following the presentation, attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion boards where a broad topic was introduced on each board followed by initial suggestions generated through the prior stakeholder interview process. Attendees were invited to express their opinions using dots (where green= a positive "vote"/ agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/ hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative "vote"/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion). Attendees were invited to use as many dots of each color necessary to express their opinion of each suggestion on each board. In addition, each board provided an area for Additional Suggestions where attendees were invited to write down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note and adhere it to the board for other attendees to review and "vote" on, as well. Lastly, a confidential and anonymous option was provided for attendees to provide comments and feedback by writing their thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index cards that were placed inside a box and not shared at the public meeting. The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link for attendees to give additional feedback through an online survey. That survey can be accessed via the home page on the City of Edmonds website, under the "What's New..." section. The link provided is: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EdmondsUFMP Local media provided public announcements of the open house leading up to the event: http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/reminder- open-house-managing-citys-tree-cover-set-june-22/ https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/open- house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city-s-tree-cov er/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines My Edmonds News covered the open house and provided a news story and video of the presentation to the public: http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public- asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban- forest/ http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now-video- open-house-plan-manage-edmonds-urban-forests/ 101 Appendices Packet Pg. 184 6.A.e Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate? A. Improved Air Quality 11 0 1 B. Energy Savings 4 0 0 1. Water J11111111ILLuced Stormwater Runoff 14 0 0 D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0 W Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0 F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0 JIL Shaded trailsAddewalk 4 0 3 H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4 I. eased property 7 2 3 J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0 K. Additional Ideas Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade- calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi -class (untreed neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- "the projects" 0 0 0 don't get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams; coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland desertification kity revenue increase with more views 0 0 0 Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1 Appendice, 102 Packet Pg. 185 6.A.e Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education ar M preferred/valued? A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps) 2 omm i. Species selection 4 0 0 dv. Tree plantin� 1 0 0 iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0 &MLiv. Interactive tree selector 1 1 0 V. Irrigation 1 0 0 Iffolunteer opportuniti 1 0 0 B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter) 3 0 0 _ WSpecies selection 3 1 0 ii. Tree planting 1 0 0 Tree pruning 3 1 0 iv. Irrigation 0 0 0 C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars) 2 0 0 i. Tree planting 2 0 0 ii. Tree pruning 5 0 0 iii. Irrigation 0 0 0 Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0 D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0 od meeti cation and outreach 0 0 1 Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0 amphlets telling what species of trees on city property - amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe 0 story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online cu n] _ New name needed 0 0 0 Jill! .................... 103 Appendices Packet Pg. 186 6.A.e Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees in Edmonds? A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9 B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7 �C . Tree debris 1 1 5 D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3 [E. Canopy loss 11 0 3 F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3 Additional C Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows developers to completely clear treed lots for development 1 0 0 (residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban 70m—eone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate T V between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps 1 0 0 Ito come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the 0 0 0 establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation 0 0 0 is removed for development This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we 2 0 0 have chosen to reside- as the "view". Trees are very connected to the idea of "the commons" in which we have not much I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated additional concern. Pr 'Note: for this opinion board: Green dots = concerned Red dots = not concerned Appendice, 104 Packet Pg. 187 Opinion Board #4: What level of for oublic trees? A. None (keep them natural) B. Best possible care (all trees should look good) C earance onl keep sidewalks and streets clear) D. Take care of hazardous trees E. Holistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) F. Additional Ideas In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need process to effectively deal with dangerous trees. Utilize/ plant and replace trees that "heave" the sidewalks. ie- avoid trees that interfere with built environment. Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash trees Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property owner's views are protected. As a first step/tonight's meeting working together to protect environment as well as property owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode. There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote "Agree" directly on the note itself. 7 1 3 7 10 2 0 8 0 IP 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 105 Appendices Packet Pg. 188 6.A.e Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees IN planted? A s B. Open Spaces Onommercial properties D. Streets and medians W Parking lots F. Private properties K Additional Ideas Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool I PC(z trPPC In MOW nrPaC 10 0 0 10 0 1 9 2 0 7 3 2 10 0 0 8 1 1 1 1 0 0 Appendices 106 Packet Pg. 189 Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree olantina and preservation on private orooerty? Free (or low-cost) trees B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care 3 0 0 company Fucation and Outreach 0 D. Tree planting events 5 0 0 k Additional Ideas IML Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot. 3 0 1 EFducation- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for "views" 0 0 0 we can cut out our lungs. Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order 3 0 0 to keep both trees and preserve view. City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should: 3 0 0 Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and streamside property management more important than public 0 0 0 meetings for general public) 107 Appendices Packet Pg. 190 1. What tree benefits do you mast cppreciote? w s.tarer..l.4r a.r�-M i 990!#8904 # •see • . glWr.d lM+evweFss A�rruR •#0&so0 • *Mi#iiii* OF Willi r. s.s+r�r,..Nvrse. o. sFwa.d *ra, Fdnvrr, and t'�k. *raa. is �i• 'wdr,"*'e""how. k h"FsairdPreiy„tf��— nselttik�— #i• # eY las L_ MEI^ 4 4. What level of tno�ntendnce would you prefer for public trees? A. HoeeIKeep nc—wtyrali • 1L Raft passible care JcOtmes sho,rld leak good) * • i• ioi• • C. Clearance only jkrrp sidOwalks d, streets deft •#ii ■#i # D, Take cart of he:o.do.. r— # iii #i#ii + E. Halistic Plaal H*,Ah Cars Ilrnpm-a the .,bon forest, but not necVsFPrily erery rrea} *#i • • i i Addtion. I Ideas i 6.A.e = i E; -2 2. What types of outreach and 3. What isf are your biggest . I r eduction are preferred valued? con corn (s) For trees in Edmonds? A. RWYOnic [Wehsile, Links, Youtube, Apps) S i. Sswin d41seF: fi 4I. F— Plgmirrg ail, tn• „p i • ir. Iws..raF;.r3st..sn. *. Irri�iq. +�, 'raller*ir oPPerM.iMr # B. Hard Copy {Pamphlets, b#iwsle"FF )#S i. sp«». s.w. e • irceP.ee,:,Q • i..Irrygr r • • C- Nnnds•On IWorkdkops, Seminars} t Trei PI—s-P N. Yklr,ener OPy+wssniriea A- Tmes Mocking rtly Yi0 0*0010 0o *00 •• 0 a. Troes shading my yard ! • • • • 00 C. Trea d»hria in my yard 0 • •# i p, FI�aNhy ma+lur■ F•o�s4+ing rolnoyad# �� E. Canopyl4+s0 0000l •• r. Lass of y+irdlHe habitat !i i! • 000 P,AdMivnalldeet `L� O. Add iliomalConurns # R" I � 4 Mon 6. that are the best ways to encourage tree planting and 5. Where would you like to see more preservotion on P Private ropert}+ tries planted? j A, Free (or low-<4sl) Trees A. Parses ■ iiii •#ii OPO.s Spaces i �• i l! i C. Commercial Proprrtias • i• • i• ii D. Streets and Medians � i •• i E. Parking Lori is# isi • F, Private prespertiOs ; i i#i* • i (j, jyddltlOnel �O9F . i M• !*# 00 IB. IFTFOMWrlpn abavt haw to hire a professfanal ft" carry company •# C. Edsxationand Outr`rtath # 0. Tree PlanlidR Events *0 go* E. Addilianal ideas W 9— + _ a t K w C N t V r Q Appendices 108 Packet Pg. 191 6.A.e Additional anonymous comments: • Change name "Urban Forest"- bad impression, oxymoron. Suggestion- Best plant/tree for Best location • Wondering what is/can be done to encourage people to maintain views for neighbors around them? • Let's separate view areas from non -view areas. Right tree for right location. • I am concerned about safety regarding older trees in both private and public spaces. We have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood that lose branches with most wind storms. Who watches out for the health of those trees and probability of danger? Most people would have no idea where to begin, let alone be able to afford to do something like hire an arborist. (signed J Thompson) Questions from the public asked during the presentation: • Question regarding how the 30% canopy cover was determined- comment that that number seemed really high. Wondering if there is a uniform process used by all cities. Made comment that grants were judged by how much canopy a City had. Asked for clarification on what the process that was used to determine 30% canopy cover. • Question asking for clarification of the intention of the UFMP- to handle City trees (as stated in an early slide) or is it actually expanded to handle private trees too. • Commenter asked for clarification on defining "what is a tree"- a 30ft lilac ... is that a tree? A big rhododendron- is that a tree? • Commenter referring to tree planting suggestions (provided an sign in table on yellow paper)- had a question about why is there not any evergreen on that suggestion guide? • Commenter asked question regarding tree topping being preferable to cutting a tree to the ground. Expressed concern over making a "blanket rule" that tree topping is bad or not preferable. • Question regarding information on what kinds of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a fir versus an oak- and where is that kind of data available at? • Question referring to the chart shown in the presentation comparing Edmonds with other cities- does that chart take into consideration view property- does it differentiate where there are view properties and where there are not? Commenter suggested that a significant portion of the City [of Edmonds] has views. 109 Appendices Packet Pg. 192 Attendance 6.A.e City of Edmonds: • Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council • Shane Hope, Development Services Director • Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director • Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities Director • Kernen Lien, Senior Planner • Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager • Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager • Brad Shipley, Planner • Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff Project Team Members: • Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group • Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group • Keeley O'Connell, Nature Insight Consulting Members of the public: • Approximately 50 Appendice- 110 Packet Pg. 193 City of Edmonds Planning Board — Public Hearing � Urban Forest Management Plan Consulting Resource Grou_ 2-sented by Davi and Nature ,% E -D A 6.A.f Overview •UFMP Development Process *The UFMP (structure) *What do we have? *What do we want? *How do we get there? *Goals and Key Action Items* *How are we doing? *Monitoring and measuring * Costs and priorities are still TBD Adaptive Management f Packet Pg. 195 6.A.f The UFMP Development Process •Stakeholder interviews •City webpage updates •Press releases & news articles •Tree Board meeting for early input (5/4/17) *Public open house (6/22/17) *Planning Board for early input (7/26/17) •Online community survey (June -Sept 2017) •Tree Board meeting on draft plan (4/5/18) �= •Planning Board meeting (4/11/18) .M.. 0 LA f Packet Pg. 196 f _11 ikA 6.A.f Structure of the UFMP The Urban Forest • Public Property Trees • Private Property Trees City Staff • Development Services • Public Works and Utilities • Parks Recreation and Cultural Services The Community • Tree Board • Volunteers • Non -Profits Groups ,� - NO- _ I Packet Pg. 197 1 6.A.f What Do We Have? The Urban Forest Asset LY0IFIR What we have... 7 *Urban Tree Canopy (30.3%) BareSoils •Theoretical Maximum Canopy 2 (57.4%) Where is it... G ress/Veg etation •83% Residential 27% •4% Commercial •13% Public Property TrPP Canopy 3OV pervious 34% ■ Tree Canopy ■ Impervious ■ G rass/Vegetat on ■ Bare SoiIs ■ Water Packet Pg. 198 6.A.f What Do We Have? The Urban Forest Asset GIS Tools • Planting Priorities • Forest Fragmentation Software Tools • UTRACE -Urban Tree Resource Analysis and Cost Estimator • iTREE (www.itreetools.org) Edmonds, Priority P 0 Cit) - Ver :................. Lov MO H ig - Ver r A 0 0.5 a Miles O.� 4) _b 0 I�IL N L a Packet Pg. 199 6.A.f What DO We Have? Municipal Resources City Services Common Urban Forestry Related Activities Estimated Hrs per Week (City Staff Time) Development plan review for compliance with tree protection 2 Permit Intake and Review codes Public inquiries (online, phone, and counter) Code Enforcement & Complaint Investigation Investigating and resolving tree complaints 2 Investigating and resolving infrastructure damage complaints Parks & Public Tree Maintenance Tree planting and establishment 40-60 Structural pruning on smaller trees Inspection and identification of hazardous trees Contract Management Managing contract tree crews 1 Emergency Response Community Service Requests, Response Management not measured Comprehensive (Long-range) Planning Urban Forest Management Plan stewardship <1 Federal, state grant procurement Tree City USA applications Community Education Action and Outreach Volunteer events, Coordinated tree planting 1 Neighborhood association support Website content and public education Tree Board Meetings Addressing public issues related to trees 1 I r Packet Pg. 200 6.A.f What Do We Have? Municipal Resources In 2017, the urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita. Minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA designation National Average = $7.50 national (National Arbor Day Foundation) Urban Forestry Items Expenditure 2017 (rounded to nearest $) Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848 Tree Maintenance $79,779 Tree Removals $37,565 Management $62,771 Volunteer Activities $134,579 TOTAL $319,542 Spending Per Capita $7.74 RESULTS UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000 Trees Planted 348 Trees Pruned 31 Trees Removed 24 i f Packet Pg. 201 6.A.f What Do We Have? Community Resources Already engaging... *The Tree Board *Tree City USA Status •EarthCorps Other non-profit resources... •WA DNR • Fo rte rra •MRSC •Futurewise •UW Restoration TREE C USX Arbor Day Foundation ;;�MRSC Local Government Success and Ecology Network .low Bibb. ASH I N GTON STATE DEPAUMf E NT OF Natural Resources L C LL L 0 0) a CD cc LU 0 N L a x E Q Packet Pg. 202 1 6.A.f What do W2 want? Community Outreach *Stakeholder Interviews •Open House EOpinion Boards -discussion •Communitv Survey •175 responses 940.9% (The Bowl) 915.2% (Seaview) 929.3% (other neighborhoods) •virtui... Summary of Survey Results: Trees are important because... •Trees are valuable for Air Quality & Wildlife. •Trees beautify the City. The City should... • Maintain its current level of service. • Take care of hazardous trees. • Plant more trees in public spaces. • Limit regulation of private trees. • Improve website resources. • Improve public outreach (displays & brochures). f Packet Pg. 203 6.A.f HOW DO We Get There? Urban Forest Goals Plan Goals Actions/Outcomes • #UA1 - Maintain Citywide Canopy Coverage • Adopt Canopy Goal of 30.3% • #UA2 - Identify Key Areas to Increase Canopy (No net loss in canopy) • #UA3 - Manage Tree Population Age Distribution for • Assess UTC in 10 years time Diversity • Have a working inventory of � • #UA4 - Plant Suitable Trees and Schedule Phased public trees Replacement for Unsuitable Species • Identify areas to plant trees and improve net benefits (eg. • #UA5 - Manage for Species Diversity stormwater, air quality, wildlife) • #UA6 - Conduct an Inventory to Document Tree • Plant the right trees in the right Condition and Risk places. • #UA7 - Document the Ecosystem Services Provided • Plan and proactively manage tree by Public Trees removals. • #UA8 - Encourage Tree Species Diversity f Packet Pg. 204 6.A.f HOW DO We Get There? Municipal Goals Plan Goals • #M1 - Maintain a Routinely -Updated Urban Forest Management Plan • #M2 - Perform a Periodic Review of Tree Ordinances • #M3 - Train Staff to Maintain Expertise and Professional Qualifications • #M4 - Plant Trees Annually • #M5 -Update Street Tree Plan • #M6 - Create a Dedicated Urban Forester/Arborist Staff Position. • #M7 - Establish a Formal Interdepartmental Working Team • #M8 - Update Development Regulations to Ensure Appropriate Language for Protecting Trees and/or the Tree Canopy as Part of the Development Process 1 • Actions/Outcomes Sets policy that includes routine training of staff and routine updates to ordinances and planning documents. • Ensure funding for trees is part of capital projects • Have a tree planting and replacement plan for City managed properties. • Establish tree inspection cycles. • Provide consistency in tree management decisions. • Annual work plans and improved budget forecasting i f Packet Pg. 205 6.A.f HOW DO We Get There? Community Goals flan Goals • #C1 - Establish a Tree Bank (Fund) • #C2 — Provide Outreach to Arborist Businesses Licensed in Edmonds • #C3 — Coordinate efforts of the City, Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board, and other interested groups to participate and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events. • #C4 — Maintain the Citizens' Tree Board • #C5 - Establish a Heritage Tree Designation • #C6 — Formalize relationships with organizations that share common vision. Actions/Outcomes • Establish tree planting funding mechanisms for both public and private properties. • Develop relationships with businesses in landscaping or arboriculture. • Develop outreach materials about trees and the urban forest. • Deliver an annual Tree Board Report. • Pursue urban forestry awards or g ra nts. • Use heritage trees as a tool for public education and community building. • Build partnerships f NIL Packet Pg. 206 6.A.f HOW Are We Doing? Adaptive Management ADJUST Modify Actions Strategies Evaluate Community Satisfaction Surveys Adaptive UFMP %10111- Monitor Urban Forest Reports PLAN -10 Year Plan pdates (2023?) evise Plan Goals Implement Annual Action Strategies f Packet Pg. 207 6.A.f Next Steps April 5 April 11 April 19 May 9 May June 19 June 26 July 3 free Board meeting Planning Board meeting Open house V Planning Board Public Hearinc Minor revisions to draft (clean-up) City Council public hearing* City Council discussion* City Council potential action * Tentative dates Packet Pg. 208 6.A.f •t r i�W i_ a �1 � Wrrt�r err Questions, comments? r r# email to: Email: devise. nelsongedmonds wa.go v N L O LL L t 0 •L ri IL o> L W cc C d N aL �o W C CD a Packet Pg. 209 1 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/9/2018 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board's current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 05-09-2018 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 210 Of FDA, 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLANNOW BOARD ARDD Extended Agenda May 9, 2018 Meeting Item MAY 2018 May 9 1. Public Hearing on the Urban Forest Management Plan 2. Development Activities Report May 23 1. Next step on Code Update to Permit Decision -Making PLN20170049 2. Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy JUNE 2018 June 13 1. Public Hearing on Draft Housing Strategy 2. Code Update for Permit Decision -Making (Tentative) June 27 1. Discussion on Draft Housing Strategy JULY 2018 July 11 1. July 25 1. AUGUST 2018 August 8 1. August 22 1. c m a� Q W c a� X W L 0 m c c a 3 a� m c a� a� a a� c a� x w CO IL 00 0 N O LO 0 c a� E t r a Packet Pg. 211 items ana liates are suuiect 9.A.a ochange Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2018 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) Topics 2. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) Packet Pg. 212