No preview available
2018-05-23 Planning Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MAY 23, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes of May 9, 2018 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Recommendation for Draft Urban Forest Management Plan 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy B. Permit Decision Making - Quasi-judcial Processes 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 23, 2018 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2018 Approval of Draft Minutes of May 9, 2018 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve draft minutes. Narrative Draft minutes are attached. Attachments: PB180509d Packet Pg. 2 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 9, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Nathan Monroe, Chair (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Brad Shipley, Planner Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Board Member Lovell urged members of the public to read the minutes from the April 11' meeting where the draft Urban Forest Management Plan was presented to the Planning Board for discussion. He advised that the City Council would take all discussions into account, including the Planning Board minutes, when making a final decision. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 11, 2018 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director Report that was provided in the Board's packet. Board Member Lovell inquired if the City Council took action to approve a professional services agreement with a Homelessness Response Project Consultant. Ms. Hope reported that Kone Consulting was selected as the consultant, and work is moving forward. However, there are still some contract details that need to be worked out. Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a Board Member Crank reported that Snohomish County recently implemented a Paine Field Airport Commission. She asked if a City Department will be watching this commission as meetings start to occur that pertain to Edmonds. Ms. Hope answered that her department has not been requested to follow the commission, but she will check to see if another department has been given this responsibility. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Activities Report, which was included in the Board's packet. He commented that the PowerPoint presentation provided in the Staff Report to illustrate 2017 development activity was interesting, and it was helpful to see photographs of what has been or is being built. Ms. Hope said she is pleased the Board found the information interesting and noted that there is a lot of development activity going on right now. She concluded that 2017 was a strong year for development in the City, with the most building permits ever issued in a single year. The Board requested that the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the public via the City's website, and Vice Chair Cheung noted that it could already be accessed via the Planning Commission's May 9' meeting agenda packet. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Mr. Shipley explained that the UFMP is intended to guide the management of trees in Edmonds, with a particular focus on trees on public lands (rights -of -way, parks, etc.). The plan includes a description of the value of trees, as well as information on tree management and the tree canopy in Edmonds. It provides a number of goals and objectives for urban forest management, including goals and objectives related to public education and outreach. He introduced the consultant, Ian Scott from the Davey Resource Group, who was present to provide an overview of the proposed plan. Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, explained that the long-range strategic goals provided in the plan are intended to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: • Tree Resources are the trees on both public and private properties. The Urban Forest Asset Goals are intended to improve the urban forest resources over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. • Municipal Resources include City staff from Development Services, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. The Municipal Resource Goals are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. • Community Resources include the tree board, volunteers and non-profit organizations. Community Resource Goals are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The Community Resource Goals are a key component to the success of the plan. Mr. Scott advised that the planning process for the draft UFMP included an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment, which provided a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds. The study identified an average tree canopy in Edmonds of 30.3%. If all areas with grass and other vegetation are included as possible locations for trees, the City has a theoretical maximum canopy of 57.4%. However, it is important to keep in mind that private owners control the majority of the tree canopy (83%), and there are currently few regulations to limit tree removal. Only about 13% of the existing tree canopy is on public lands, and the City has a very limited knowledge about the condition or number of these existing trees. Mr. Scott explained that the UTC project provides the City with new tools for planning into the future. The results were used to prioritize planting opportunities around the City and understand how to manage the forest fragmentation to benefit wildlife. Going forward, the City can better manage software tools such as UTRACE, which can help estimate how many trees need to be planted to affect tree canopy into the future and where these trees should be planted. The City can also start connecting its information about trees to the iTREE suite of urban forest software tools to uncover ways to optimize the environmental services provided by trees. He advised that the Priority Planting Analysis provided in the plan identifies an estimated 1,619 acres of priority tree planting space where trees could be planted to expand the urban forest canopy. However, a number of citizens have raised concern that planting trees in some of these locations could result in a loss of view. While view is an important consideration, other factors (i.e. steep slopes and wetlands) were also considered when identifying the probable high priority areas. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 Mr. Scott said concern has been raised about whether or not the iTREE software is applicable in Edmonds. However, at this point, it is the best available science available to look at the environmental service provided by trees. The software was developed by a consortium across the country and is used as a resource both nationally and internationally. As new and better science becomes available, the UFMP will allow the City to take advantage of this new information. Mr. Scott displayed a table which outlines the common urban forestry activities that a city might engage in. The table establishes a benchmark around how City staff currently spends its time related to each of the activities. Implementing the goals and objectives in the plan will likely require changes in these numbers, and the table will need to be updated as work is reprioritized into other areas and/or additional staff is added. He also shared a table outlining how the City currently spends money related to urban forestry. He summarized that in 2017, urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita or a total of $319,542. A minimum of $2 per capita is required in order for the City to maintain its Tree City USA status, and the national average is about $7.50 per capita. The 2017 numbers were higher as a result of the UFMP project, and the City's average in previous years was likely about $3.50. Mr. Scott said it is estimated that the urban tree canopy provides about $1.5 million in benefits to the City annually. That means for every $1 the City invests in urban forestry work, the community yields almost $5 in environmental benefits. The introductory section of the UFMP describes the benefits that trees provide. Cities with street tree inventories can be more specific about these benefits. In the absence of this information, the plan provides examples of the street tree species that are recommended in the City's Street Tree Plan. Some residents have requested that Douglas Fir and other large native trees be added to the plan. However, the focus of the UFMP is to help improve the City's management of trees and that is why it focuses on street trees. Mr. Scott advised that as far as community resources go, the City already has a Tree Board in place, and the City has obtained the status of Tree City USA. Another fundamental element of the plan is to encourage more partnerships and public engagement in the management of the urban forest. As the current tree canopy is significantly weighted towards private properties, partnerships and community outreach will be essential to move the plan forward in a unified direction. About 175 people responded to the community survey, and the majority of them were from the bowl area or other neighborhoods associated with a view. Most voiced concern about private property rights and how the plan might impact their ability to maintain their views. However, the goals contained in the plan are much broader than views and they allow freedom for private property owners to manage trees according to basic environmental rules, city requirements, and their own decisions. Mr. Scott said the public also voiced concern that the plan needs to have more science, and the goals called out in the plan are designed to provide this additional information. As they learn more about the City's urban forest, the plan can be updated accordingly. He emphasized that the plan is not meant to be a research document, but a planning document for the City moving forward. Mr. Scott specifically referred to Urban Asset (UA) Goals UA5 and UA8, which call for managing species diversity and encouraging tree species diversity. Because these goals are closely related, they were combined into a single, more -meaningful goal. He explained that a number of the Municipal Goals contained in the plan are designed to encourage better cooperation amongst the various City departments so that consistent decisions are made. Community Goal (C5) calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. However, it is important to understand that this program would be voluntary for interested property owners to get a tree recognized for its stature and significance to the community. One advantage of the program is that subsequent property owners would at least think about what made the tree so significant to the community before making a decision to take it down. Mr. Scott said another important aspect of the plan is that it establishes a foundation for adaptive management over the next 5 to 10 years. As the City implements, monitors and evaluates the goals over time, adjustments can be made to the strategies for implementation. The intent is that staff would provide routine reports moving forward, with additional community surveys to gauge the success of the plan's implementation. It is anticipated that new science will become available, and the City can establish better objectives to accomplish each of the goals based on this new information. Mr. Scott reviewed that the draft plan was presented to the Tree Board on April 5' and the Planning Board on April 11'. An open house was conducted on April 19t''. Following the public hearing, the Planning Board will be asked to forward a Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a recommendation to the City Council. Revisions will be made to the plan based on community and Planning Board feedback, and the goal is to present it to the City Council for a public hearing and discussion starting in June. Ms. Hope observed that creating the draft UFMP has been a long process, and there are still some clean up work and additional background information that needs to be done. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed 21 goals represent a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of creating a tree inventory, getting organized, keeping track of tree conditions, etc. He asked if the City Departments responsible for this additional work have made plans for implementation or if they are waiting until after the plan has been adopted. Ms. Hope answered that representatives from the Parks, Public Works and Development Services Departments have all been involved in the process and provided detailed input relative to the proposed goals and objectives. Before the plan is presented to the City Council for approval, they are hoping to at least identify the estimated costs associated with implementing the goals and objectives. Some of the objectives can be implemented at little or no cost to the City, such as establishing interdepartmental relationships, but an actual inventory of trees on public lands will be a large project. If the plan is adopted, the City Council will look at the projects and identify priorities. The intent is to implement the plan in phases over time. Ms. Hite advised that, from a Parks Department perspective, the UFMP will be a foundational plan for the City going forward. She appreciates that the consultant has addressed the concerns raised by citizens to date as the plan is polished up. She observed that a number of residents have expressed their love for trees. The Parks Department loves trees, as well, and 348 new trees were planted in 2017. However, it is also important to keep in mind that only 13% of the tree canopy is located on public lands. The need for protecting and even increasing the tree canopy must be balanced with other environmental needs, as well as the budget, view protection and private property rights. There is a robust conversation happening in the community as the UFMP has been presented to the public, and she encouraged people to keep all perspectives in mind as they work to come up with a balanced approach that makes sense for the City. Ms. Hite commented that the goals identified in the draft plan are very ambitious. Short of regulating trees on private property, the plan gives some tools for the City to provide public education and try to influence behaviors. The City does not currently have this capacity. As the plan moves forward, perhaps the City could provide more funding for public outreach and education. The Tree Board does a great job with public education, including a new brochure, but the City could do a lot more. She summarized that the Parks Department supports the goals presented in the plan and believes they will go a long way to help maintain the urban forest. Regarding the proposed arborist position, she advised that the Parks Department recently supported a staff member to get certified to be an arborist, and she now works for the City in that capacity, performing tree evaluations on both private and public lands. While this is not an arborist-dedicated position, it is a value add for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the UFMP is a structure in which Edmonds can look at its urban forest canopy. A focal point of the plan is evaluating and assessing the existing tree canopy. Once this information is available, the City Council can decide if further action is needed in addition to what is already being done concerning trees and vegetation in Edmonds. A lot of items could be added to the plan, but perhaps the City is already addressing them and they just need to be finetuned. For example, there are industry practices associated with street trees to discourage conflict with sidewalks. These are practical standards that the City applies now, but providing an approved street tree list would clarify the issue further. Perhaps it is a matter of framing the information so it gets out to the community. Ms. McConnell said that, in the past, inappropriate street trees were planted. These trees are causing problems with the sidewalks and other infrastructure and need to be dealt with. The Engineering Department was hoping the UFMP would provide additional direction. While preserving and/or enhancing the tree canopy is important, it is also important to recognize that some trees are creating unsafe pedestrian conditions. These trees need to be replaced as part of the overall infrastructure goals. When development occurs on private properties, the City requires frontage improvements, and it may be necessary to remove some trees that are causing damage to existing infrastructure. When planting new street trees, it is important to consider the species, as well as provide a planting strip that is wide enough to accommodate the tree's future growth. The Public Works Department is working with the Parks Department to update the Street Tree Plan to address these types of issues. The UFMP will provide helpful guidelines for the overall City goals, and this will enable staff to work at a more detailed level to make sure the goals are implemented appropriately. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that an approved Street Tree List could also be a valuable tool for private property owners to ensure that trees planted in neighborhoods meet the industry standard. She suggested that the benefits provided by the Street Tree Plan need to be better communicated to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig recognized that the City is already doing good things on behalf of trees and will continue to do so in the future. The UFMP will result in additional future actions. However, the focus of tonight's discussion is regarding the goals and policies in the draft plan. A specific action plan will be addressed at some point in the future after the UFMP has been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Hope referred the Board Members to the written public comments that were attached to the Staff Report and/or forwarded to the Board Members via email. Vice Chair Cheung confirmed that the Board Members received the public comments and read each one prior to the meeting. Board Member Crank referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. Having lived in a community that had a Heritage Tree Designation Program, she observed that a lot of work was required by staff to review petitions from private citizens who wanted to save significant trees that were deemed diseased and/or dangerous by an arborist. It would be good if the City's certified and licensed arborist could handle all of the cases. However, based on the number of petitions the City might receive, it may be necessary to have a full-time arborist on staff. Ms. Hope responded that the City has discussed the concept, but they are not ready to propose a specific program at this time. She agreed that some cities have done a good job, but other programs have resulted in a lot of hassle with little value. Mr. Scott explained that the method for evaluating the risk of a tree to cause injury or harm to individual properties has improved. For example, the risk assessment method approved by the International Society of Arbiculturists provides an objective method for evaluating trees. Board Member Robles asked about the City's method for allowing property owners to report on the condition of existing trees on their properties. He also asked how citizens interact with the City when they have questions about trees. Ms. Hope said that, typically, citizens either call or email City staff to report a concern or obtain additional information, and staff responds to each one. Ms. Hite added that her department gets quite a few calls and emails about trees in the parks, as well. She appreciates having the eyes of the citizens to help spot potentially hazardous situations and report them to the City. Board Member Robles commented that the City has a strong activist community regarding trees. He asked if the City has the capability to allow citizens to self -report tree assets and conditions on a centralized data base. Mr. Scott answered that work management software is available that allows citizens to self -report essential infrastructure, but trees are more difficult because they grow and appreciate over time. Because there is so much public interest in trees, software is available that allows people to look up trees to find out more information about them. This information could be made publicly assessible and potentially reduce the number of site visits needed by city officials responding to calls. Board Member Robles explained that there are ways, such as using a block change, which acts as a metronome that klicks off every data that goes onto the register. This concept could be used to the City's advantage to offer a token (a type of cryptographic coin) when private property owners report on their trees. Property owners could also earn tokens for preserving trees, and these tokens could be used when applying for permits in the future. Using this type of concept, the City could track trees and incentivize people to preserve them whenever possible. Ann Cade, Edmonds, said she missed the previous meetings where the UFMP was discussed because THE EDMONDS BEACON is delivered to her home on Thursdays, after the meetings had already taken place. She asked why a tree inventory is needed and what benefit it would provide to the City. She said her concern is not just about views, but about light and warmth. She does not want to live in a shoreline that is cold and void of sunlight as a result of too many large trees. She referred to a statement that was made at an earlier meeting, suggesting that other vegetation can provide similar benefits to those provided by tall trees. People can vegetate their yards and create oxygen exchange. While she considers herself to be a "tree hugger," she felt there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl. If the City wants to plant tall trees, she suggested that a strip of land adjacent to Edmonds Way would be a good location since they would not block views. Phyllis Becker, Edmonds, said she has lived most of her life in the Northwest. As any Northwesterner knows, the forest is the forest. The idea of an urban forest is an oxymoron. Forests have huge trees and existed in Edmonds 100 years ago. But now Edmonds is an urban center. She agreed with Ms. Cade that there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl area. She Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 felt that Douglas Fir and other large species are inappropriate in areas where view is a concern. These trees belong in the forest where they do better. There are millions of alternative species that could be planted that would not impact views. She said she currently has a small view that is precious to her and she would like it to be preserved. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, noted that this is the third time he has been before the Board to voice his concerns relative to trees. He agreed there is a lot to consider relative to views, but the Board should keep in mind that the majority of households in Edmonds do not have a view of the water. Most of the views people have are of trees, and trees are what brought him to Edmonds. He recalled that a few years ago, his neighbor cut down three huge Douglas Fir trees. While he previously could see only one neighbor from his deck, he can now see at least five homes. Removal of these trees directly impacted his property. Mr. Phipps commented that a lot of people love trees and the urban forest, and he suggested that Community Goal C1, which calls for establishing a tree bank, is the most important goal and key to answering the question of what tree canopy the City wants to have. Once this question is answered, the rest will follow. He said he hopes the City will choose to have a net gain in tree canopy and decide against allowing further loss. He noted that there are not many places to plant trees in the City, and he supports the recommendation of establishing a tree bank to avoid the controversy associated with views. As long as trees are planted somewhere in the Puget Sound basin, they would be environmentally beneficial to all. It does not necessarily have to take place in Edmonds. Almost 6% of the City's urban forest has been lost since 2005. It would be great if the City could require that a tree be planted for every tree that is chopped down to accommodate development. A tree bank program would allow the replacement trees to be planted outside of Edmonds where they won't impact views but would provide an environmental benefit. Mr. Phipps reminded the Board that 83% of the City's current tree canopy is on private property. Many cities have tree ordinances, including Lynnwood and Shoreline, that apply to private properties, too. Whether the City adopts a UFMP or a tree ordinance, it would be very important not to impact views from private properties. Tall trees should not be planted in the bowl area. He did not believe that the strip of land west of 9' Avenue on the west facing slope would be a politically viable place to plant large trees given concerns about view. That is why the tree bank concept is so important. Mr. Phipps voiced concern that development has resulted in wholesale logging of land. Once these forested areas are gone, they cannot be reclaimed. He would like the City's Parks Department to make a concerted effort to purchase more open space and forested land to preserve forever. The property east of Seaview Park (between Seaview Park and Perrinville) is a good example of forested land that should be purchased by the City and preserved. He also stressed the need for the City to acknowledge the problems that street trees have created. Injuries have occurred when people have tripped over sidewalks that were raised by tree roots. Some research needs to be done to determine not only the appropriate species, but also the best planting practices. For example, the City of Seattle uses a double grate approach. The first grate is placed at the root level, and the second a foot higher at the sidewalk level. This gives the roots of the trees space to grow without impacting the sidewalks. Eric Soll, Edmonds, referred the Board to a letter he submitted prior to the meeting. He advised that since he and his wife moved to Edmonds they have planted a number of trees on their property without the benefit of any government interaction or education. The tree population in the United States is increasing due to a number of factors outlined in his letter. Because of government legislation, more trees are being saved in other areas. A lot of development is taking place in Edmonds because the Growth Management Act has restricted development opportunities in rural areas. Because development is being pushed to the urban areas, trees in the rural areas are being saved. Mr. Soll emphasized that the Board and City Council do not operate in a vacuum. They just underwent the largest property tax increase in recent memory. In addition, the library measure failed in Snohomish County and only narrowly passed in Edmonds. Government agencies must realize that people are getting tapped out in terms of spending money, and they should concentrate on traditional city functions. He urged the City to recognize that the good times will not last forever, and they should work to establish a rainy -day fund for future needs. Lastly, he said he is fine with the idea of people establishing Heritage Trees on their properties, but he does not want the City to require him to do so on his property. Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, said he also submitted written comments prior to the meeting. He referred to Ms. Hite's earlier comment about the need for a balance between the environmental benefits of trees and views. For his job he writes environmental impact statements, which takes a wholistic analysis of environmental benefits, including a section on aesthetics. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 A very important part of the environmental impact statement is the scenic value, which quite definitely includes views. He said he was born and raised in Edmonds and moved back six years ago after spending time in a variety of other locations. Most recently, he lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where there are not a lot of trees. He moved back to Edmonds because of the benefit of trees to the aesthetics of the area, but also for the view. You can travel around the country and will not find a similar view in any of the lower 48 states. It is a unique resource that needs to be considered as part of any discussion about aesthetics. Mr. Dimmick voiced concern that the science contained in the draft plan is weak and does not reflect the unique character of Edmonds. He urged the Board to reject the plan and hold the consultant accountable to produce a real plan rather than a cut and paste plan from other jurisdictions. The Plan needs to have a scientific basis with transparent numbers that can be cross- checked. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for 50 years. While she agreed that most people love the view of the water that is available in Edmonds, she was present to speak on behalf of the eagles and herons that roost and feed in the beautiful evergreen trees. This iconic image is as precious to her as the view of the water, which she also enjoys. She said she is in favor of the City finding any way to preserve the existing evergreen trees, and she is also in favor of no net loss and would like to see some gain. She said there are 7 huge trees on her property of the species that has been referred to as inappropriate in an urban setting. She hires an arborist to inspect the trees every few years to make sure they are safe and healthy. These trees continue to thrive and provide a great service to wildlife, and they are an important part of Edmonds. Val Stewart, Bellevue, said she was a citizen of Edmonds for 30 years before recently moving to Bellevue, which is known for being a "city in the park." The City of Bellevue has proactively planted trees, similar to what is being suggested in the draft plan for Edmonds. Bellevue currently has a lot of trees that help improve the quality of life for its citizens, and the parks are amazing. Bellevue is four times the sizes of Edmonds in population and land mass, but they have a 67% tree canopy in their parks. By comparison, the City of Edmonds has only 13%. She said she was shocked to learn that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property. Ms. Stewart expressed her belief that the draft plan is well put together, but she is concerned that there is not enough focus on the northwest ecosystem, which is very specific. She advised that she started the Students Saving Salmon Group at Edmonds Woodway High School, and they do water quality testing and help educate home owners about native vegetation on the streams. It is important that the plan encourage native trees wherever possible in the urban forest. She noted that there are currently five dominant trees species in Yost Park, which is the only park that shows what a native ecosystem should look like. That is where she takes students to teach them about native ecosystems in the urban forests. Ms. Stewart suggested the plan should encourage home owners to plant native trees in their yards, and there are a number of species that are smaller in size to avoid issues with view. Planting native trees on private properties would help bridge the fragmented forests throughout the community for the benefit of wildlife. She said she lived in Edmonds long enough to see the tree canopy diminish over time. As trees have been cut down, the amount of wildlife has also diminished. If this continues, the children growing up in Edmonds will not have a connection to wildlife unless they go to a park. She agreed with the plan's emphasis on education and outreach to help local citizens see and understand the reasons to plant native trees where they can. Ms. Stewart suggested that the plan should make note of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program that received certification about 10 years ago after 100s of Edmonds residents certified their yards and made a commitment to provide food, shelter, water and a place for wildlife to raise their young. She suggested that this community effort needs to be revived, and this could help improve the canopy on private lands. Lastly, Ms. Stewart referred to a statement in the plan that "tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity. " It is important to understand that when a 100-year-old tree is taken down, it will take many human generations to replace its ecosystem function. Vice Chair Cheung closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Rosen thanked the residents for sharing their thoughts and concerns with the Board. Their comments are important and do matter, and the Board is listening. In listening to the public testimony and reading the written comments, it is clear that the public wants it all. They want to preserve views of water and trees, create biodiversity, protect and improve Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a water and air quality, protect property rights, and provide habitat for wildlife. They seem to like trees as long as they don't get in the way of anything. He commented that not all factors are equal, and the Planting Priority Analysis Map was created with the right perspective in mind. It was a noble effort to identify areas where trees could be planted to increase the canopy. Everyone can likely agree that they don't want houses to slide down the hillside, and this requires stabilization whether by trees or some other method. Board Member Rosen said he would advocate for increasing the tree canopy over a no -net -loss approach. He would encourage a more sophisticated goal setting specific to preservation. While this will be a heavy lift, the plan is a good place to start. The plan identifies a vision and strong goals and objectives to implement the vision, and course corrections can be made at every opportunity based on new information, changing conditions, etc. He felt the plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs stronger goals, and perhaps they could be stated differently. Additional scientific information is needed to clarify the problem and solutions. The plan speaks only about trees, yet there is a variety of vegetation that can help the City accomplish its goal. The need exists and it must be addressed or the consequences will be severe and significant. Board Member Lovell observed that implementing the goals and objectives called out in the plan will involve a significant amount of staff time. He agreed with Board Member Rosen that additional study is needed in some areas. There has been a lot of feedback with respect to narrowing the tree species down to be more applicable to the environment. Questions have also been raised about whether or not it is realistic to increase the tree canopy, and he is not sure there is a universal belief or understanding that the tree benefit calculations will actually work. He agreed with the finding that a tree inventory is needed to document the existing tree canopy. A number of people commented on the importance of view preservation, but it must be noted that there are more views than just of the water. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to preserve public views, which means they need to be careful what they plan for the view corridors. Board Member Lovell referred to Municipal Goal M6, which calls for creating a dedicated Urban Forest/Arborist staff position. He also referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. While they all understand it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the City to regulate what private property owners can and cannot do on their properties, there are things the City can do to educate about maintaining and planting trees. For example, would it would be possible for a full-time arborist to be on call to address situations where a private property owner wants to remove a tree that is blocking a view or is a nuisance? It seems like there should be a process and some type of inspection done by a professional to identify the appropriate way to handle the situation. Board Member Lovell observed that, typically, a development plan for multi -family residential development will take advantage of as much area as possible, and the tendency is to clear-cut the lot and then replant after development is finished. If the City is serious about preservation and the importance of maintaining the mature trees, there should be a process whereby each site is looked at with respect to the potential retention of trees. He also expressed his belief that the City should renew or bump up its efforts to address street trees that interfere with sidewalks and other infrastructure. Board Member Robles commented that risks and hazards are quite easy to manage if there are adequate standards in place. However, you must first identify the risk exposure, as well as the probability and consequences should it happen. This all starts with some form of inventory. It does not need to be a complete inventory; it could even be as sample inventory. They have a strong citizen base and people who are interested in trees but no way to receive their input. There are a lot of tools available to receive comments on a shared -data base and to incentivize certain behaviors. He cautioned that before the City considers additional regulations, it should try to incentivize desirable behaviors. Understanding technology is necessary to learn what is available, and he hopes the City can look forward rather than backward to take advantage of these new tools rather than creating additional regulations that end up infringing on private property rights. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the plan contains a set of facts and information, some of which came from other jurisdictions. The City Council will have to ultimately decide whether or not the facts are true and applicable to Edmonds. They must also decide if the current tree canopy is sufficient or not. Decisions need to be made about whether it is a serious enough issue to adopt the UFMP and preserve or increase the tree canopy. In the comments from the public, as well as the information presented in the plan and in the Staff Report, she particularly liked the following ideas: • Licensing companies providing tree cutting services to limit the scare tactics of storm damage control. • Providing incentives for private land practices to increase the tree canopy. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a • Overseeing a regulatory overhaul of the tree -related ordinances. This could include a review of the development regulations to increase the preservation of existing trees and reviewing the landscape provisions to promote improving and increasing the tree canopy. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other cities, such as Redmond and Kirkland, have used more stringent tree policies to successfully create larger tree canopies than what currently exists in Edmonds. Again, she said it will be up to the City Council to determine whether or not the plan contains the facts and describes the seriousness of what is taking place in Edmonds. She said she heard some very interesting points that are shaping her view a bit differently, and she appreciates the ability to see things from a variety of perspectives. Vice Chair Cheung commented that there are a lot of competing priorities to consider. Most people do not hate trees, and most do not cut them down for fun. Trees are typically cut down to accommodate development or because they are creating a hazard or causing damage to property. In addition to increasing the tree canopy, these other factors must be considered to ensure pedestrian safety and to protect properties and infrastructure. Most of the tree canopy is located on private property, and the City must balance the need to preserve trees with the need to protect private property rights. He said a number of large trees have been removed on private properties in his neighborhood over the last five years. One was growing into a home and damaging the structure, and another was covering the sidewalk and creating a dangerous situation. Again, heh said people usually have a reason for cutting down a tree. Education and guidance on how developers and property owners can build around a tree rather than remove it would be helpful. Perhaps the City could provide examples of how projects were accomplished without removing significant trees. Vice Chair Cheung cautioned that the City must be reasonable. It cannot put such strict regulations in place that developers cannot build in the City. He reminded the Board of ongoing discussions about the need for affordable housing and placing additional restrictions on development could be counterintuitive to this effort. He said he also has some concerns about how scientific the report is. He summarized that a lot of people are passionate about trees, and others are more passionate about views or development. They need to be respective of all and recognize there is not a clear solution. Hopefully, they can come up with a plan and goals and objects that balance all of these interests. Board Member Crank said the UFMP process has been an interesting experience for her, coming from living 16 years in a Tree City with a similar plan in place and seeing the spectrum of how community members respond to it to actually being on the side of creating and putting a plan in place. As the plan develops, she hopes that it will be user-friendly. Those who have weighed in on the issue to date have been more highly invested than the average homeowner will be. The everyday person will not spend as much time and energy to review the plan and see how it would apply to them. As the plan goes from draft to permanent, it is important that it be drafted to be as user-friendly as possible. The education process needs to be easy to understand and ideas need to be presented in a way that does not require a lot of time and energy to understand. It needs to be user-friendly to the majority of the City's population. Board Member Lovell asked about the next step in the process. Ms. Hope said they initially anticipated presenting the plan to the City Council, along with the Board's recommendation, on June 19', but this might not be possible. The Board is scheduled to continue its discussion on May 23'. In the meantime, staff will work with the consultant to update the plan and provide additional background information. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Cheung advised that the Board's May 23rd meeting agenda will include a continued discussion and possible recommendation on the draft UFMP, a discussion about the next steps on code updates to permit decision making, and an introduction of the draft housing strategy. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Student Representative Livingston commented that there are a lot of mature trees around the Edmonds Woodway High School and not a lot of space to plant new ones. It would be great if the existing trees could be retained. The Board received a lot of good comments from citizens about potential places to plant trees in Edmonds to enlarge the canopy. They are currently not at the maximum canopy, and there were a lot of good ideas about how it could be expanded. Board Member Robles commented that a lot of things are working well in the City, and he enjoys seeing it everyday as he works in downtown Edmonds. The new construction is very attractive. Board Member Lovell announced that he would attend the Economic Development Commission's May 161 meeting Board Member Crank announced that she was appointed to the Paine Field Commission Airport Commission. A tour of the existing facility is scheduled for June 1st, and the commission's first meeting will take place on June 2111. She said she looks forward to participating on the commission and reporting back to the Board on what is happening. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2018 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Report is attached Attachments: Director. Re po rt.05.18.18 Packet Pg. 13 F E Q-A,, 5.A.a Date: To: From: Subject MEMORANDUM May 18, 2018 Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report Behold, my friends, the spring is come; the earth has gladly received the embraces of the sun, and we shall soon see the results of their love! —Sitting Bull Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board's meeting on May 23. It will include an introduction to the Discussion Draft Housing Strategy and a follow-up on the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan. Also, information will be provided for addressing a prior resolution of the City Council, related to the quasi-judicial process. REGIONAL NEWS Washington Ferries A long-range plan for the ferry system is being updated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. A series of public meetings has been held around the region. If you're unable to attend the meeting, you can view open house materials and provide WDOT with your comments through their online open house<https://wsflongrangeplan.com/> until May 24. You also may want to complete their survey at: http://sgiz.mobi/s3/WSF-Long-Range-Plan-Survey. LOCAL NEWS Housing Strategy Open House An open house on the draft Housing Strategy will be held Monday May 21, 6:00 to 7:30 pm in the Brackett Room of City Hall. A presentation is planned to begin at about 6:45 pm. Before the presentation, people can view display boards about the draft strategy and talk with staff or the project consultant. For more information on the housing strategy process, see: www.edmondshousingstrategy.org. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB has no meetings scheduled in May. Arts Commission The Arts Commission will meet next on June 4. An agenda will be posted online when available. Cemetery Board The Cemetery Board met on May 17. The agenda included: ❑ Cemetery Sales and Burials ❑ Financial Report ❑ Memorial Day ❑ Walk Back in Time discussion Climate Protection Committee The Climate Protection Committee will meet on June 7. An agenda will be posted online when available. Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission meets next on June 6. An agenda will be posted online when available. Economic Development Commission (EDC) The Economic Development Commission met on May 16. The agenda included: ❑ Development Feasibility ❑ Art — Creative District application process ❑ Civic Facilities update ❑ Affordable Housing ❑ Priorities for 2018 Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner has no meetings scheduled for May. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission meets next on June 14 for a public hearing on a site nominated for the Historic Register. An agenda will be posted online when available. Tree Board The Tree Board' next meeting is on June 7. An agenda will be posted online when available. City Council The City Council's May 8 meeting included the following: ❑ Presentations: o Public Works Week Proclamation o National Police Week Proclamation 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 15 5.A.a o Friends of the Edmonds Library Presentation o Regional Fire Authority Presentation re: Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector ❑ Public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Map designation amendment (concurrence to move it forward for final decision) ❑ Approval of Final Unit Lot Subdivision for Brackett's Corner ❑ Review of Comprehensive Plan performance & implementation ❑ Review of proposed work plan and resolution for Shoreline Master Program periodic review (with decision, expected soon to move forward on the review process) ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance Report COMMUNITY CALENDAR • May 17: Edmonds Art Walk, 5 — 8 pm • May 19: Health & Fitness Fair, 7600 2121" St SW, 9 am — 12 pm • May 19: Armed Forces Day • May 28: Memorial Day Program, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery @ 820 151" St SW, 11 am • May 28: City Hall is closed in honor of Memorial Day • June 1: Waterfront Festival, Port of Edmonds, 3 pm • June 2: Waterfront Festival 5K, Edmonds Civic Field, 9 am to 11 am • June 14: Flag Day • June 15 — 17: Edmonds Arts Festival, Frances Anderson Center, 10 am • June 16: Summer Market begins, 51" & Main, 9 am — 3:00 pm 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 16 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2018 Recommendation for Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Trees are an important part of life in Edmonds and our region. They provide both aesthetic and environmental value. They complement our buildings, streets, parks, and other city features. Of course, having the right trees in the right place and managing/maintaining them must be considered too. Edmonds is designated as a "Tree City USA" city. It has a citizen Tree Board. A Street Tree Plan and parts of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Park Recreation & Open Space Plan, identify the value of trees and guide tree selection in public places. About three years ago, the Tree Board recommended an ordinance that proposed significant requirements related to trees on private property. The Planning Board considered the recommended ordinance and noted various concerns about its impacts. Ultimately, the Planning Board recommended that the ordinance not be adopted but that an urban forest management plan be developed prior to considering next steps. The City Council concurred and provided funding for the development of an urban forest management plan. This action was specifically called out in the Comprehensive Plan as a step the City was committed to doing in the near term. Since then, a consultant was selected to assist the City with this project. Particular (but not exclusive) emphasis was on planting and caring for trees in public places and on educating the public about the importance of planting appropriate trees and how to care for them. Preliminary efforts included not only research about the city's "urban forest" (i.e., trees in the city) but sought public awareness and input. This outreach included: Press releases and news articles Meeting with the Tree Board Meeting with the Planning Board Public open house Public hearing Online survey (posted for 3 months) Special Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) website with information and updates about the project. On March 13, the Draft UFMP was released. It is posted on the City's UFMP website, available from the home page, or at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development_Services/Planning_ Division/Plans/UFMP/EdmondsWA-UFMP-2018_03_12-PagesWEB.pdf. The Tree Board held a public meeting on April 5 to hear a presentation on the draft UFMP and have discussion. The Tree Board had subsequent discussion at its May meeting. The Planning Board had an Packet Pg. 17 7.A introduction to the draft UFMP on April 11. A public hearing of the Planning Board was held May 9. Staff Recommendation For the Planning Board to recommend that the draft plan be moved forward, with any minor corrections, for approval by the City Council. Narrative The Draft UFMP discusses the urban forest and its values. It identifies the current tree canopy coverage as about 30.3% of the city's land area. The draft also discusses city resources for tree management. It proposes 22 objectives, each with a set of actions to implement it. These objectives are: 1. Maintain citywide canopy coverage 2. Identify key areas to increase canopy 3. Manage tree population age distribution for diversity in city parks and rights -of -way 4. Plant suitable trees and schedule phased replacement for unsuitable trees 5. Manage for species diversity on city property and rights -of -way 6. Conduct an inventory of public trees and document tree conditions and risks 7. Document ecosystem provided by public trees 8. Encourage tree species diversity 9. Maintain a routinely -updated UFMP 10. Perform a periodic review of tree ordinances 11. Train staff to maintain expertise and professional qualifications 12. Plant trees annually 13. Update Street Tree Plan 14. Create a dedicated staff position for an urban forester/arborist 15. Establish a formal interdepartmental working team (for managing trees on public properties and rights -of -way) 16. Update development regulations to ensure appropriate language for protecting trees and/or the tree canopy as part of the development process 17. Establish a tree bank fund 18. Provide outreach to arborist businesses licensed in Edmonds 19. Coordinate efforts of the City, Citizens Tree Board, and other interested groups to participate and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events 20. Maintain the Citizens' Tree Board 21. Establish a Heritage Tree designation 22. Formalize relationships with organizations that share common objectives impacting urban forest sustainability The draft UFMP is expected to be updated for a few more clarifications/corrections, photos and approximate funding levels before being brought to the City Council in June. NOTE: A slightly revised draft will be posted next week, ahead of the Planning Board's May 23 meeting. Attachments: Att. 1: EdmondsWA-UFMP-2018_05 Att. 2: Comment Letters Packet Pg. 18 .OF Ur 14W 6 �6 AJL6J A KW.WMI" r vir -iA• a Ur an Forest M DRAFT May 20 ,anagement Plan 18 apm, 7.A.a c m FL c N E w am m c m d L 0 U- C m L m L L 0 0 4+ m C d E E 0 u NN LPL r a Packet Pg. 20 7.A.a City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan DRAFT May 2018 4,0C. 1 s9v 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. 21 7.A.a 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 ED- O DAVEY#. �. Resource Group Inc. t,goo Packet Pg. 22 7.A.a 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 .9wA 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. 23 7.A.a 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. 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. 24 7.A.a 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. 25 7.A.a 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. 26 Land Cover 7.A.a Wa T Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover i Tfee CorbopY GfassJLowr•Lyinq \ftaation impervious su[faoes Eke re i Open wafer A .anopy npervious 34 Map 1: Land Cover F _} n. 1' y 4" r -17. LO 0 co N d U- R Q fA C O E W r Q r c a� E U R Q Executive Summary, Packet Pg. 27 7.A.a 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. 28 7.A.a 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. 29 7.A.a 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. 30 7.A.a 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. 32 r - i■Ab� ate• L • y ; } }Y • _ �U" ,t �r�'L� _' 'At. - L Y ' � M1 �J.a A F• a y`� F ' � � I ' k a' ?i 'if • L 3{ L i }a'% i i • {i M1 i t LA � K '• _ k4� af. _ }a.� '� w�T pia �`vNti 21 • � -F F _ k ' _ F- 0?11 •} '• '. dv� Overall Overall Benefits ifv InterceptStormwater Common Name Scientific Name Stormwater Benefits cared for to 13" Value + Runoff (gallons) 7.A.a 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). Bowhall Maple Columnar Norway maple Chanticleer pear Goldspire ginko prachaun ash Japanese stewartia 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 Acerrubrum 'Bowhall' Acer platanoides $106.00 $144.00 193 $0.61 'Columnare' Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' $48.0 Ginkobiloba'Blagon' $76.00 $119.00 186 $0.59 Frax►nus pennsylvanica 'Johnson' $83.00 $124.00 $0.52 stewartia pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 195 $0.62 11 Introduction Packet Pg. 34 7.A.a 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 prachaun 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 $142.00 26 $1.31 Acer platanoides $106.00 $144.00 22 $1.15 'Columnare' Pyrus calleryana $68.00EJEEL $1.22 Chanticleer'148.00 Ginko biloba 'Blagon' $76.00 $119.00 18 $0.91 Fraxinus pennsy vanica $83.00 124.00 Johnson' Stewartia $33.00 $63.00 12 $0.61 pseudocamellia 0 i CO 0 N d R a U) r_ 0 w r r Q c CD E 0 M a Introductior 12 Packet Pg. 35 7.A.a 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 Columnar Norway maple Chanticleer pear Goldspire ginko Wrachaun as Japanese stewartia Acer rubrum 'Bowhall' Acer platanoides 'Columnare' Pyrus calleryana ,�hanticleer' Ginko biloba 'Blagon' Fraxinus pennsylvanica Johnson' $95.00 $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. 36 7.A.a 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 T 166 $70.67 Japanese stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 61 $25.93 LO 0 00 0 N a w R Q c 0 E w Q r c a� CU a Introduction 1-. Packet Pg. 37 7.A.a 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. 38 7.A.a ul O co I 0 N d Q c 0 E w a E a Introduction 16 Packet Pg. 39 7.A.a 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. 40 7.A.a 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. 0 I CO 0 N d U- R a U) c 0 E w r a+ Q c as E ca a What Do We Have? 18 Packet Pg. 41 7.A.a 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. 42 7.A.a 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. fO LO 0 co Co N d w R c 0 E w r Q c a� CU a What Do We Have' 2v Packet Pg. 43 7.A.a 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. 44 7.A.a 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. 45 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 7.A.a • 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) !•tea �' — C Z � �' dertk TZ Rr del •f_ i.�ti +fir•' '-•�`i �� •rS_ •r Flo _ b . ' - - , . _ `,-, . - ' . .ti _ � 'N sty'•{ ati - '1 2.3 what Do we Have? Packet Pg. 46 Land Cover Wa 7c Bare Soils 2% Grass/Vegetation 27% Figure 1: Land Cover .anopy ripervious 34% T r Tfee Corbopy Gfasiwtow-Lyinq \ftawion Impervious surtaofts Ekere S:>d Open waier Map 1: Land Cover What Do We Have? 24 FPacket Pg. 47 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 -4 0 *WW 0 0! 0110". Il .7 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 � s; t ' 1 Y ti_ T i • K ' �• r y F # w r y Y� I } RF i' { • k. t 4. # } } L. ge L' ti i r + ' L� M 1 — • .+ •' - - • • L fi ] . - - �99r, ' r TY 25 What Do We Have? Packet Pg. 48 7.A.a Forest Fragmentation Patch Forest 56% Core Forest 10% OWND; Perforated Fo rest 8% ;iL Edge Forest 26% Figure 2: Forest Fragmentation F5NC Forest Edge FQre5i Perfcrate�j Forest Core ForesL a W. uO o� 0 0 N d R Q c 0 E w a E a $, Map 2: Forest Fragmentation What Do We Have? 26 Packet Pg. 49 7.A.a 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 (greater than 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. 50 7.A.a Tree Canopy By Park Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Name o,a, .. •. CanopyPark Snohomish creW 118.55 117.05 98.73 99.47 County Park Yost Memorial 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45 Park Meadowdale�J"5.16 98.50 99.77 Beach Park Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66 imonds Marsh 1 Under 15% 15% M% - 45% 45 - $'4% Oyer 1�0% 0 Q - Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park What Do We Have? 28 Packet Pg. 51 LO 0 T" Co N Cd G LL N c 0 E w Q c a� E U R Q 7.A.a 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 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. 52 7.A.a 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 0. C; 10. 76 58.64 8.65 2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01 11733 8.89 29.85 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80 o� 00 r 0 N a 2 U_ R a U) 0 E w r a+ a+ Q a-� c W E ca a What Do We Have? 30 Packet Pg. 53 7.A.a Priority Planting With over 1,651 additional acres of potential planting sites, a system is needed to prioritize the areas that will yield the highest returns. DRG identified priority planting sites based on possible planting sites and then compared how a tree planted in these sites would impact several environmental benefits (Table 10). These benefits are related to stormwater interception and erosion control, urban heat islands, and proximity to tree canopy. Increasing the number and size of trees in high priority sites will yield the highest return on investment. Sites were given an overall priority rank based on a composite of these environmental factors and the averages were binned into five (5) classes. Higher numbers indicate a higher priority for planting. These classes ranged from Very Low to Very High (Table 11). Trees planted in the next several years should be planted in areas where they will provide the most benefits and return on investment. Avery low priority area is one where planting a tree will do little to impact stormwater, heat islands, and environmental Table 10: Factors Used to Prioritize Tree Planting Sites L. Proximity to Urban Tree Canopy 0.30 Hardscape Assessment National Elevation Sloe p 0.25 Dataset National Hydrologic Road Density 0.15 Dataset Soil Natural Resource 0.10 Permeability Conservation Service Soil Erosion 1 Natural Resource 0.10 (K-factor) Conservation Service Canopy Urban Tree Canopy 0.10 Fragmentation Assessment conditions. Avery high priority planting site likely has high rankings in at least two factors, and thus tree planting in these areas is highly strategic, addressing multiple urban issues at once (Map 4). LO 0 CO I CO N d U- R Q fA C O E W r r Q r C O E t V R Q 31 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 54 7.A.a Priority Planting Areas Table 11: Priority Planting Level Acres High Very High = Very Low Moderate High = Very High 0 Miles Map 4: Priority Planting Areas What Do We Have? 32 Packet Pg. 55 7.A.a Overall Benefits 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, NOz, 03, SOZ, and PIVIJI valued at $146,823. • Sequesters 6,294 tons of carbon, valued at $221,885 annually. :F Figure 4: Overall Environmental Benefits Stormwater Management 76% Sequestration 14% Air Quality 10% LO O 0 I o N IL LL Q fA C O E W r Q r C O E t v R Q 33 what Do We Have? Packet Pg. 56 7.A.a 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? 34 Packet Pg. 57 7.A.a 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. 58 7.A.a 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 �Forest Relate�dActivitie D 1 Estimated Hours per Development plan review for Week* 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 Meetings related to trees 1 0 I 0 0 N aL u_ R a c O E W r r Q c aD E t ca Q What Do we Have? 36 Packet Pg. 59 7.A.a 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. 60 7.A.a r Q What Do We Have? 38 Packet Pg. 61 7.A.a 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 ri 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. 62 7.A.a 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. Douglas -fir Tussock Moth LO 0 co o N a w R Q c 0 E w r r Q r c a� E 0 R Q What Do We Have Packet Pg. 63 7.A.a 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. 64 7.A.a 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. 65 7.A.a 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 FOUSM 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. 66 7.A.a 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. 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. 67 7.A.a r � future wise � 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. ���� � ��� EIRI�T�I�T�' 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. '��Rz . �� - _: �� �. _ ' ti i i � ..� F'�- 'yam '� •4,.r' i � r � �w � �� � s +J� r � .� L �� � � +` ` 1 .' a •1 •mac �` } '�• � � . L .�.i� � rt + -�"' � • � � 'a � '� i _`_ 4Jr What Do We Have? 0 i r O N a N C W Q C N t V f� r Q Packet Pg. 68 7.A.a 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. LO 0 CO CO N d LL R Q fA C O E W r Q r C O E t V R Q What Do We Have? 46 Packet Pg. 69 7.A.a 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. 70 7.A.a 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: • RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When the Administrator determines that it is infeasible to replace trees on the site, payment into the City's Urban Forestry Program fund may be approved in an amount of money approximating the current market value of the replacement trees and the labor to install them. The City shall determine the value of replacement trees. http://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/RentonO4O4/ Renton0404130.html City of Port Angeles 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): • 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: • Increasing public awareness of trees and the urban forest • Drawing attention to and protecting unique and significant trees • Reinforcing how trees are one of the key components of a city's unique character and sense of place • Engaging citizens with the purpose and activities of a city's urban forestry program • Encouraging public participation in the identification and perpetuation of heritage trees throughout the City a What Do We Have? 48 Packet Pg. 71 7.A.a 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. 72 7.A.a 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. 73 7.A.a 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. 74 7.A.a %-�O k n1!Pits II O 00 I r O N (L w R a U) 0 E w r a+ a+ Q C N E t V r r Q What Do We Want? 52 Packet Pg. 75 7.A.a 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. 76 7.A.a 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 LO 0 eo I Co N i1 w R Q c 0 E w r Q r c 0 E a Q What Do We Want? 5&% Packet Pg. 77 7.A.a 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% 10% 0% 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 Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the (Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear) but not necessarily every tree) Maintenance Expectations 55 what Do We want? None -Keep them natural Packet Pg. 78 7.A.a 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. 79 7.A.a 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. 80 . � + � ', � � .. .L � � .. � _ i ' y,�-_ � art_ tE+ 4.4 di SIL mom -4 M. 1* 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. SA Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 59 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 82 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. 83 7.A.a 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. 84 7.A.a 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. 85 7.A.a 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. 86 7.A.a 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' v&% Packet Pg. 87 7.A.a 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. 88 7.A.a Objectives Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: a How Do We Get There? 66 Packet Pg. 89 Municipal Resource Goals Objectives Municipal Goal #M1- Maintain a Routinely -Updated Urban Forest Management Plan Performance Measure - Management Plan Age and Frequency of Revisions 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. Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 67 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 90 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. 91 7.A.a 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. 92 7.A.a 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. 93 7.A.a 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. 94 7.A.a 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. 95 7.A.a 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. 96 7.A.a 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. 97 Community Resource Goals Objectives Am*h_,� 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. 7.A.a -M"A Priority, Time, Cost Priority: Time: TBD Cost: 75 How Do We Get There? Packet Pg. 98 7.A.a 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. 99 7.A.a 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. 100 7.A.a 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. 101 7.A.a 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. 102 7.A.a 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. 103 7.A.a 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. 104 7.A.a PLACEHOLDER: Picture a How Are We Doing? 82 Packet Pg. 105 7.A.a 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. 106 7.A.a 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 Appendices 84 Packet Pg. 107 7.A.a 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. 108 7.A.a 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. 109 7.A.a 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. 110 7.A.a Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Strongly Agree 74.86% 13JI Agree 21.71% 38 Disagree 2.299/.M 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 4.57% 8 5.14% 9 13.71% 24 21.71% 38 36.57% 64 25.71% 45 8.57% 15 8.57% 15 17.14% 30 28.57% 50 45 22.29% 39 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 14.29%jA 26.86% 47 36.00% 63 12.57% 22 0.00% 0 49.71% 87 5.71% 10 29.71% 52 10.86% 19 0.00% 0 175 2.88 175 3.3 1175 0 0 0 00 I 0 N d u_ R Q Cn C 0 E w a C CD E M 0 Appendices 88 Packet Pg. 111 7.A.a 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% 42 11.43% 20 Shaded Parking 2.86% 5 3.43% 6 8.57% 15 9.71% 17 Improve r MLand neighborhoods 5�% 9 10.29% 1 % 22 13.71% 24 Increased Property Values 1 4.00% 7 5.14% 9 5.14% 9 9.71% 17 Passive recreati .0 9 6.86% 12 12.00% 21 Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14% 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. 112 7.A.a Question 3 (Extended) 15.43% 27 9.71% 17 6.86% 12 2.29% 4 lr175 5.39 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 17.71% 31 19.43 % 34 29.71% 52 8.57% 15 175 3.03 %34 189% 32 14.29% 25 6.29% 11 175 4.25 10.29% 18 13.71% 24 22.86% 20.00% 40 35 29.140%o 21.71 51 175 3.05 15.43% 27 14.86% 26 13.71% 24 13.14% 23 9.71% 17 6.29% 11 175 4.89 Answered 175 Skipped i Question 5 (Extended) 36.69% 62 23.67% 40 52.07% 88 a c W E 14.79% 25 a Appendices 90 Packet Pg. 113 7.A.a 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 Monthly 10.65% 18 Several Times AYear 34.32% 58 Never 1 Answered 169 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 ail 9 Weekly 4.14% 7 Monthly 2.96% 5 Several Times A Year 41.42% 70 Never 46.15% 78 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? 0 9 Weekly 2.96% 5 Monthly 5.92% 10 Several Times A Year 43.20% 73 Never 42.60% 72 91 Appendices Packet Pg. 114 7.A.a Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds' public trees. Strongly agre= 10.65% 18 Agree 59.17% 100 Disagree J� 11.83% 20 Strongly Disagree 8.88% 15 Not S 9.47% 16 Answered 169 ..-d 61 Appendices 92 Packet Pg. 115 7.A.a 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) Cleara ly (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 dobEJ7.87% 64 Agree 28.99% 49 Fsagree 17.16% 29 Strongly disagree 5.33% 9 not sure 110.65% .� .• 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 Lprets % 100 Golf Courses 11.24% 19 owntown .60% 72 Trails and bike paths 45.56% 77 dmonds has enough public trees 20.12% 34 Other (please specify) 17.75% 30 Answered .• Skipped a c E 93 Appendices Packet Pg. 116 7.A.a Question 10 (Extended) 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% 1 3.47 a c a� E aD 0 CU r_ m a� L 0 U- r_ L L L 0 r_ O m 0 E E 0 0 N0 r Q r 0 E :.i R Q Appendices 94 Packet Pg. 117 7.A.a 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. Seminars and workshops j 44.38% 75 Interpretive trails and displays 59.76% 101 62.72% 106 Online videos (e.g. YouTube) 24.26% 41 Guided nature/tree walks Informational brochures 43.20% 73 Other (please specify) 11.83% 20 Answered .• Skipped 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 my view 24.70% 41 Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15 Tree debri 12.65% 21 Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114 anop 57.83% 96 Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29% 120 a c M E 95 Appendices Packet Pg. 118 7.A.a Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select any from this list any statements you agree with. (Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98% 20 Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37% 29 PFrees near my property block views M 29.34% 49 Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66% 113 Trees near FWproperty are healthy 59.28% 99 1 want more trees near my property 25.15% 42 have no trees near my property 0.60 / 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. 53.89% 90 No. This City of Edmonds should not concern itself with trees on private property. 17.96% 30 of sure. This issue is more complicated. 28.14% 47 Appendices 96 Packet Pg. 119 7.A.a 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? ir Male 28.66% 47 Female 59.76% 98 Gender Diverse" JL1.83% 3 Prefer not to answer 9.76% 16 97 Appendices Packet Pg. 120 Question 21: What age group are you representing? 7.A.a W 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% & 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 Five Corners X 8.54% 14 Perrinville 4.88% 8 eadowdale 4. Seaview 15.24% 25 Lake Ballinger 2 HWY 99 3.05% 5 ther (please specify) 14.63% 24 Appendices 98 Packet Pg. 121 Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply) 7.A.a I am a resident of Edmonds M 95.12% 156 I am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98% 18 1 own 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 —915.85% 26 None of the above 0.61% 1 99 Appendices Packet Pg. 122 7.A.a Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) Answered 33 Skipped 142 Appendices 100 Packet Pg. 123 7.A.a 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. 124 7.A.a Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate? - A. Improved Air Quality 11 B. Energy Savings 4 0 0 d Stormwater Runoff 14 0� D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0 Wildlife Habitat 14 F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0 1W Shaded trails.&Iewal 4 i H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4 I. Adsecl prope 7 J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0 K. Additionalldeas 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 ity revenue increase with more views Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1 Ad Appendices 102 Packet Pg. 125 7.A.a Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education ar M preferred/valued? A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps) 2 01 0 i. Species selection 4 0 0 M Tree plantin� 1 0 0 a c dv. iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0 CD E IwLiv. Interactive tree selector 1 1 0 M V. Irrigation 1 0 0 2 Iffolunteer opportuniti 1 0 0 i B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter) 3 0 0 0 U_ _ WSpecies selection 3 1 0 ii. Tree planting 1 0 0 Tree pruning 3 1 0 0 0 iv. Irrigation 0 0 0 L ° C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars) 2 0 0 c i. Tree planting 2 0 0 0 c ii. Tree pruning 5 0 0 a) E iii. Irrigation 0 0 0 Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0 as D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0 of od meeti cation and outreach 0 0 o Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0 N amphlets telling what species of trees on city property- U_ amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe 0 0 0 story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online ° E Wirt ationl w New name needed 0 0 0 a C CD E U M a 103 Appendices Packet Pg. 126 7.A.a 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 Mree debri IL1 1 5 D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3 WCanopy loss 1 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 omeone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps 1 0 0 o 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 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 Appendices 104 Packet Pg. 127 7.A.a 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 1 10 2 0 M U 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 105 Appendices Packet Pg. 128 7.A.a Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees ■ planted? A s 10 B. Open Spaces 10 ommercial properties 9 D. Streets and medians 7 W Parking lots 10 F. Private properties 8 K Additional Ideas Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool 1 I PC(z trPPC In MOW nrPaC 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 4") O 00 I 0 N d u_ Q c 0 E w a C CD M a Appendices 106 Packet Pg. 129 7.A.a Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree MA M planting and preservation on private property? A. Free (or low-cost) trees B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care 3 0 0 company Mucation and Outreach 0 D. Tree planting events 5 0 0 k Additional Ideas 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 rducation- 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. 130 1, What tree benefits do you mast cppreriot g? A inpran�!4r f some • xlf.�rsrd lw+nvwr►x a�weK •###*## • k 114Fr}-p'4�1?'Wa w1 � � wdlwki^Y far �#��ry4o1 4. What level of maimmoonc* would yo- pro ter for pvWis rrees7 C � • 7.A.a = i M; -2 2. What types of outreach and 3. What is f are your biggest . ' r edumlion are preferred valued? con corn (s) For trees in Edmonds? A. Eldetranic [Wehsilo, Links, Youtube, Apps) SAL- Tmes Mocking n1y VIOLA 000010 i. 5jWi.1 $616c6an •• • # • • 0 41. F— PlaMr R 0 * • • • iil� tn. R.w 6 .- iM. S. Traas shading my Yq'rd 0 0 tN 00 a. Hard {%MphietS, N*WSle"F$)OS sp«». s.w.ie., • �, freel'rn,Sf:,Q • i.. Irry r s • • L- Nar.ds•On IWorkslwps. SeroinaFs}�• t Trii Plop w- hM Fnrnin6�� A ►rkwlor N. Yk ll,nrwr OrpwMiliia ID, AQ Gtivnalldw t `L al G. Trea 4"bria in my yard # 0 • •# i fl, 140ahhy mature trUi# ing ramoyed# #• E. Canopylpss0 90 0000lp r. Loss oFwiWils,IobilhO li0ilo040 • 009 000 O. Add ilionalCon[orms 4 Mom 6. 1hat are the best ways to encourage tree planting and S. WhOrc would you Itke to sea n wa preservotion on private property? trees Plowed? A. Free (or low-<asI) frees IL 0" PH&TAy oft 14a %rM O"d ss.rk M"M Ode i # # 4; as # • • [. c•wrrlwrwd i 00 Goes C. #i4Y+Mt� bay ISr} Y%f+1# r a M'Mrl * N # # # ♦ 8. %bush rrd MO&em A • i #* i* i - O. Imhetwo orLop=41 k� " L hv%kwMtr r'#i# *sea* # _* as is • �, Meilr�l.1'4+ Ii.ell� iw 1 W�re.++4. wzrr a_ Ir.+yr+ h+11�*Vr Ia. Information abetirt hew to hire a professfa*cl trM car'* company •6 C. Edlxatiorrand 0�ttrroth # '0 • 0. Tree Planlirrg Events *0 go* y E. AddilianalIdeas LO of 0 0 N d R Q C: O E W C N t t� R r Q Appendices 108 Packet Pg. 131 7.A.a 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. 132 Attendance 7.A.a 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 LO 0 0 I Co N d LL Q fA C O E W r Q r C O E t V R Q Appendice- 110 Packet Pg. 133 7.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. 134 7.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. 135 7.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. 136 7.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. 137 7.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. 138 7.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. 139 7.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. 140 7.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. 141 7.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. 142 7.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. 143 7.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. 144 7.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. 145 7.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. 146 7.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. 147 Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 13 7.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. 148 Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page 14 7.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. 149 7.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. 150 7.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. 151 7.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. 152 041�'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` 21 uvor6 Oki a t in of r) CO- V ' ✓ �n5'S 09Ai rI2 y- a **More space on back side** Packet Pg. 153 7.A.b I 0111Your Comment Matters! lame (Optional): mail (Optional): 0 39S/ 9�41 LM **More space on back side** Your Comment Matters! � Name (Optional): Entail (Optional):._ P>,- /w, �IZIe 4 More space on back side** J 1 I Packet Pg. 154 7.A.b Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:10 AM To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please submit this letter as part of my testimony for May 9th Planning Board meeting Please include the statement below as my written testimony (which was recently published in the My Edmonds News as an opinion piece) for the public hearing on the City of Edmonds Draft Urban Forest Management Plan to be heard on May 9th, 2018 Thank You Eric Soll Edmonds Wa The location that is currently present day Edmonds was incorporated in 1890. The city has evolved into a pleasant suburban city containing a variety of vegetation, including a variety of tree species planted by residents. The tree inventory on private property has managed to thrive without any government oversight for the first one hundred and twenty years of Edmonds' existence, as witnessed by the lush canopy in many Edmonds' residential neighborhoods. In 2010, the Edmonds Tree Board was organized and tasked with various activities related to the trees of Edmonds. By the end of 2014, interacting with liaisons from city council, city staff and an ordinance developmental consultant, that board generated a proposed tree ordinance for the city of Edmonds. That proposed ordinance Chapter 23.20 ECDC -Tree Conservation, had it had been adopted, included in part provisions for: An intricate and expensive permitting process, often with the necessity of the retention of private consultants at considerable expense to the private residential owner to remove any trees for virtually any reason. Governmental requirements and oversight as to the number and size of trees required to be maintained on each individual private property Extensive fines for not complying with the ordinance. Enough Edmonds residents vehemently opposed the proposed legislation that the proposed ordinance was not implemented by the Edmonds City Council. One is encouraged to review the entire document to observe an excellent example of potential extensive governmental overreach and interference with private property rights. http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Boards and Commissions/Boards/Tree Board/Tr eeCode/TreeBoardRecommendation ECDC2320.pdf A consultant report, the " City of Edmonds, Urban Forest Master Plan 2017 Draft March 2018" has recently been generated and will be presented to the Edmonds City Council for review and implementation. http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/Planning Div ision/Plans/UFMP/EdmondsWA-UFMP-2018 03 12-PagesWEB.pdf Packet Pg. 155 7.A.b Recognizing that there would be significant opposition to government mandates applied to private property, the Urban Forest Master Plan focuses on how best to increase the number, appropriateness and quality of trees on public property, as well as promoting an aggressive educational campaign to educate the public on the benefits of increasing the tree canopy both on public and private property. Ignored in this process is the fact that local, state and federal government policies, statutes and ordinances have had a deleterious direct and indirect impact on the tree canopy in Edmonds, as well as other urban centers. Focusing on the state level, the Urban Growth Management Act has both restricted property that can be developed for residential development, and dictated that future growth including increased density be primarily channeled to existing urban population centers. This mandate has resulted in part in the escalating expense in obtaining land to develop residential housing. As a result of prohibitively expensive residential parcels available for development, as well as legislated density goals, cities are aggressively amending their comprehensive plans and corresponding zoning ordinances. Comprehensive plans are transforming what were once single family neighborhoods into high density "affordable" multi unit neighborhoods. Apartments, condominiums and town houses are being developed on what were once single family parcels. As a result, there is a corresponding loss of area available for all vegetation, including trees. Escalating costs associated with marshalling residential parcels has had a transformational effect on single family residential development. Large single family residences must be built in order for the projects to be economically viable. The development of modest size thousand square foot single family starter houses allowing a majority of the parcel to be covered with vegetation including trees are residences of a by gone construction era. As a result of both the dramatic increased cost and lack of affordable housing, the state has mandated that counties such as Snohomish County with cities the population size of Edmonds, encourage Accessory Dwelling Units to be constructed on single family parcels. That intensive development not only eliminates existing vegetation and trees on single family parcels, but precludes future vegetation as the residential footprint is expanded to accommodate the second dwelling unit. The use of planning devices to increase density, such as Planned Unit Developments, allow an increased number of residences on parcels zoned for single family development. That form of development also reduces available area for all vegetation, including trees. There is a certain irony that government officials ranging from local cities to the state level are focused on tasks to ensure that various Puget Sound jurisdictions fulfill their governmental mandated requirement to plan for and promote population growth in established cities through increased density. That growth and resultant density in these fully developed jurisdictions will result in the decrease of the "forest canopy" due to intensive redevelopment density. Concurrently, governmental employees throughout Puget Sound are engaged in activities to maintain or even increase the same tree canopies. It is even more ironic that often, it is the same government department or even the same employees that are tasked with addressing both issues at the same time, all underwritten by overburdened taxpayers. The Urban Forest Master Plan calculated that tree canopy has been reduced in Edmonds from 32.3% to 30.3 % between the years 2005 and 2015. Not a surprise to anyone as legislative mandates require Edmonds to develop more residential assets in a city that is almost fully developed, to comply with various density developmental requirements. Most Edmonds residents, both homeowners and renters have unknowingly made and continue to make significant contributions to preventing development in adjacent rural areas. That has been accomplished Packet Pg. 156 7.A.b as a result of the strict mandates of the Urban Growth Management Act, which has resulted in increased prices, density, noise, lack of residential privacy, traffic and lack of parking, as increased development has been legislatively funneled into Edmonds and other cities, rather than in undeveloped areas. That factor, including the number of trees saved from development, is never considered as a cost to homeowners and renters in this process, nor is the benefit of those undisturbed trees included in any calculation of tree canopy loss for those urban areas sacrificing their quality of life to prevent development elsewhere. It is an unofficial, vegetation, tree and land bank that much of the state population is unknowingly participating in through the legislated density degradation of their own immediate urban and suburban environment. There is actually positive news when calculating the size of the current United States tree canopy. Reviewing the statistics, it has been concluded by experts that there are now more trees in the United States than there were one hundred years ago. This is due to a variety of factors including: Forest management practices. The expansion of the national park and national monument systems. Reduction of need for agricultural land as a result of improved agricultural practices which produce greater crop yields. Elimination of marginal farming operations - with those properties often reverting back to forests. Urbanization of the US population - less people placing residential pressure and development on rural areas. Thus the United States is actually increasing its tree canopy, as opposed to conventional alarmist wisdom which incorrectly asserts that the tree inventory in the United States is rapidly dwindling due to rapid over development. The Urban Forest Master Plan estimates that approximately forty four to sixty four staff hours per week is currently dedicated to ongoing tree maintenance and related issues in Edmonds. That is equivalent to one and one half full time government positions currently focused only trees. The Urban Forest Master Plan reports that Edmonds is currently allocating $7.74 per capita per year to overall tree maintenance, The average for most jurisdictions is $7.50 per capita, and the Edmonds figure is significantly more than the $2 per capita required for "Tree City USA" designation that is cited by the Urban Forest Master Plan. More about a "Tree City USA" designation later. Four recommendations suggested by the Urban Forest Master Plan that may interfere with either private property rights, or dramatically increase the cost to taxpayers are: The establishment of an Edmonds Tree Bank for developers and private homeowners to subsidize both the planting and replacing of trees in Edmonds. A Heritage Tree program to be instituted in Edmonds focused on "exceptional" trees located on either public or private property. Some of the case examples provided in the Urban Forest Master Plan as successful Heritage Tree government programs in other jurisdictions, specifically include trees on private property, and that designation would transfer to the new owners in any conveyance. A specific licensing program for those engaged in the business of tree management, rather than just a business license that is currently required to remove trees in Edmonds. This requirement is justified as tree ordinances are becoming more complex and further training is required. Increased licensing requirements by any professional group usually results in increased costs to the consumer. The organization of a formal bureaucracy within the city of Edmonds charged with supervising and implementing all aspects of tree management and maintenance, including the employment of a full time arborist. Packet Pg. 157 7.A.b While certain goals enunciated in the Urban Forest Master Plan are important - (such as the removal of dangerous trees), many of these goals are secondary to the primary goals of operating the city of Edmonds in an effective and cost efficient manner. Edmonds city council should resist the temptation to transform any recommendations into another official layer of governmental bureaucracy. Not only are property taxes "too damn high" (as the popular saying goes for rent) after property owners experienced the largest property tax increase in recent memory, but there are traditional governmental functions that are currently not being implemented in a timely and efficient manner that simply must take precedence. As demonstrated by its own study, Edmonds is currently spending more than the average American city does per capita on tree maintenance. Edmonds should focus on the following basic activities pertaining to tree maintenance: The replacement of dead and dangerous trees on public property, and the prioritizing of limited future tree plantings that will impact the city's public image, desirability and enjoyment in heavily accessed public areas. Planting of a limited pre determined number of trees each year to prevent erosion issues on a priority basis within strict financial and assessment guidelines. The rejection of any "heritage tree" program that will impact the property rights of any private property. The development of tree regulations so they are easily understood by not only tree professionals, but the public, removing the necessity of imposing increased licensing requirements for those working with trees in the private sector, and creating confusion and concern amongst residents. Reliance on the private and non profit sector to provide educational information about the importance and care of trees to private property owners. A voluntary financing mechanism for those who wish to contribute to increasing the city's tree canopy at public locations. Resist the establishment of initiating a formal tree bureaucracy that will increase the cost of government through increased salaries, benefits and expanded governmental activities. The percentage of trees on public property is only thirteen percent of the entire city inventory. The necessity to create a new layer of bureaucracy has not been demonstrated to be required over the past one hundred and twenty eight years that Edmonds has been an incorporated city. The Urban Forest Master Plan makes repeated references to a "Tree City USA" designation. What exactly is that Tree City USA designation anyway? It is a program sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation. The Arbor Day Foundation is not a governmental agency. It is a non profit 501(C)(3) organization. To obtain Tree City USA designation, which the city of Edmonds attained in 2011, one year after the Edmonds tree board was established, the applying jurisdiction must meet the four criteria established by the Arbor Day Foundation Establish a Tree Board or Department Establish a Tree Care Ordinance. Provide that the jurisdiction is spending at least two dollars per capita for tree maintenance activities Establish an annual Arbor Day celebration. Packet Pg. 158 7.A.b While maintaining and increasing the tree canopy in Edmonds on pubic and private property may be a just and noble cause, there are thousands of private groups functioning in the United States, all believing that they too are promoting just and noble causes that take priority over all other issues. The fact that Edmonds has obtained the designation of "Tree City USA", is irrelevant to most residents of Edmonds. Of much greater concern to most residents are the appropriate and effective allocation of tax revenues, the limitation of further tax increases including but not limited to property tax increases, and the protection of private property rights, which over the years have faced both greater risks and degradation than the Edmonds tree canopy. The December 2014 draft Tree Conservation ordinance that was ultimately rejected, declared in part that: " The City Of Edmonds makes the following findings: A. The trees of Edmonds: 12. Contribute to human health by lowering levels of fear of residents, and less violent and aggressive behavior by its citizens; 13. Encourage better neighbor relations and better coping skills for its residents". The above findings of fact are probably more fanciful wishful thinking than based upon empirical and verifiable evidence. If correct, Manhattan, NYC with its virtual total lack of neighborhood trees should have one of the highest rates of violent crime with residents afraid to depart from their homes, The reality is that Manhattan is one of the safest and pedestrian traveled cities in the world. Furthermore, most Manhattanites exhibit superior coping skills than most Americans, given the environment they must endure on a daily basis, and they do it often without ever encountering even a single tree the entire day. More universally accepted is the concept that private property rights form the foundation of a free society. It is suggested that for any proposed legislation that impacts private property rights, either directly or indirectly through increased taxation, the following finding of fact be included in any future legislation. The City Of Edmonds makes the following findings: "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the entire community" William Blackstone, eminent English jurist, 1723 -1780. After all, the issue at hand is not some undeclared war against trees by individuals who hate cleaning their gutters or roofs as a result of falling tree debris. It is part of a broader concern about the erosion of property rights in general, and the expansion of and increased cost of government bureaucracy and its negative effects on property owners, renters and businesses. There will be a public hearing on this matter on May 9th, 7PM in council chambers at Edmonds City Hall. All who are interested in protecting private property rights, as well as preventing another potential expensive and intrusive expansion of local government should attend and voice their concerns. If citizens are not informed, not vigilant, and are unwilling to become politically involved when their property rights are threatened by special interests and government intrusion, those rights, as well as their bank accounts will continue to be eroded over time. Eric Soll Edmonds WA Packet Pg. 159 7.A.b Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:11 PM To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Edmonds Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Upcoming Hearing I have reviewed the Urban Forest Management Plan Draft May 2018 and would like to add my comments and concerns. The City should limit its involvement to maintaining and keeping healthy the existing trees and where necessary for safety reasons, removing those trees. As stated in the Urban Forest Management Plan, 83% of the trees are privately owned. Therefore, the City owns only a small percentage of the trees and already seems to have expended a great deal of expense in staff time and consulting fees considering that their percentage is so small. Your goals are very far reaching, and while many are in fact admirable, I believe they are beyond the scope of what government should be providing. The city government's role with respect to its "urban forest" should be limited to city owned property and limited to maintaining city owned trees in healthy condition and if necessary removing any unsafe trees. This proposal stretches far beyond this. It is not the City's role to "Illustrate the value and benefits of trees" and "educate" the public as stated in your Draft. There are many volunteer organizations that have that ground covered already and many public opportunities to share that knowledge such as at Puget Sound BirclFest, Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Project, Edmonds Watershed Fun Fair, etc.. The City's limited resources and dollars should be spent on legitimate City needs and functions. For instance, after 5 plus years of asking and being on a waiting list, we finally had our culdesac paved after living with potholes and the entire street's asphalt crumbling for many years. If it takes that long to maintain our streets, then perhaps we should be adding additional maintenance workers rather than an arborist and using staff time for surveys and draft proposals, not to mention the extensive consulting fees incurred in preparing a 115 page Draft. And speaking of roadways -- I would like to point out that a graph in your study states that 34% of the City of Edmonds consists of impervious surfaces - which would include parking lots and roadways - and a far higher percentage of impervious surfaces vs. trees. Should we hire a consultant to bring to the City's attention that there are now non - impervious or permeable paving options available - should we dig up our streets and roads and replace them all with permeable materials to aid in mitigating the run off into the Sound? Of course not. I have mason bee houses on our property to encourage and facilitate this pollinator - without bees we would not have all the flowers, plants, fruits and vegetables that we take for granted. Pesticides in the garden are not good for pollinators. Should the City contract with consultants to explore this issue and engage a Bee Board to restrict the use of pesticides in homeowners' gardens? Of course not. Trees, run off, mason bees - all are certainly noble causes. So whose favorite cause should receive the largesse of city government? Again, I cannot emphasize this enough - the City should restrict itself and the spending of its citizens' hard earned tax dollars to essential government functions. Regarding the current definition being used to describe trees in the UFMP, "Urban Forest" is described as "a combination of both public and private trees". Although the Draft purports to cover or have control over only community (City) owned trees, throughout the document when stating its goals, the Draft refers generally throughout to the Urban Forest. As by your own definition that includes both City and Private trees. This should be clarified so that it cannot at a later date be used to encompass trees on privately owned property. The City has a responsibility to maintain and care for community trees but trees on privately owned property should not be included in that mandate. The language in the Draft should be clear so that it is not misconstrued - that the goals in the Draft cover only City owned not privately owned property. I believe the City should limit itself in scope and not expand its role to this extent or spend limited resources in an area that seems to be managing quite well on its own. Please do not dismiss my comments as anti -tree. I have a certified wildlife backyard. I have planted over 40 trees and several hundred shrubs, plants and groundcovers on our 9,500 square foot residential lot in Edmonds. Many of these are native plants specifically selected for a wildlife garden. I have streams, ponds, mason bee houses, bat houses, bird houses, nesting boxes, bird feeders etc. But these are my personal choices to create a backyard habitat and increase the wildlife corridors, and I did not need advice or education from the City to accomplish this. In conclusion, please concentrate City resources on essential functions, do not expand governmental bureaucracy, and respect private property rights and do not impose the Draft UFMP on private property. Thank you for considering my comments. Kathleen Ryan, Edmonds resident. Packet Pg. 160 7.A.b May 9, 2018 Public Comment to Planning Board re Draft Urban Forestry Management Plan Dear Esteemed Planning Board members, My name is Val Stewart and I have lived in Edmonds over 30 years. I currently reside in Bellevue and formerly served on the Planning Board for almost 8 years. I have learned that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property. That means public property only contains 13 percent. I was surprised to learn that. To me that means we need to do public outreach to property owners in the greater community to effectively increase our tree canopy. I still have a house on the edge of the Bowl and have watched the transformation of canopy loss over the last 3 decades. Edmonds is now down to 30% canopy cover and losing more each month. There used to be so much more wildlife. Now there's a lot less habitat for them to use. My property is a National Wildlife Federation certified Backyard Wildlife Habitat. That means I have committed to providing water, shelter, food and a place to raise young for wildlife on my property. Edmonds became a Community Backyard Wildlife Habitat over 10 years ago. I was on the team that helped create that. There are hundreds of residences, businesses, and City properties that have become certified since then. That's a commitment to providing native habitat including native trees and plants. The Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Project should be mentioned in the plan. There needs to be a renewed effort to rejuvenate this program. It was heartening to see that Yost Park was recognized as an example of what native habitat looks like. The Discovery Program through Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services utilizes Yost Park for interpretive hikes and nature awareness for elementary school aged kids. I was once a part of that when I was a park ranger. We are blessed in this community to have such a strong environmental education program. It deserves ongoing support and also should be credited in the Draft UFMP for educating our younger generation to become good stewards. There is obvious forest fragmentation throughout the City. It's essential that connections be available for wildlife in neighborhood yards. Pretty soon we won't be hearing the birds sing. And someday our youth may have to go to the parks in order to connect with nature since most new development we're seeing takes a site down to scratch and builds to the maximum footprint and hard surface area allowable. For this reason, I am not a fan of a "fees in lieu" program since I see it as giving developers permission to take down all trees indiscriminately and then assuage guilt by paying a little money into a tree bank. And whatever happened to the Green Building movement in this City? One of the basic tenets of green building is to assess the site for its natural assets and incorporate those into your project instead of eliminating them. It would be Packet Pg. 161 7.A.b worthwhile now if we want to preserve mature canopy to incentivize green building by issuing priority permitting for those who go this route. Allowing Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADU) on sufficiently sized mature lots would also help protect what canopy exists in the older neighborhoods rather than see all larger lots divided up and maxed out with buildings. I'm in favor of a voluntary Heritage Tree Program. A permit could be required to cut any tree over a designated Dbh. Permits could be inexpensive and education provided for the homeowner and perhaps notice given to all neighbors within 300 feet. There could be a fund for donations along with some City money to help maintain Heritage Trees. I support the Seattle criteria for their Heritage Tree Program (paraphrased): • A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity • A tree recognized by virtue of its age and its contribution to history • Trees that are a landmark of a community or neighborhood • A notable grove or collection of trees When older trees are cut down, we set ourselves back generations and destroy a complex ecosystem that has been evolving for often a hundred years or more. I was struck by the following passage on p. 57 Draft UFMP: "Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to 7years to establish after planting, and another 10 years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity." That's 17 years! So when you take down a hundred year old tree ask yourself how many human generations it will take to replace that complex ecosystem and all it supported. I liked the idea on p. 45 Draft UFMP; UW-REN (UW-Restoration Ecology Network). This would integrate students, faculty and community interests in ecological restoration and conservation; a win -win all the way around. Anytime we can get students involved, the better! Take Students Saving Salmon as an example. Goal #UA7 (p. 65 Draft UFMP) asks the City to provide a report which documents Ecosystem Services provided by Public Trees. I do think it's critically important for ecosystem services be quantified via dollar amounts to inform budgets and planning. There are native trees that could be used in public places and ROW. The consultant is from out of the area so there was not much reference to our native species here in the Northwest. The dominant species that occupy Yost Park are western red cedar, red alder, big leaf maple, western hemlock and douglas fir; all of which get very tall. These would certainly not be good choices along street corridors. There are numerous smaller native trees such as bitter cherry and vine maple that could be suitable. The street tree plan comes up for revision periodically as was mentioned in the Draft UFMP. Understandably trees selected to be along streets and sidewalks Packet Pg. 162 7.A.b need to have certain characteristics and are often non-native. I think native trees should be planted where possible though. On p. 69 of the Planning Board packet, referencing a tree board comment: trees "provide benefits to the community beyond property lines." These benefits are listed in the Draft UFMP. All of them contribute to the greater good including the health and wellbeing of our collective community; humans and wildlife alike. Maintaining an urban forest is critical to our survival and an integral component of our complex ecosystem. Thank you for all the work that has gone into this plan so far and your thoughtful consideration of public comments. Respectfully, Va I Stewart Edmonds property owner Packet Pg. 163 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2018 Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Housing that is affordable or attainable for people is often a challenge, especially in these days of rising housing prices and growing Puget Sound population --regardless of whether someone is purchasing or renting. In addition, diverse needs to be considered --including for seniors and people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds. The Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of housing affordable for a range of incomes and to meeting special housing needs. Staff Recommendation Ask questions and make comments. Narrative A brief description of housing needs and proposed objectives is provided by Attachment 1. This hand- out is being shared at the May 21 open house. T he Discussion Draft Housing Strategy is provided by Attachment 2. Further formatting and refinement is still ahead for the document. Attachment 3 is an appendix to the Draft Housing Strategy. It describes numerous housing tools. At the Planning Board's May 23 meeting, the draft strategy will be introduced. On June 13, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing . After the Planning Board provides its review and recommendation, the Draft Strategy will continue through the public process and be considered by the City Council. Attachments: Edmonds Housing Open House Handout 2018_0516 Draft Edmonds Housing Strategy Draft Housing Strategy Appendices May16_2018 Packet Pg. 164 n_" a n M111i E D M 0 N D S HOUSING STRATEGY Share YguffjnWt Edmonds is facing a housing affordability crisis. With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in Edmonds is strong. As more and more people move to the Puget Sound region, the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of many long-term residents. Signs of this housing crisis are all around us: • Nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds are cost -burdened, including over 4,600 low- and moderate -income households' • At least 2,400 low-income workers commute long distances to jobs in Edmonds' • 260 students attending schools in Edmonds are homeless' The City is developing a Housing Strategy for addressing this crisis. To inform this strategy, the Mayor convened a Task Force of housing specialists and community representatives to recommend actions the City can take to address housing needs. The City is also seeking input from residents. 1 Source: HUD CHAS (based on Census American Community Survey 2010-2014 5-year estimates) 2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies, 2015 3 Source: Edmonds School District, 2017 Cost -burdened Households Versus Subsidized Housing Inventory Households 2,500 Total Households 2,045 2,000 Cost -burdened 1,500 Households 1,570 1,000 500[Subsidized ousing Units Total Households 2,250 Total Households 1,945 Total Households 1,690 Cost -burdened Households 1,490 Cost -burdened Households 1,075 Subsidized Itsubsidized Cost -burdened Housing Units Housing Units HouseholdsSs 520 Bill Anderson Compass Housing Alliance Rev. M. Christopher Boyer Good Shepherd Baptist Church Chris Collier Alliance For Housing Affordability Mark Craig Henbart, Llc. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Edmonds City Council Jamie Reece Reece Homes Real Estate Mark Smith Housing Consortium Of Everett And Snohomish County Rob Van Tassell Catholic Housing Of Western Washington Anne Wermus Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition Total Households 9,510 Cost -burdened Households 1,170 Extremely Low -Income Very Low -Income Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income (<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI) (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI) (>100% AMI) Not Calculated Not Cost Burden ■ Cost -Burdened Household spenc more than 30% c monthly income housing costs ■ Severely Cost -Burdened Household spenc more than 50% c monthly income housing costs Sources: HUD CHAS (based ACS 2010-2014 5 estimates); Housing Consortium of Evere and Snohomish Cou 2018; AMI = HUD, Median Family Inco, Images: 1 https://www.portioncloregon.gov/bps/articlel223718 2 http://www.orchhousing.org/ 3 State of Housing in Portland Report, January 2018(https://www.portlandoregon.govlphbl) PUsuc Packet Pg. 165 8.A.a am R R #d-h-r -W E D M O N D S Objectives HOUSING STRATEGY IDENTIFY AND ADOPT STRATEGIES TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. However, Edmonds can play an important role by coordinating with regional service providers and reducing barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. Image: Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides Tiny House Village shelters in Seattle for the homeless. SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and this share is expected to grow significantly during the next ten years. Edmonds needs to support the needs of seniors who choose to "age in place" in their homes, while also providing more options for seniors who wish to downsize or require assisted living. Image: Mixed -use 3-story building with 1-bedroom affordable rental apartments for extremely low-income seniors at Coostside Senior Apartments in California. Project Timeline July T 2017 Mayor Earling appoints Housing Strategy Task Force • Nov. 2017 — May 2018 Evaluation of housing needs and potential actions • May 21, 2018 Public Open House • May 23, 2018 Planning Board discussion • June 13, 2018 Draft Housing Strategy presented to Planning Board • July — Aug. 2018 City Council to consider Housing Strategy for adoption Task Force Meetings: 9/27, 10/26, 1 1 /30, 1 /25, 4/ 12, 5/25 BUILD MORE HOUSING AND EXPAND HOUSING CHOICES Edmonds has diverse range of households at various income levels and life -stages, from young single workers, to families, to retirees. There are many more people who work in Edmonds but cannot afford to live here. Meeting these needs requires building more housing and a greater diversity of housing types. The City can support this by providing more flexibility or incentives to develop the types of housing that are in greatest need. Image: Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live -work - play architecture. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING A large share of the Edmonds workforce does not earn enough income to afford market -rate housing. To meet the needs of these community members Edmonds must work in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies to build more subsidized affordable housing. Image: Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is an apartment community that serves residents with incomes between 40-80% AMI. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS LOW-INCOME TENANTS Low-income tenants may be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds should identify short- and long-term solutions to address these needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing in the community. Image: Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved from a tent camp for the homeless. 1 Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http://www.seattle.gov/council/adu-e 2 https://lihi.org/tiny-houseslothello-village/ 3 Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, http://www.edmondswo.govl2Ol 1-07-21- 22-31-43/highway-99-planning-project. html 4 https://www.mercyhousing.org/ca-coostside-senior 5 http://quixotevilloge.com/ PUBLIC Packet Pg. 166 DRAFT 5/16/2 Edmonds Housing Strategy Discussion Draft Report Executive Summary Edmonds is facing a housing affordability crisis that is impacting communities across the Central Puget Sound Region. To a great extent, this crisis is caused by rapid job and population growth that is outpacing the production of new housing near job centers. With so many new people and families competing for a limited supply of housing, prices get pushed increasingly higher. This results in a widening gap between housing costs and what is affordable to low, moderate, and even middle -income households. In Edmonds, nearly 6,000 households are "cost burdened" and struggling to afford rising housing costs. Over 4,000 of these cost -burdened households are low- income. Additionally, at least 2,400 low-income workers are commuting long distances to jobs in Edmonds from homes in more affordable communities. Housing affordability is an issue that impacts all Edmonds residents. Rising housing costs can lead to the displacement of long-term residents, uprooting lives and undermining the stability of neighborhoods. When workers in Edmonds are not living close to their jobs, they must drive longer distances to their workplace. This increases traffic congestion on local streets, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation costs. A lack of affordable housing also makes it difficult to hire and retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the community. Maintaining a healthy and sustainable city means that Edmonds will need to build more housing and different kinds of housing to meet the diverse needs of our population and workforce. What is Affordable Housing? A home is generally considered to be affordable if the household is paying no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. A healthy housing market includes a variety of housing types that are affordable to a range of different household income levels. The term "affordable housing" is often used to describe subsidized housing available only to qualifying low-income households. Subsidized housing can include income -restricted units in public, nonprofit, or for - profit housing developments. It can also include households using vouchers to help pay for market -rate housing. In this report, "affordable housing" refers to any housing While the City has already taken some important steps to address that is affordable to the critical housing needs and contribute to regional housing solutions, household that is occupying it, additional actions are both necessary and urgent. This report presents whether market rate or a multi -part strategy for increasing the supply affordable housing subsidized. options in Edmonds to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and income levels. This strategy recognizes that both market rate and subsidized housing production will play a role in meeting the housing needs of Edmonds residents and workforce. The strategy includes six objectives: .III IPacket Pg. 167 8.A.b 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing. Ensuring that there is sufficient supply of apartments and condominium housing in Edmonds is essential to reduce upward pressure on housing costs and providing more options for small households who do not need a lot of space. Edmonds should allow and encourage more multifamily housing production in targeted areas across the city to address this need. 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle". We need a wider range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of different households at various income levels and stages in their life -cycle, ranging from young one -person households to retirees. Edmonds should allow and encourage the development of "missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes to meet these needs. 3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing. A large share of the Edmonds workforce and current population do not earn enough income to afford market -rate housing. Edmonds should build more subsidized affordable housing in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies to meet the needs of these community members. 4. Identify and adopt strategies to reduce homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. However, Edmonds can play an important role by coordinating with regional service providers and reducing barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. 5. Support the needs of an aging population. One out five Edmonds residents is over the age of 65, this share will continue to grow over the coming years. Our community must consider the housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. Managing these needs will require supporting the desire for some residents to "age in place" in their homes, while accommodating other residents in assisted living and nursing home facilities. 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants. Low-income tenants may be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds should identify short and long-term solutions to address these needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing in the community. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 168 8.A.b Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 4 HousingNeeds in Edmonds.................................................................................................................. 6 HomelessPersons and Families............................................................................................................................... 6 WorkforceHousing....................................................................................................................................................8 SeniorHousing..........................................................................................................................................................10 HousingStrategy................................................................................................................................. 12 Overview...................................................................................................................................................................1 2 AppendixA. Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment...........................................................................25 HouseholdIncomes in Edmonds..............................................................................................................................25 HousingSupply in Edmonds...................................................................................................................................25 HousingNeeds by Household Type......................................................................................................................30 SpecialNeeds Populations.....................................................................................................................................33 Appendix B. Homeless Services and Resources in Edmonds..............................................................37 Appendix C. Assessment of Housing Tools ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. :111 DRAFT 5/16/2018 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 169 8.A.b Introduction With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in Edmonds is strong. As more people move to the Puget Sound Region, the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of many long-term residents. Rising housing costs impact the quality of life for all Edmonds residents. When workers in Edmonds can't live close to their jobs, they must drive longer distances to work: increasing their transportation costs as well as traffic congestion on local streets and greenhouse gas emissions. A lack of affordable housing makes it difficult to recruit, hire, and retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the community. Students in families struggling with housing insecurity often have increased challenges in school and require greater attention and resources. Housing affordability is essential to quality of life, environmental sustainability, and community resiliency. To maintain a healthy and thriving city, Edmonds needs more housing in a variety of formats to meet the housing demand from our diverse population and workforce. Also, with a large population of older residents, Edmonds needs to make more space for younger community members who can contribute to our city's economic and civic vitality. This requires different kinds of housing that meet the needs of diverse lifestyles. This is important because not everyone needs the same type of housing: some families prefer a large detached housing with a large yard, while others are happy with a small house and small yard. Still, others want the option to live in an apartment, townhome, condominium, or something else. When we provide opportunities for different types of housing to be built, people have more choices. This also enables us to support the housing needs of community members across their entire life cycle, from younger adults living alone, to new families, and to retirees looking to downsize. The City of Edmonds is committed to addressing housing affordability challenges. In recent years, Edmonds has taken several actions: ■ Adopted a multifamily tax abatement program that applies in some locations when at least 20 percent of the new housing is dedicated to low and moderate -income households. ■ Adopted reductions in park and transportation impact fees for low-income housing projects. • Set aside $250,000 for a fund that will assist with homeless needs. Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force Members BILL ANDERSON Compass Housing Alliance REV. M. CHRISTOPHER BOYER Good Shepherd Baptist Church CHRIS COLLIER Alliance for Housing Affordability MARK CRAIG Henbart, LLC. ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS Edmonds City Council JAMIE REECE Reece Homes Real Estate MARK SMITH Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County ROB VAN TASSELL Catholic Housing of Western Washington ANNE WERMUS Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition ■ Joined the Alliance for Housing Affordability, a multi -jurisdiction organization that is looking to contribute funds toward selected affordable housing projects. ■ Adopted a plan and regulations that allow more housing in the Westgate and State Route 99 areas. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 170 8.A.b While these steps show progress, more actions are necessary. Therefore, the 2016 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan committed the City to develop and implement a Housing Strategy by 2019. In 2017 the Mayor appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force to make recommendations for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. The Task Force is composed of nine local housing developers, policy experts, and civic leaders representing the public, nonprofit, and for -profit sectors. This group has met on five occasions to review an analysis of the local housing supply and housing needs, identify best practice solutions for addressing housing needs, and evaluate potential actions that the City can take to most effectively address housing needs in Edmonds. Some of these actions the City could tackle alone, while others would be most effectively pursued in collaboration with Snohomish County, neighboring communities, and other partners through coordinated regional strategies. This report presents the Housing Strategy, including actions recommended by the Task Force. The strategy addresses the need to increase the production of both market rate and subsidized affordable housing to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and income levels. 'I DRAFT 5/16/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 171 8.A.b Housing Needs in Edmonds The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing. One indicator of need is cost -burdened households. A cost -burdened household is spending over 30 percent of their income on housing costs, while a severely cost -burdened household is spending over 50 percent of income on housing. Between 2010 and 2014 there were nearly 6,000 cost -burdened households in Edmonds. This includes over 4,600 low- and moderate -income households. These needs have very likely grown in the years since this data was collected. Between 2011 and 2018 average monthly rents in Edmonds have increased by over $600, or 4.6 percent per year.l As shown in Exhibit 1, the current inventory of income -restricted subsidized housing is small and inadequate compared to the level of need. Exhibit 1. Cost -Burdened Households and Current Subsidized Housing Inventory Hcusohclds 2,500 Total Households 2,045 2,000 Cost -burdened 1500 Households .,_-___ 1,570 1,000 50o Subsidized IRA Housing Units Total Households 1,945 Cost burdened Households 1,490 Subsidized Housing Units Extremely Low -Income Very Low-income (00'/ AMI) (30-50% AMI) Total Households 2,250 Total Households 1,690 What is Area Median Income (AMI)? Analyses of housing affordability typically group all households by income level relative to area median family income, or the median income of all family households in the metropolitan region or county. Median income of non -family households is typically lower than for family households. In this report AMI refers to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income. In Snohomish County, AMI is $96,000. Total Households 9,510 Cost-burdcncd Cost -burdened Households Households 1,170 1,075 Subsidized Cosbburdened Housing Units Households Iff 520 Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income (50-80% AMI) (BO-100% AMI) f>100% AMI) Not Calculated Not Cost Burdened ■ Cost -Burdened Household spends more than 30% of monthly income on housing costs ■ Severely Cost -Burdened Household spends more than 50% of monthly income on housing costs Sources: HUD CHAS (bused on ACS 20I0-2014 5-yea, estimates); Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County 2018, AMI = HUD Are. Median Familv Income Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that match a diverse array of different household types and income levels. This chapter provides a summary of housing needs in Edmonds. A more detailed assessment of the Edmonds housing supply and community needs is available in Appendix A: Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment. HOMELESS PERSONS AND FAMILIES Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons, from 344 to 515 in 2017.2 Chronic homelessness has increased at an even 1 Source: BERK analysis of Zillow Rent Index data for City of Edmonds, March 2011 — March 2018. 2 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23, 2017. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/41 603 :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 172 8.A.b faster rate, from 135 persons in 2013 to 313 persons in 2017. There are 260 students attending schools in Edmonds that are either homeless or lack a stable home environment. There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs, disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and criminal records. Housing solutions must often be coordinated with support services to help homeless residents address the underlying causes of housing insecurity. Housing solutions for homeless persons and families ■ Winter and emergency shelters for short-term needs ■ Transitional housing (particularly for women and children) ■ Tiny homes and other flexible low-cost housing formats that can be built quickly to address needs ■ Permanent supportive housing with coordinated services :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 173 WORKFORCE HOUSING Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.3 The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail, accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries are typically low wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Over a quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than $15,000 per year, or about 15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these wage levels would have an extremely difficult time finding anywhere to live in Edmonds without a second job or a dual -income household. This helps explains why 87 percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of Edmonds and 42 percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace. As shown in Exhibit 2, nearly 1,100 low -wage workers commute more than 25 miles, and nearly 1,300 additional workers commute more than 10 miles from their homes outside of Edmonds. 8.A.b Example: Home Health Aide Living Alone i . at r Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics A home health aide in Edmonds earns around $26,000 per year. At this income, she could afford a monthly rent of $840 per month. The average rent for a studio apartment in Edmonds is over $1,000 per month and studios are in very limited supply. It is unlikely that a home health aide living alone could find a suitable home in Edmonds, affordable or otherwise. The most effective way to meet the needs of very low-income workers is increasing production of subsidized income - restricted affordable housing. However, increasing the supply of market -rate small apartments or "micro -housing" can also help to provide more low-cost housing options for workers living alone in Edmonds. 3 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015). :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 174 8.A.b Exhibit 2. Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds Verde Low Waae Workers Monthly Wage': up to $1,250 Max Affordable Monthly Rent': up to $375 Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work W, "10 1,518 Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work Low Wage Workers Monthly Wage': up to $3,333 Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $1,000 658 Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work tv Sources: u,5. Census Bureau, Center far Econ amic Sludies 2015 BERK, 2017. (1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the lop of the bracket. Exhibit 3 shows cost -burdened non -senior households by household type and income level. It shows there are household struggling with housing costs across the entire income spectrum. The greatest need is among small families (2-4 members) and non -family households, which are typically people living alone or with unrelated housemates. Exhibit 3. Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors excluded) Large Family 80 50 10 0 10 150 Small Family 170 380 330 245 645 Non -family 215 270 340 110 210 0- Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates) 1,770 1,145 'I DRAFT 511 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 175 8.A.b Workforce housing solutions ■ Subsidized multifamily housing. ■ Increased production of small market rate apartments, including studios, efficiencies, and micro - housing. ■ More "missing middle" housing formats like ADUs, duplexes, and townhomes. Example: Single parent working as a receptionist �-j Source: Shutterstock, Alena Vasko A single parent working as a receptionist in Edmonds earns an average of about $34,000 per year. At this wage the family could afford $960 per month in rent, whereas 1-bedroom apartments rent for at least $1,200 in Edmonds and they are in very short supply. Increasing the supply of smaller apartments and reducing restrictions to other home types like accessory dwelling units could help to address the needs of working single parents. Increasing the supply of subsidized housing is needed to meet the needs of low-income households. Example: Teacher supporting a family of four Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics A family of four with one parent employed as an elementary teacher earns an average of $62,000 per year, or about 65 percent of AMI. At this wage the family could afford up to $1,550 in rent The average three -bedroom apartment in Edmonds rents for almost $1,700 per month. Homeownership options are generally far out of reach. Moderate -income family households like this one need more "missing middle" housing options such as townhomes, duplexes, or detached accessory dwelling units to provide more rental and ownership housing opportunities. 11I DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 176 8.A.b SENIOR HOUSING One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and over 7,000 residents age 55-65 will become seniors within the next 10 years.4 Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and mobility challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing needs that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to age in place may require additional support services such as home modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. While many senior households in Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and services, many others will not. Indicators of need ■ 3,200 senior households in Edmonds with incomes below AMI. ■ 422 cost -burdened renters' households. ■ Over 1,500 cost -burdened homeowners. Senior housing solutions ■ Subsidized and market -rate senior living facilities with coordinated support services. ■ Detached and attached accessory dwelling units. ■ Support services to facilitate aging in place. Example: Supporting affordable aging in place for Edmonds seniors Source: Unspash, Sam Wheeler Frank is a 74-year-old widower who has lived in a single-family home in Edmonds for 46 years. He loves his community and wishes to stay in Edmonds. However, the cost of maintaining his large home is becoming unmanageable. So, Frank would like to build a detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU) in the large yard and rent the main building to a young family who cannot afford to buy a home in Edmonds. A DADU would be the perfect size for Frank and could be designed with accessibility in mind so that he can stay in the home as his mobility declines. The rent from the primary home would be more than enough to cover the loan to build the DADU. It could also provide Frank enough income to cover the costs of other services like transportation, grocery delivery, gardening, and occasional visits from a home health aide. Currently DADUs are not allowed by Edmonds code. A key element of this strategy is to relax these kinds of restrictions to enable more housing solutions for seniors and others. 4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 201 1 -2015 :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 177 8.A.b Housing Strategy OVERVIEW The Edmonds Housing Strategy charts a course for supporting a sustainable, inclusive community with a range of housing types for households with different income levels and housing needs. It includes six objectives for improving access to affordable housing across the full range of housing types. The strategy is focused on reducing costs of development, increasing housing production, and addressing the specific needs of special populations in the city. The 2016 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan includes the following 10 goals related to housing in the community to achieve this strategy's mission: 1. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. 2. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing. 3. Provide for special needs populations — such as low income, disabled, or senior residents — to have a decent home in a healthy and suitable living environment. 4. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community. 5. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents. 6. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. 7. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. 9. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. 10. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. The development and implementation of the Housing Strategy is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also proposes that the City track and report the development of housing over time, with a target of 1 1 2 additional dwelling units per year to reach 21,168 units by 2035. This target rate of growth is faster than Edmonds has seen in recent years. Between 2010 and 2017 Edmonds added an average of 68 units per year. More recently, since 2014, the City has added 107 units per year. To achieve the growth target, Edmonds will need to continue increasing its rate of new housing production. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 178 8.A.b Considering the content of the Comprehensive Plan, this Housing Strategy is structured around six priority objectives to achieve these goals: 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing 2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle" 3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing 4. Identify and adopt strategies to address homelessness 5. Support the needs of an aging population 6. Provide protections for low-income tenants For each of these strategic objectives, this Housing Strategy provides a description of the general focus and intent with respect to housing in Edmonds, a list of potential actions to achieve each objective, and next steps for implementing these actions. 1. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF MARKET -RATE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING Edmonds needs to aggressively increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing such as apartments or condominiums to provide a greater variety of housing options and reduce upward pressure on housing costs. This can be facilitated by easing requirements and providing new market - based incentives. These actions typically focus on units appropriate for smaller households with one to two members and between 60 and 120 percent of AMI, including some low and middle -income workers. Recommended Actions 1.1 Support transit -oriented development along current and future transit corridors. Some areas which have higher levels of transit service can support transit -oriented development (TOD). This can include not only targeted rezoning and code refinement for more intensive development, but also support for a mix of residential, retail, and service offerings, multi -modal transportation options, and parking management that can support walkability and transit use. The City should coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to identify current and future areas for TOD and review potential schedules for implementation. Finally, the City should explore combining this action with an inclusionary zoning program (Action 3.2) to encourage affordable housing development. 1.2 Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones. Providing more flexibility for new development, including greater building heights or densities on a site allows more units to be accommodated on available land in areas zoned for multifamily development. This not only increases potential housing :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 179 8.A.b supply in Edmonds, it can also spur redevelopment of EXAMPLE: PORTLAND'S INFILL older, obsolete housing by permitting larger projects that DESIGN PROJECT would be more economically feasible to develop. The City should identify targeted areas where increases building Policymakers in the City of heights or density levels would be appropriate and Portland wanted to encourage supportable by local infrastructure and services. building a greater variety of housing types (such as duplexes 1.3 Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted and townhomes) in its residential areas. Reducing the number of parking stalls required for neighborhoods and reduce the each new housing unit allows for lower development costs costs of development. But it also by reducing the amount of land necessary to accommodate wanted high design standards parking spaces and the need to accommodate parking to avoid impacting community within a residential building. This can also make market- character. To do this they rate projects more feasible by allowing for more of a site brought together community to be used for development. The City should explore stakeholders to design a series where it makes sense to reduce parking requirements, of housing prototypes that meet particularly in areas well served by transit to facilitate City regulations and design TOD. objectives and are feasible from a market perspective. The 1.4 Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly purpose is to make it easier and permitting process. The City should work to improve the faster for builders to develop development permitting process and related reviews. the kinds of new housing that Faster permit reviews, predictable timelines, and an easy meet community objectives. For to understand process and requirements would reduce the more information see Portland's administrative and carrying costs for development projects Infill Design Project Overview. in the community. This may be accomplished in multiple ways, such as by increased department staffing during Qd busy cycles, clear and informative reference materials, public reports on actual permit review times, and "one window" access for applicants. Smaller houses that better fit 1.5 Explore the application of "micro -housing" style existing neighborhoods developments. "Micro -housing" typically refers to multifamily buildings with very small efficiency units (usually less than 200 square feet) or congregate housing with private rooms and shared kitchens and other facilities. Micro -housing projects can provide lower -cost options for gig one or two -person households that do not need significant More housing options for people's amounts of living space. Modifications or relaxations of changing needs zoning and code requirements should be explored to determine the feasibility of micro -housing in key locations. " Note that although this discussion is focused on workforce housing, code amendments could be explored in conjunction t with those for flexible housing options for homeless Clear and fair rules for narrow low residents detailed in Action 5.1. development Source: City of Portland, Planning and Sustainability :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 180 8.A.b Additional Actions 1.6 Advocate for state legislation to promote condominium development. The Washington State Condominium Act is interpreted to subject condo developers to an implied warranty for constructions, which has provided a disincentive for condo production in the market. Edmonds should work with other cities when possible to encourage the state legislature to revise the Act. 1.7 Coordinate communication and outreach to the development community. Providing public information about city regulations and incentives, especially those designed to encourage specific housing types, should be used to support the use of these programs in Edmonds. This can include web and hard -copy informational handouts, city email newsletters, forums, workshops, and other approaches. Next Steps ■ Review developable lands and the status of developed single-family areas in Edmonds to determine potential areas for upzoning that could accommodate greater amounts of residential development. ■ When considering changes to development code, identify whether new design standards may be needed to maintain community character while providing developers with additional flexibility. ■ Coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to determine appropriate locations for new and expanded transit -oriented development and coordinate long-range land use and transit planning for these locations. • Continue to streamline the process for permit reviews and other associated project reviews for new development and maintain a clear and transparent system to allow the public to understand the process. Provide information resources as necessary to educate stakeholders about the development review process. ■ Review the current Community Development and Building Codes to assess potential obstacles to the development of different micro -housing options, determine the expected uptake of micro -housing units, and provide recommendations for changes to the Codes that would help to achieve housing goals. • Coordinate with the PSRC, Snohomish County, other local governments, and key stakeholders to lobby the legislature to address issues with the Condominium Act. • Compile available information on the development process in Edmonds, and provide the public with clear, easy to understand guides to the process to improve transparency. 'I DRAFT 5/16/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 181 8.A.b 2. EXPAND HOUSING DIVERSITY IN THE "MISSING MIDDLE" The housing market in Edmonds is primarily composed of single- family homes and apartments. The development of a wider variety of housing products is essential to meet the diverse needs of different populations. Households at various income levels and stages in their life -cycle (ranging from young one -person households to retirees) will have different space needs and financial capacities. This range of conditions can be addressed more efficiently in the market by providing units in "missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes. Market -based approaches to expand opportunities for these developments can encourage a more diverse and flexible housing supply that better meets the needs of the community. Recommended Actions 2.1 Allow more flexible requirements for accessory dwelling units and backyard cottages. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small, self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an existing single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary residence (e.g., basement unit) or detached from the primary residence. The City should promote the development of ADUs by modifying requirements that prevent or discourage homeowners from adding a unit to an existing property. This may include more flexible parking requirements, changing owner occupancy requirements, allowing unrelated households to reside in these units, and so forth. The City should also explore the impacts of allowing some ADUs to be used for short-term rentals as a source of income for local homeowners, including impacts on the surrounding community and long-term rental housing supply. 2.2 Allow for more housing diversity in some sig. Most households cannot afford to live in a single-family home. In locations near transit and commercial centers, it may make sense to allow for a greater variety of housing types that still fit the character of the surrounding community. These could include townhomes, duplexes, cottage housing, or small -lot single-family units. Targeted rezones to allow more flexibility can help to promote a wider diversity of housing types on the market to meet the needs of a wide range of household types and income levels. EXAMPLE: ENCOURAGING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS The cities of Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood and Everett all impose less constraints on the development and use of ADUs when compared to Edmonds. The City of Mountlake Terrace promote the development of ADUs and detached ADUs on their website and provide a clear guide for homeowners considering adding an ADU to their property. Planners in Mountlake Terrace report a significant increase in the number of ADU permits in recent years as awareness of concept grows in the community. Source: City of Mountlake Terrace, via city website :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 182 8.A.b Next Steps ■ Review existing provisions within the Community Development Code and determine the changes necessary to address major obstacles in the development of accessory dwelling units and other small housing formats. ■ When considering changes to development code, identify whether new design standards may be needed to maintain community character while providing developers with additional flexibility. ■ Review developable lands and the status of developed single-family areas in the community to determine potential areas for rezoning to allow "missing middle" housing development, such as duplexes and townhouses. ■ Explore the wider application of form -based codes that could support the development of "missing middle" housing in other neighborhoods. ■ Compile available information that would be able to support the development of community land trusts in the city. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 183 8.A.b 3. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING For many low-income households with incomes 60 percent of AMI or below, it is unlikely that the market can provide housing that is affordable. Actions should be taken by the City to support and encourage the development of income -restricted housing through direct funding, reducing costs to build new affordable housing projects, and incentives to include affordable units in new market -rate developments. The City can also encourage innovative private or nonprofit financing tools for housing types that are more difficult to finance in the traditional market. These actions can be most effectively pursued in partnership with other agencies and nonprofits such as the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, Housing Hope, YWCA, Compass, Hazel Miller Foundation, and Verdant. Recommended Actions 3.1 Conduct an inventory of public and nonprofit land suitable for affordable housing development. The City should assess its inventory of surplus and underutilized parcels and develop an inventory of other public- or nonprofit -owned that can potentially support affordable housing development. This will enable the City to identify and prioritize opportunities to facilitate new affordable housing development through the direct donation of parcels or through funding from the sale of city owned land that is less suitable for affordable housing development. 3.2 Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing development targeted at 0-30 percent AMI. The City should allocate funding to directly support an affordable housing project targeted for extremely low- income households. In addition to providing resources for local affordable housing, a contribution by the City can greatly improve the competitiveness for receiving additional grant funding, particularly Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants that are administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. Funding from the City could be used to pursue projects in Edmonds in partnership with a nonprofit housing developer, or pooled to contribute to regional housing solutions through the Alliance for Housing Affordability. 3.3 Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations. A major source of support that can help low-income households access housing EXAMPLE: SHORELINE DENSITY BONUS Under the Shoreline Municipal Code, density bonuses are provided in multifamily areas, with up to a 50 percent increase in density provided for units affordable for households with incomes up to 80 percent AMI. Covenants are registered on the property to retain this affordable housing on the site for a 30-year period. EXAMPLE: FEE WAIVERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN EVERETT Affordable housing projects for households of 50 percent AMI or less in Everett may apply for a transportation impact fee exemption, which is granted on a case -by -case basis. An exemption requires the developer to register a covenant on title to ensure the site remains in use for affordable housing. Fees for development permits may also be waived at the discretion of the planning director if a landowner agrees to register a covenant on title to retain affordable units on the site for a 30-year period. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 184 8.A.b on the private market is the Section 8 voucher program, funded by the federal government and administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. The City of Edmonds should work proactively with the Authority to secure additional project -based vouchers for developments within the city where possible. This should be done in cooperation with third -party nonprofit organizations where applicable. 3.4 Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for affordable housing development. The City should provide support and funding to nonprofit developers interested in receiving financial support from the state and federal governments. Among the available programs, federal Low - Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) can provide tax credits for 10 years of up to about 9 percent of the qualified basis of a building and are administered through the Washington State Housing Finance Commission. Additionally, the State Department of Commerce administers the Housing Trust Fund for the construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, preferably for households with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. 3.5 Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program. The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a voluntary incentive provided by the City. Under this program, private multifamily housing developments in certain designated districts are exempted from property taxes for up to 12 years if income -restricted units are maintained in the development. This program is currently applied to the SR-99 Subarea and the Westgate Mixed -use District. It should be expanded as appropriate to spur the development of affordable housing in other locations. 3.6 Explore inclusionary zoning and/or density bonusing programs. Possible changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code should be explored that would permit greater residential building heights and densities in certain targeted areas, in exchange for a percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing fund. This can either be voluntary, where affordable units are necessary for additional capacity, or mandatory, where affordable units are required for any development on the site. Since inclusionary zoning must be implemented as part of an increase in development capacity, this should be explored as part of other strategies involving upzoning, such as Actions 1.2 and 1.3. 3.7 Reduce development fees for low-income housing. Fees for development in the City of Edmonds include impact fees to finance capital spending for community infrastructure, utility connection fees to fund new connections with city services, and permit fees to cover administrative costs of processing applications. Some discounts are currently provided for low-income housing, and further reductions should be explored to improve the financial feasibility of the development while maintaining necessary funding for these services. Additional Actions 3.8 Support community land trusts. Community land trusts (CLTs) are a way to promote affordable home ownership by keeping the ownership of the land with a separate nonprofit community organization and providing renewable leases and portions of the total equity to homeowners. Although these arrangements are not typically implemented by local governments, the City can provide support for a new CLT recently formed in Snohomish County ("Homes and Hope"), including direct funding or the provision of surplus public lands. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 185 8.A.b 3.9 Expedite the permitting process for affordable housing. The City can prioritize the processing of permits for affordable housing projects, which will reduce the time spent in the permitting process and the associated costs with holding the property. Although this could be used for high priority projects, the short-term focus should be to provide overall support for streamlining the permitting process. 3.10 Support the use of Historic Tax Credits. LIHTCs can be used in conjunction with the federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate older buildings for use as low-income housing. Although this may be applicable in individual cases, it is unlikely that this could be applied generally to properties within Edmonds. 3.11 Coordinate with organizations to address special housing needs in the community. This housing strategy focuses on general community housing needs, as well as the needs of seniors, low-income households, and the homeless. However, other groups in Edmonds may have needs beyond the scope of this overall strategy. For instance, some communities, such as artists, may benefit from affordable housing that provides appropriate live/work spaces to facilitate in home businesses that are compatible with the surrounding community. The City should maintain a dialogue with community organizations to determine how planning regulations and affordable housing programs can provide the flexibility to consider specific needs for housing and explore partnerships for new affordable housing development. Next Steps ■ Research the implications of expansions to the MFTE program to new neighborhoods, including the expected low-income and market -rate housing yields resulting from such a program, and develop recommendations for changes to the MFTE to reach the goals of this Strategy. ■ Review existing land use capacity and expected impacts on market -rate and affordable unit development from different inclusionary zoning policies to provide recommendations for inclusionary zoning policies to incorporate into the Community Development Code. ■ Evaluate the fiscal impacts and expected benefits from further reductions in development fees for affordable housing. ■ Compile available information to support applications for grants and tax credits by developers interested in subsidized housing, including how-to guides for completing applications and relevant city data that can be used to support the rationale. ■ Coordinate a dialogue with relevant community organizations to understand what specific needs may existing for affordable, flexible housing options. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 186 8.A.b 4. IDENTIFY AND ADOPT STRATEGIES TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. The City can and should coordinate with nonprofit and regional partners to identify roles it can play in helping to tackle these problems. One of these roles is identifying and eliminating barriers to the development of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. Recommended Actions 4.1 Explore partnerships to with the County and nonprofit service providers. The City could work with nonprofits or regional partners to identify effective roles the City can play within the network of homeless service providers. 4.2 Support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent supportive housing. The City should partner with nonprofits or regional partners to develop new permanent supportive housing intended to provide stability and integrate services that attend to necessities like food and shelter without preconditions such as sobriety, treatment, or service participation requirements. 4.3 Reduce barriers to tiny houses and single room occupancy housing. Options for permanent or semi- permanent housing for low-income and formerly homeless individuals can include individual room rentals with shared bathrooms and/or kitchens. Certain code requirements in Edmonds may limit this kind of housing, and modifications or relaxations of the building code can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as the associated costs of housing to these residents. Note that this could be implemented in conjunction with efforts in Action 1.5 to allow the development of micro -housing. Additional Actions 4.4 Explore partnerships to develop winter shelter programs. The City could work in partnership with nonprofits to develop emergency overnight shelter programs that operate during the winter months. Such programs can also help connect homeless individuals with services and other resources, including support services provided by the City and the broader region. EXAMPLE: TINY HOMES IN SEATTLE Othello Village is a city - authorized homeless encampment with 28 96-square foot tiny houses and 12 tent platforms. It is intended as a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. The village shares a kitchen, shower trailer, donation hut, and security booth, The city pays about $160,000 per year to supply water, garbage services, and counseling on -site. Donations from individuals, foundations, and other organizations have recently allowed all Othello Village tiny houses to install heat and electricity. The Village is owned and operated by the Low -Income Housing Institute (LIHI), which also provide case management services. Donations to LIHI also fund the materials for the tiny houses, which cost about $2,200 per house; construction is mostly courtesy of volunteers. Seattle has five other similar encampments. These are permitted for 12 months with the option to renew for a second 12 months. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 187 8.A.b Next Steps ■ Review the current Community Development and Building Codes to identify obstacles to development of emergency shelter beds, affordable housing options, and low barrier, permanent supportive housing. ■ Assess examples of alternative housing options to provide flexibility with housing unit development and determine necessary changes to implement these housing options. ■ Explore partnerships with local and regional organizations working with homeless populations to develop and implement a "housing first" program, winter shelters, safe parking lot use, and other targeted strategies to address both short and long-term needs in the community. 5. SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION Demographic trends indicate that the senior and elderly population of Edmonds will grow significantly over the next decade. This will provide significant challenges for these residents with respect to housing security. For those that decide to "age in place" in their current housing units, there will be challenges in accessing appropriate health and social services as well as managing the ongoing costs of housing with fixed incomes. For those that choose assisted living options or care in nursing homes land use requirements should allow sufficient options to be built affordably for their needs. Recommended Actions 5.1 Pursue partnerships to support aging in place. One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in current housing units. Such programs could include home modification, shared housing, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. This may be best pursued in partnership with another organization involved with elder care, such as Aging and Disability Services of Snohomish County. 5.2 Examine property tax relief and utility rate/tax relief programs. Low-income homeowners, especially seniors, can be at risk of economic displacement when property tax or utility charges increase. Snohomish County has a property tax exemption and deferral programs for senior and disabled persons as well as property tax deferral program for limited income homeowners. The City could expand participation in these programs through increased outreach and education. Additionally, the City could develop similar programs to provide relief for the cost of utilities to provide support to seniors and other groups. Additional Actions 5.3 Reduce barriers to group homes and housing for seniors. Housing in retirement and assisted living communities in Edmonds, including nursing homes or memory care facilities, may have certain code requirements (e.g., vehicle parking) that are less applicable to the needs for seniors or other group home residents. Modifications or relaxations of code requirements can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as the associated costs of housing for seniors and other special needs populations. :III DRAFT 5/1 6/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 188 8.A.b Next Steps ■ Develop partnerships with nonprofit organizations involved with elder care to coordinate a "aging in place" plan for city services and land uses that will support residents of Edmonds as they age. ■ Review options for property tax and utility rate relief programs for seniors to determine the expected uptake, fiscal implications, and relative impacts of such a program. • Coordinate a forum with local and regional developers of care facilities and nursing homes to review requirements for developing these uses in Edmonds, and potential innovations to reduce the costs of these projects. 6. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME TENANTS Low-income tenants may be impacted by different issues in the market that affect their ability to find safe and stable housing. To address these concerns, the City should work to provide protections that help ensure tenant safety, discourage discrimination, and aid those facing displacement. Although these initiatives do not increase the housing supply or address housing affordability, they can contribute to a more sustainable base of renters in the city. They can also promote long-term connections to the community. Recommended Actions 6.1 Create requirements to provide fair housing information. The City should work to pass ordinances that require property managers to provide information to all tenants regarding tenant rights and property manager responsibilities under federal fair housing law. 6.2 Create anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. The City should work to pass ordinances to affirm that discrimination against prospective tenants based on source of income, race, ability, or other factors is not permitted, and provide protections against discriminatory behavior by landlords. Additional Actions 6.3 Provide rental housing inspection programs. The City could provide for an ordinance or program to educate property owners, managers, and renters about City housing codes. This could also include requirements for owners to register all rental units and verify their properties meet building standards. Note that this would require additional City resources and should be assessed to determine the capacity needed for implementation. 6.4 Develop a tenant relocation assistance program. The City could also develop a program to provide financial assistance and services to households that are physically displaced due to the demolition or renovation of rental units. This program would be financed through charges on the owners of the demolished units but would need to be tailored to ensure that it would have a benefit to tenants while not significantly increasing the costs of development. Next Steps ■ Develop a fair housing ordinance for review by Council that requires the distribution of relevant fair housing information at the time of a residential lease. 'I DRAFT 5/16/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 189 8.A.b • Create a fair housing information packet to be distributed to residential tenants upon the lease of a housing unit. ■ Develop a housing anti -discrimination ordinance for review by Council which affirms that the City of Edmonds prohibits anyone from being denied housing, evicted unfairly, or otherwise discriminated against based on race, ancestry, color, age, religion, sex, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin. ■ Develop public information for distribution to ensure that the public is informed about the anti- discrimination ordinance and the process for reporting discrimination in housing. ■ Examine the expected costs, benefits, and impacts on development resulting from options for tenant relocation programs and outline recommended program characteristics. 'I DRAFT 5/16/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 190 8.A.c Appendix A. Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing. Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that match a diverse array of different household types and income levels. This appendix presents an assessment of the current housing supply and housing needs in Edmonds, across the full spectrum of household types and income levels. HOUSEHOLD INCOMES IN EDMONDS When summarizing housing affordability by income level, household income is typically compared to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income, or AMI. In Snohomish County, AMI is $96,000. Exhibit 4 compares AMI to median income in Edmonds for families (households with two or more related persons) and non -families. Family incomes are typically higher than non -family due to the potential for dual income households. However, the gap in Edmonds is particularly wide with the median non -family income being less than 50 percent of AMI. Exhibit 4. Median Family Income Snohomish County 2017 HUD Median Family Income (AMI) Edmonds Median Family Income Edmonds Median Non -Family Income Source: HUD, 2017; 201 2-2016 American Community Survey (S1901); BERK, 2018. Exhibit 5 breaks down all households in Edmonds by income level and housing tenure. It shows a significant divide between renter and owner -occupied households. Only 31 percent of renter households earn at or above AMI, compared to 65 percent of owner -occupied households. Exhibit 5. Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by Housing Tenure All Households ® 11 % 13% 10% ■ 30%or less 30 - 50°/u Renter 18% 20% 10% 50 - 80% 80 - 1 00% Owner W 8% TO% 9% �comw in ■Above 100% Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 201 0-2014 5-year estimates) HOUSING SUPPLY IN EDMONDS There are 18,663 housing units in Edmonds. As shown in Exhibit 6, nearly two thirds of these units are single family homes and nearly one third are in multifamily buildings with five or more units, such as ��'I DRAFT 5/18/2018 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 191 8.A.c apartments and condominiums. Only 7 percent of all units are in smaller multifamily buildings such as duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes. Exhibit 6. Edmonds Housing Inventory HOUSING INVENTORY (2017) 0y Single Family ■ Duplexes ■ Multi -family (3 or 4 Units) ■ Multi -family (5+ Units) Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), 201 8; BERK, 2018. Exhibit 7 breaks down the housing stock in Edmonds by number of bedrooms (in green) and households by household size (in yellow). Over 60 percent of the housing units in Edmonds have 3 or more bedrooms, yet over 70 percent of the households have only 1 or 2 members. One explanation for this mismatch is the large number of "empty nest" or childless couples living in large single-family homes. Nonetheless there is a severe lack of smaller format housing available to single workers or small families seeking to live in Edmonds. Likewise, there are few options available to existing households in Edmonds, such as retirees, who may wish to downsize their home and stay in the community. r 11� Packet Pg. 192 DRAFT 5/18/2018 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy 8.A.c Exhibit 7. Household (HH) Sizes Compared to Housing Unit Sizes 45% 0 v 40% H 0 35% 2 0 30 °/❑ 1 Person HH 2 Person HH 3 Person HH 4 Person HH 5+ Person HH X 40% c 0 35% c 5 30 °/❑ 0 2 e 25% 10% 5% — 1 °•a 0°/. ......1 .......... ■ 35% ■ No Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5+ Bedroom Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 201 1 -2015 Ownership Housing The cost of ownership housing in Edmonds is on the rise and out of reach of most Snohomish County residents. During the past six years median home values in Edmonds have increased by $240,000. Today a household needs to make over $150,000 a year to afford the median value home. That is 159 percent of area median family income. The ownership housing market in Edmonds is dominated by large single-family homes. There are very few options for smaller and middle -income households seeking to get a foothold in the ownership housing market through the purchase of a condo or small townhome. r 111 DRAFT 5/18/2018 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 193 8.A.c OWNERSHIP HOUSING Median home values have increased by ., '�+ over the past 6 years $554,400 $314,500 5EP ' 11 SEP'17 $152,556 (159% of county AMI) Sources: 2illow Home Value Index, 2017; FHA Mortgage Calculator; BERK, 2017, [AMI] Area Median Income Rental Housing in Edmonds Annual housel income neede afford median value home Rental housing in Edmonds is significantly more affordable than ownership. However, costs are rising, and options are limited for low and moderate incomes households. As shown in Exhibit 8, one and two - bedroom apartments in Edmonds are affordable to households earning 60 percent of AMI or above. Households earning 50 percent of AMI cannot afford average rents for any unit size. Exhibit 8. Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units by Income Level, 2017 120% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 100% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 80% Yes Yes Yes Yes No 60% No Yes Yes No No 50% or less No No No No No Source: Dupre+Scott, 2017; HUD, 2017; BERK, 2018. The rental market in Edmonds includes units available at a variety of affordability levels. Exhibit 9 breaks down all renter households in Edmonds by income level and compares it to the rental housing supply by affordability level, based on Census data collected from 2010 to 2014. It shows that there was a significant shortage of units available for households with incomes at 30 percent of AMI or less, as well as a shortage of units for middle and upper income households (above 80 percent AMI). However, the following chart, Exhibit 10, shows that average rents have risen by over $600 since March 2011 at a rate of 4.6 percent per year. Therefore, it is likely that the supply of units affordable to lower income VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 194 8.A.c households, particularly those below 50 percent of AMI, is significantly diminished today. Furthermore, undersupply of units at higher affordability levels results (>80 percent AMI) results in middle and higher income households competing for units that would be affordable to lower income households. This diminishes the supply of units available to those lower income households. Exhibit 9. Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level Compared to Household Need 3,000 2,500 2,390 2,000 1,925 1,500 1,150 11100 975 1,000 500 435 ■ Households ■ Units Available 2,235 0 <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 30-80% AMI >80% AM[ Household Income as a Percent of HUD Area Median Family Income Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates); BERK, 2018. Exhibit 10. Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018 $2,500 $2,000 m a: >_ $1,699 t �1 c 0 2 $1,500 $2,327 $1, 000 2011-01 2012-01 2013-01 2014-01 2015-01 2016-01 2017-01 2018-01 Year -Month Source: Zillow, 201 8; BERK, 2018. r 111 DRAFT 5/18/2018 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 195 8.A.c HOUSING NEEDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE This section presents indicators of housing need based on the latest and best available data. Since housing costs are rising fast in Edmonds and neighboring communities, it is likely that many of these indicators underestimate the full extent of needs in the current housing market. Most notably, the estimates of cost -burdened households (those with housing costs that exceed 30 percent of household income) are based on household survey data collected between the years of 2010 and 2014. A lot has changed since this period. In 2010 the region was still in the early stage of recovery from an economic recession and housing market decline. The recent period of rapidly rising housing costs didn't begin until around 2013, near the end of the survey period. Despite these limitations, these indicators do provide a sense of scale of the problem among different household types and income levels. Low-income Workforce Housing Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.5 The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail, accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries are typically low -wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of AMI. Over a quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than $15,000 per year, or about 15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these wage levels would have an extremely difficult time finding anywhere to live in Edmonds without a second job or a dual -income household. This helps explains why 87 percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of Edmonds and 42 percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace. 5 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015). VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 196 8.A.c Exhibit 11. Low -wage Workers Commuting Long Distances to Jobs in Located Edmonds Very Low Wage Workers Monthly Wage': up to $1, 250 Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375 Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work 1,518 Commute More Than 10 Miles to Work Low Wage Workers Monthly Wage': up to $3,333 Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $1,000 658 Commute More Than 25 Miles to Work Sources: U.5. Con sus Bureou, Center for Econc is Studies 2015; BERK, 2017. (1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top ai the bracket. Exhibit 12 provides estimates for low-income non -elderly households who are living in Edmonds and have incomes between 30 and 50 percent of AMI (or between roughly $20,000 and $50,000 a year depending on household size). It shows the largest need is among workers living alone and smaller families. It is likely that the majority of small families have only two members. Exhibit 12. Non -elderly Households with Incomes 30-50 percent of AMI Persons living alone or in non -family household M Small families (2-4 persons) Large families (5+ persons) _ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ■ Cost Burdened ■ Not Cost Burdened Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates); BERK, 2018. VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 197 8.A.c Market -rate apartment rents Edmonds are not significantly more than what is affordable to many low - wage workers earning 50 percent of AMI, although this varies by household size. The biggest problem is the lack of supply. Even in cases where market rents are somewhat higher than the affordability level for lower income workers, many of these workers could save a great deal of money in transportation costs if they had the opportunity to live closer to their workplace. However, fully addressing the needs of low- income workers will require more subsidized housing available to qualifying households based on income level. Moderate -income Workforce Housing Households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of AMI are typically considered moderate income and have unique housing needs. Exhibit 13 shows the number of moderate income households in Edmonds by household type. In addition to those households living in Edmonds, there are over 800 workers earning 40 percent of AMI or above that commute over 25 miles to jobs in Edmonds.6 Presumably many of these households would prefer to live closer to their jobs if suitable housing was available. Exhibit 13. Non -Elderly Households with Incomes 50 to 80 percent of AMI Persons living alone or in non -family household 11hL Small families (2-4 persons) Large families (5f persons) 1 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 ■ Cost Burdened ■ Not Cost Burdened Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates); BERK, 2018. 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015). VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 198 8.A.c SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS Senior Households One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and this share is expected to grow significantly during the next 10 years. Exhibit 14 breaks down the population of Edmonds by age group. This shows that there are over 7,000 residents aged 55-65 who will become seniors within the next 10 years. Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and mobility challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing needs that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to age in place may require additional support services such as home modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and counseling. While many senior households in Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and services, many others will not. There are 3,200 senior households in Edmonds with incomes below AMI. Over half of these households are cost burdened and over a quarter of those households are renters. Exhibit 15 breaks down these households by income level. The greatest need is among those with incomes below 50 percent of AMI. Exhibit 15. Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below AMI, by Income Level Exhibit 14. Edmonds Population by Age Range Population by Age Range, 2016 85 and over 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 aQ) 50 to 54 M 45 to 49 o: v 40 to 44 Q 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5to9 Under 5 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Population Source: American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 201 1-2015; BERK, 2017. 1,200 Senior Living Alone ■ Senior Family 1,000 ............................ ............ 40b fA M m 600 _ fA 3 400 200 0 Extremely Very Low -Income Moderate Income Low -Income Low -Income (50-80% AMI) (80-1GO% AMI) (530% AMI) (30-50% AMI) :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 199 8.A.c Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates); BERK, 2018. There are a variety of housing solutions that can help meet the needs of low and moderate -income senior households. These include subsidized senior living facilities with coordinated support services available onsite. Attached and detached accessory dwelling units can also be a good solution for many seniors. For instance, many senior households in Edmonds are homeowners. Those seeking to semi -independently age in place with the support of family can do so by moving into an accessory dwelling unit, freeing up the main home for family. Homelessness Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons, from 344 to 515 in 2017.7 Chronic homelessness has increased at an even faster rate, from 135 in 2013 to 313 in 2017. Many factors can contribute to homelessness and present barriers to housing stability. These include poverty, lack of affordable housing, disability, domestic violence, mental illness, criminal records, and addiction. Reliable data for quantifying homelessness within the City of Edmonds is limited. The 2017 Snohomish County Point -in -Time (PIT) count indicates that there were six unsheltered persons who slept in Edmonds the previous night and four unsheltered persons whose last permanent residence was in Edmonds. These are very likely to be undercounts. In southern Snohomish County, "job loss" and "family crisis/Break up" were the most common reasons for homelessness. Data about homeless students from the Edmonds School District are more comprehensive. Exhibit 16 shows total homeless students by school year, inclusive of all schools in the district (which includes the cities of Lynwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway, and some neighboring communities). School districts in Washington State define homeless students as those "who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence." This includes categories such as "doubled -up" households that are sharing housing due to economic hardship. After a long period of steady increase, the 2016-2017 school year saw a decrease in homeless students. Much of the growth in homeless student population has been among those who are doubled -up, meaning they do not have a permanent residence and are staying with family or friends. Among just those schools attended by children who live in Edmonds, there were 260 homeless students during the 2016-2017 school year. 7 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23, 2017. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/41 603 VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 200 8.A.c Exhibit 16. Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District 700 600 500 N �r_ 400 a� a 300 Ln 200 100 0 500 600 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 School Year ■ Shelters ■ Doubled- Up ■ Unsheltered ■ Hotels/ Motels Note: Data for 2016-2017 excludes 40 students in foster care to maintain consistency with the data collection methods used in previous years. The school district's official count of homeless students for the 2016-2017 school year is 640. Source: Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), 2017; Edmonds School District, 2017; BERK 2017. There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs, disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and criminal records. Housing solutions must often be coordinated with support services to help homeless residents address the underlying causes of housing insecurity. Veterans Edmonds is estimated to have 3,310 veteran residents, nearly 10 percent of the total population.$ These residents are less likely than the general population to have income below the poverty level (only 2.6 percent compared to 7.6 percent of non -veterans). However, a significantly greater percentage of the veteran population is living with a disability (31 percent compared to 10 percent of non -veterans). The latest Point -in -Time count surveyed 44 unsheltered veterans and 22 staying in emergency shelters. The overall number of homeless veterans has remained stable since 2013. According to the 2017 PIT report, Snohomish County has sustained "functional zero status" on veteran homelessness under the guidance of Opening Doors, a Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness.9 Function zero is attained when there is "a well -coordinated and efficient community system that assures homelessness is rare, brief and non -recurring, and no Veteran is forced to live on the street."10 The Snohomish County summarizes resources available: "Veteran specific prevention and rapid - rehousing programs are offered, along with newly funded solutions. Sebastian Place, a 20-unit 8 U.S. Census American Community Survey 201 2-201 6 5-Year Estimates. 9 Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. Retrieved from httDs://www.usich.aov/resources/uDloads/asset library/USICH ODeninaDoors Amendment2015 FINAL.Ddf 10 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "Ending Homelessness Among Veterans Overview". https://www.va.aov/HOMELESS/ssvf/docs/Ending Veterans Homelessness Overview.pdf r 111 DRAFT 5/18/2018 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 201 8.A.c apartment complex dedicated to solely to house and provide supportive services to homeless veterans has opened. A low barrier veteran shelter program also began providing emergency shelter in conjunction with services."11 Based on the County's assessment, veterans may be well served compared to other special needs populations facing housing instability. Artists The City of Edmonds Arts & Culture 2017 Economic Impact Study12 recommends that the City "integrate arts and culture's contributions to the economy in new and existing community economic development efforts." One way it can do this is consider actions to support the housing needs of artists living in Edmonds. Artists typically have incomes far below the level needed to afford market -rate housing in Edmonds. They also often have unique housing needs that could be addressed through new kinds of live - work formats that allow for studios or gallery space on the ground floor of artist housing. 11 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23, 2017. p. 21 https: //snohomishcountywa.ciov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/41 603 12 Current in draft form. Will likely be published by the time the Housing Strategy is released publicly. VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 202 8.A.c Appendix B. Homeless Services and Resources in Edmonds Resource for homeless population in Edmonds are provided by Snohomish County as well as local nonprofit organizations. The only shelter in Edmonds is the South Snohomish County Emergency Cold Weather Shelter, which is staffed by volunteers and housed at the Edmonds Senior Center. This shelter is open any night the temperature drops below 34 degrees. Other shelters are available in the City of Lynnwood and elsewhere in Snohomish County. Several Edmonds churches host meals and food banks and provide short-term services. The cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood Police Departments share a social worker outreach program that works to assist people struggling with homelessness in finding long-term solutions that leads them towards self-sustainability. This program is staffed by one social worker who helps people to navigate the County's coordinated entry system for accessing housing, finding access to appropriate mental health or drug and alcohol treatment services, or assistance in securing other resources specific to the individual's circumstances. According to the current social worker, Ashley Dawson, the intent of this program is not just to immediately house a person but rather to tackle some of the issues that may be contributing to their homelessness so that they will be successful once suitable housing is found. Edmonds Police Department Patrol officers often encounter people who are homeless, living in motor homes, vehicles, or in structures in their family members yards. These officers typically refer people to the social worker. According to Ms. Dawson, the Police Department has taken a progressive approach in recognizing that there are many layers to a persons situation. She indicates that officers act as partners in taking preventative approaches to supporting the full spectrum of needs among the homeless population. More information about services provided in Snohomish County are available on the County's Human Services website. 1 3 These services include: ■ Services to help maintain elderly and disabled adults in their own home or in a community setting ■ Drug and alcohol treatment for both youth and adults ■ Mental Health counseling ■ 24-hour services for persons in either a mental health or drug and alcohol crisis ■ Services to help low-income households meet their basic needs or obtain specific help to overcome barriers to improving their economic situation ■ An Early Childhood Education Program for low-income families with four-year old children ■ Employment and community support programs for persons with developmental disabilities and their families ■ Community programs for children and families ■ Help for veterans ■ Weatherization and help for low-income households to pay their heating bills 3 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/ 191 /Human -Services VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 203 8.A.c The Edmonds City Council recently set aside $250,000 in funds for addressing homelessness. The City is currently researching specific approaches or programs for most effectively utilizing this new funding to address current needs. VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Edmonds Housing Strategy Packet Pg. 204 8.A.c Appendix C: Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools This Appendix includes 47 housing tools, or actions that the City of Edmonds could pursue to address housing needs. BERK Consulting conducted a preliminary assessment of these tools and presented to the results to city staff and the Housing Strategy Task Force. Some of the recommended actions in the Draft Housing Strategy are selected from this list of tools, while others reflect refinements or revisions suggested by the Task Force or city staff. These tools are organized by the same six objectives featured in the Draft Housing Strategy. 1. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF MARKET -RATE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING Support transit -oriented * Kenmore, Bothell, Shoreline, others. * Implemented in the Highway 99 subarea. * Increase multifamily development capacity. ■ Locations limited by transit availability. TOD development (TOD) in applicable Several communities across the Puget Sound The City has just completed a subarea plan Increasing the allowable density of development in project locations are limited to nodes and areas Region have used TOD District Overlays or areas close to transit stations or corridors can increase corridors with high levels of transit service, and other tools to encourage TOD around and has rezoned areas along the Highway the amount of multifamily housing that can be are dependent on the maintenance of these Areas which have higher levels of transit corridors with frequent bus service. These 99 the Swift Blue Line. These accommodated in the City. services into the future. service can support development which include the nearby cities of Kenmore, corridor and supports access to regional and local Bothell, and Shoreline, among others. areas are the most promising locations for ` Transit access for less mobile populations. Greater ■ Impacts of increased height and bulk of transit systems. This can include not only transit access can provide more transportation buildings. There are potential impacts to targeted rezoning and code refinement for a local TOD corridor. alternatives for seniors, youth, the disabled, and other adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to more intensive development, but also sensitive populations. bulk and shading from larger buildings. This support for a mix of residential, retail, and ■ Sounder Station TOD. The neighborhood ■ Lower transportation costs. TOD provides housing can be mitigated using a transition zone or service offerings, multimodal surrounding the Sounder station area can with lower transportation costs through transit access design standards. transportation options, and parking management that can support walkability also be considered for TOD projects, p I especially if local transit connections can and high walkability, improving the combined ■ Increases in rent and property value. The and transit use. also provide this area with sufficient levels p affordability of housing and transportation fora desirability of these neighborhoods can of service. household. increase property values and rents beyond ■ Reduced parking. TOD can be combined with those which may be affordable for low-income reduced parking requirements in areas where car and vulnerable populations. ownership and use are expected to decline. Reductions in parking can also reduce development costs. VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 205 8.A.c Allow greater building heights and ■ Lynnwood: The City of Lynnwood has three ■ Current height limits discourage ■ Improve development feasibility. Upzoning to allow ■ Impacts of increased height and bulk of densities in multifamily zones multifamily residential zones with height development. The current height limit of 25 for more units in a project can reduce development buildings. There are potential impacts to limits of 35-45 feet. (link) feet in many areas may not be attractive costs per unit. This can make multifamily development adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to Providing greater building heights and densities on a site can allow more units to *Mountlake Terrace: The City's RMM zone for multifamily development. Standard projects in the city more feasible and encourage unit bulk and shading from larger buildings. This be accommodated on available land in allows for either 35 or 50 feet, depending multifamily products in this region are more development. can be mitigated using a transition zone or areas zoned for multifamily development. on the location relative to 216'" St SW. compatible with the mid -rise height limits in neighboring communities. Analysis of ■ Increase multifamily development capacity. design standards. This not only increases the total amount of link () building permits indicates nearby Increasingthe allowable height and density of g y ■ Limited area currentlyzoned multifamily. units that can be developed in the city, it communities arg much more e attracting actin development can increase the number of multifamily This tool may be best paired with a rezone to can also spur redevelopment of older, multifamily d elop 4 housing units that can be accommodated in the city. expand areas with multifamily zoning. obsolete housing. ■ Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are zoned multifamily, and expansions to development capacity may be needed to meet local needs. Reduce residential parking ■ PSRC/Other cities: Many communities ■ Implemented in the Highway 99 subarea. ■ Significant project cost reductions. Reductions in ■ Applications to areas served by transit. requirements across the Puget Sound Region have Edmonds recently reduced the required required parking can provide significantly reductions Larger reductions in parking requirements may reduced requirements in transit -rich areas. amount of parking spaces per unit in the in the cost of building new multifamily housing. These only be possible in walkable areas and/or If the City can reduce the number of The PSRC has assembled a summary that Highway 99 subarea to —0.75 per unit reductions result from avoiding the costs of structured areas served by transit, where the number of parking stalls required for each new provides more information about changing (<700 sf), —1.25 per unit (700-1,100 sf), / underground parking, and the significant land trips by personal vehicles are lower. housing unit, developers can reduce the amount of land necessary to accommodate requirements. (link) and 1.75 per unit (>1,100 sf). requirements for surface parking. This can make ■Off -site parking impacts. If requirements are parking spaces, and can reduce the need • Seattle: Seattle has no parking minimum for ■ Wider implementation possible. These affordable units more economically feasible toset develop. too low, there may be parking impacts in to accommodate parking within a new construction within urban centers, areas standards in the Highway 99 subarea could the surrounding neighborhood as residents will residential building. This can make a designated for transit -oriented be extended to other areas of the City, or ■ Increase in demand for transportation alternatives. use street parking when on -site parking is project more feasible by reducing costs development, or urban villages served by parking minimums could be reduced further Reducing the amount of available parking can also unavailable. and allowing more development on a site. frequent transit (10 minutes between bus in the Highway 99 area. increase the demand for other types of multimodal arrivals or less). • Available resources to support transportation: walking, biking, transit, etc. When used ■ Bellevue: Bellevue has reduced parking implementation. King County's "Right Size appropriately, this can support improved accessibility by these modes of travel, and can reduce household requirements for affordable units Parking" tool could help to evaluate current transportation costs. downtown, with 0.25 stalls/studio unit parking minimums versus predicted usage required with 60 percent AMI affordability for different development types. (link) or less. (link) 14 BERK pulled OFM data on multifamily production (5+ units in structure) by city for 2010-2017 and calculated percent of total housing unit production. Edmonds: 237 units (44 percent); Lynnwood: 1,040 (86 percent); Mountlake Terrace: 343 (60 percent); Shoreline: 1,286 (81 percent). VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 206 8.A.c Provide fast, predictable, and user- ■ Multiple communities: Many communities ■ Permit review information currently ■ Reduces costs to developers. Reducing the time ■ Increases staff time and funding friendly, permit review in the region provide support and provided online. Edmonds Development necessary to process permits would reduce costs for requirements. Increasing staff capacity to performance statistics for their permit Services already tracks permit review holding property prior to development, and increase provide additional support for permitting, Improving the development process for processes. Marysville provides annual times; publishing this information on the the number of developers interested in building whether through contracting or hiring more city market -rate and nonprofit developers reports on permit turnaround times, and website should not require large additional specific desired housing types in Edmonds. staff, would require additional funding could entice more to build in Edmonds. Seattle reports on permit review times resources support. Developers seek fast permit reviews, through its "Performance Seattle" predictable timelines, and an easy -to- webpage. (link, link) • Potential for contracted support. Many understand process and requirements. cities in the Puget Sound Region enhance Tactics to accomplish these outcomes could Multiple communities: The National their development review staff capacity include: increased department staffing Association of Home Builders' 2015 Report, through contracting with private firms. This during busy cycles; materials that clearly "Development Process Efficiency: Cutting may offer more flexibility than hiring explain requirements and the application Through the Red Tape," describes strategies additional full-time city employees. process; public reports on actual permit used by local governments to make review times (to increase predictability for development review more efficient, applicants); and providing one point of including increasing staff capacity through contact for applicants. dedicated revenue from development services, and creating a more user-friendly process. (link) Allow "micro -housing" style Seattle: After several micro -housing projects ■ May be allowable under current code. • Reduced development costs. Micro -housing ■ Increased parking demands. There are developments were developed, the City of Seattle Edmonds code doesn't have minimum unit significantly reduces the development costs per unit, potential impacts to parking in surrounding recently modified the building code to sizes, but code may prevent congregate particularly if there are lower (or no) parking areas, especially if parking requirements are "Micro Micro-housing�� typically refers to place additional restrictions on micro- housing (further research needed). requirements. This can increase the viability of a relaxed and residents rely on street parking. multifamily buildings with very small housing. (link) project. efficiency units (200 square feet or less) or ' Unclear if there is demand in Edmonds. ■ May be limited to high -amenity locations. congregate housing with private rooms ■ Kirkland: The City of Kirkland has Additional research would be necessary to ■ Suitable for single -person households. These types Given the lack of private space, micro -housing and shared kitchens and other facilities. It permitted micro -housing ("Residential determine if there are developers seeking of units can meet the needs of single -person is most often appropriate for higher amenity can provide lower -cost options for smaller Suites") with units of 1 20-350 square feet to build this kind of product in suburban households that do not need a substantial amount of locations, often with transit services available. households that do not need significant in the Central Business District and Totem locations like Edmonds. These are typically living area and can benefit from lower housing costs. These types of units will be less attractive in amounts of living space. Modifications or Lake Business District. These developments found in high -amenity neighborhoods of locations where these community facilities and relaxations of code requirements may be are required to have minimum densities and large cities. However, it may make sense to resources are limited. necessary to make this kind of development common areas, and parking is restricted to provide for student housing near ECC and feasible. 0.5 spaces per unit. (link) CWU-Lynnwood. Lobby for state legislation to ■ Seattle: Seattle's 2015 HALA report ■ Outside the City's jurisdiction. This solution ■ Addressing the "missing middle". Supporting the ■ Limited to market -rate units. New promote condominium development includes this recommendation: "The City requires action by the state legislature, and condo market in Edmonds could result in more condominium construction will support market - should work with the University of cannot be enacted directly by the City. opportunities for ownership of "missing middle" rate, owner -occupied multifamily units, and is The WA State Condominium Act Washington's Runstad Center to explore However, there may be opportunities to housing for small households. not likely to provide housing that is affordable interpreted to subject condo developers to an implied warranty for constructions, options to stimulate the condo development better coordinate with other jurisdictions •Downsizing opportunities for seniors. Condominiums to low-income households. which has resulted in lawsuits against market, including revising the warranty advocating for changes to the Act or are an option for senior households seeking to developers. This has had a significant scheme in the Condo Act. (link) working with the state Insurance Commissioner. downsize while staying in the community. This can be impact on condo development, as the supported by services within these developments increased risk of liability has reduced the dedicated to the needs of seniors. interest of developers in this type of project. The City could work with other stakeholders to lobby for revisions to the Act, or pursue other options for promoting these types of projects with developers. r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 207 8.A.c Coordinate communication and ■ Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace: Fact sheets ■ Developer information currently provided ■ Provides opportunities to advertise major programs. ■ Increases staff time commitment. Staff time outreach to developers on topics such as ADUs, affordable housing online. The Edmonds Development Services A greater understanding of available programs to would be required for creating additional regulations, critical areas, and more have Department website provides information support new development may increase the number of informational handouts and keeping them up Keeping local developers informed about been developed by these communities. (link, on long-range planning projects, code developers interested in building specific desired to date, and for administering email lists. city regulations and incentives, especially link) updates, fees, and other issues. Adding housing types in Edmonds, as well as the uptake of those designed to encourage specific information on incentive programs or zoning these incentive programs. housing types, could help get more of ■ Burien, Mountlake Terrace: Email lists are changes would fit with current efforts. these projects built in Edmonds. maintained by these communities where Encourages communication with the development Communication methods can include: web users can sign up for updates on topics such community. Providing ongoing support for resources and hard -copy informational handouts, city as planning and zoning. (link, link) to the development community promotes transparency email listservs, forums or workshops, and with stakeholders, and clear communication about the personal communication. In developer expectations for development and the use of incentive interviews, several were unaware of City programs. incentive programs. Apply transfers of development ■ Bellevue / King County. King County first • Snohomish County program available. ■ Paired with upzoning. TDR programs are typically ■ Increase in development costs. This program rights (TDR) in applicable areas developed a TDR program in 1988, which The Snohomish County TDR program allows combined with upzoning in urban areas that can increases the costs of development, which can has expanded significantly to protect cities to participate and designate support additional density. reduce the affordability of housing in the Land preservation initiatives such as protection of farmlands from development forestry, farming, and critical habitat lands "receiving areas„ through interlocal • Support for preservation programs. TDR programs community. can often employ "transfers of in unincorporated King County. As part of an interlocal agreement with the City of agreements. Edmonds currently does not have an interlocal agreement with the assist in the preservation of natural areas, farmland, ■ Diversion of funding to land preservation development rights", where the Bellevue, development rights from sending County for this program, however. and other areas in the region under significant from other housing programs. The additional development rights to lands being sites in the County can be used to increase development pressures. cost of development is transferred to rural preserved are managed through a base FAR and base building heights within • No strong linkage to housing production / land conservation efforts, which are typically conservation easement. When these rights specific zoning districts in the Bel -Red area. affordability. Note that while this program unrelated to building affordable housing at are separated in this way, the landowner (link) is related to increasing potential density, it the local or regional level. receives the rights to develop at increased is not directly linked with the production of densities in designated urban "receiving ■ Snohomish County. Snohomish County has market -rate housing. In fact, this program areas", which can be sold to developers in identified farm and forest lands for could divert potential sources of revenue these areas. conservation through its TDR program. This away from programs such as inclusionary allows for increased development in housing. locations zoned as "Urban Center" in unincorporated Snohomish County, as well as areas where rezoning has allowed for increases in allowable lots or dwellings. (link) r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 208 8.A.c 2. EXPAND HOUSING DIVERSITY IN THE "MISSING MIDDLE" Relax restrictions on accessory dwelling ■ Kent: In Kent, waivers to off-street parking ■ Potential for broad application across the ■ Increases the number of smaller, more ■ Neighborhood impacts. There can be units and backyard cottages requirements are allowed near transit or City. As 78 percent of the land in Edmonds affordable dwelling units. Accessory units impacts to neighborhood character and where available on -street parking is is zoned as single-family residential, and lot provide smaller dwelling units that can parking with accessory units, especially if The City can promote the development of sufficient. (link) sizes are relatively large, this policy could expand overall housing supply and choice, usage is widespread. Note that this can be accessory dwelling units for housing by relaxing be applied over a wide area. especially for smaller housing types that are mitigated through design standards and requirements that would make it less feasible for •Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood, accessible to a wide range of incomes. appropriate parking requirements. homeowners to add these units to an existing Everett: Requirements for ADUs are more ■ More information about local demand property. This can include reducing parking permissive for certain cases in these and impacts is needed. Additional ■ Provides additional units in developed ■ Additional investment from individual requirements, changing owner occupancy communities, such as allowing unrelated research into production of ADUs in similar neighborhoods. Promoting accessory units in homeowners. Accessory units need to be requirements, allowing diverse types of households in a unit and allowing detached suburban communities with less restrictions existing single-family residential constructed either as part of new households to reside in these units, and so forth. accessory units. (link, link) could help to evaluate potential demand neighborhoods can also provide for more construction or renovation of an existing • Seattle: The City of Seattle is considering and impacts on relaxing these restrictions. supply in areas with existing development housing unit. This can limit the rate of uptake relaxing restrictions on accessory dwelling with less impact than infill or redevelopment as it can be based on the investment units further, with possible changes in off- projects. decisions of individual homeowners. street parking requirements and owner - occupancy limitations. (link) Targeted rezoning of single-family • Shoreline: Recent rezones in Link light rail ■ Potential areas for rezone in Edmonds. ■ Increase multifamily development capacity. ■ Impacts of increased height and bulk of residential areas to allow multifamily station areas have redesignated single- Single family areas near the Highway 99 Increasing the allowable density of buildings. There are potential impacts to units family areas to either low-rise (45 feet) or corridor and Swift Blue Line may be good development through upzoning can increase adjoining single-family neighborhoods due mid -rise (70 feet) mixed -use zoning. candidates for rezone. They could serve as the amount of multifamily housing that can be to bulk and shading from larger buildings. Portions of existing single-family neighborhoods transition zones to the General Commercial accommodated in the city. This can be mitigated using a transition zone can be rezoned as appropriate to allow for new zone (up to 75 feet) adopted in much of the or design standards. multifamily housing. This may include rezones that Highway 99 subarea plan. • Address range of housing types in allow lower -density multifamily housing, such as demand. Rezoned areas can be tailored to duplexes or townhomes, as well as higher density ■ Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited promote opportunities for housing in the development. land are zoned multifamily, and expansions "missing middle" in historically single-family of these areas may be needed to meet neighborhoods. This may include townhomes, local needs. duplexes, and multifamily housing. Create/expand fee simple unit lot • Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, etc.: Other ■ Adopted in Edmonds. This tool was Eases development of townhomes and ■ Limited to market -rate units. New townhome subdivision communities such as Mountlake Terrance and recently adopted in Edmonds Community rowhouses. This can increase the market construction can support market -rate, owner - Lynnwood have allowed unit lot subdivisions Development Code, under ECDC supply of ownership housing products that occupied multifamily units, but is not likely to The unit lot subdivision process provides as of 2015-201 b. (link, link) 20.75.045. (link) may be affordable to middle -income family provide housing that is affordable to low - opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of households. income households. land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar ■ Additional research may be necessary to fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both review implementation. Work may be Increases "missing middle" supply. condominium ownership and traditional single- conducted to determine the uptake of unit Supporting the development of townhomes family detached subdivision. lot subdivision, potential limitations or can provide more opportunities for obstacles to this type of development, and households to access housing that is priced policy changes to improve this approach. and scaled for their needs. ■ Circumvents limitations on condo development. Supporting unit lot subdivision can allow development on a single building site to be divided between multiple owners without the need for a condominium, which can avoid the disincentives for this type of arrangement. a� L a� c 0 2 L C 0 .r c 0 -W 0 L r c 00 0 NI co N N �a c a� a a Q a� m .r Cn a� c 0 0 L c m E t U 0 r r Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 209 8.A.c Apply targeted rezones to allow for ■ Mountlake Terrace: The City of Mountlake ■ Potential areas for targeted rezones. Increases "missing middle" supply. ■ Limited to market -rate units. New townhome townhouses, cottage housing, and/or Terrace created a smaller lot overlay district Single-family areas near the Highway 99 Supporting the development of townhomes, and cottage housing construction can support small -lot single-family housing near the town center, including new design corridor and Swift Blue Line may be good cottage housing, and other housing types market -rate, owner -occupied units in the standards to ensure the quality of new candidates for rezone. They could serve as can provide more opportunities for "missing middle", but is not likely to provide Targeted rezones in single-family areas can development. (link) transition zones to the higher density households to access housing that is priced housing that is affordable to low-income permit more flexibility with building types in projects, with the development of smaller, less " Everett: Everett had provided zoning for General Commercial zone adopted in much and scaled for their needs. households. expensive housing units possible as part of infill small lot single-family dwellings, as well as of the Highway 99 subarea plan. ■ Can be implemented in tandem with and new development. development standards for duplexes. (link) • This PSRC document provides additional design standards. Targeted rezoning should • Kirkland: Kirkland allowed demonstration examples and steps to implementation (link) be paired with design standards that projects in 2002 for small -lot development, encourage pedestrian orientation for higher and these pilot programs were permanently density development. adopted in 2007. (link) ■ Additional examples can be found at MRSC website (link) Promote planned unit development (PUD) ■ This PSRC tool description provides ■ Available but not typically used in the ■ Flexibility with development standards. ■ More applicable to larger -scale projects. projects additional examples and steps to city. The City has this option available in the Negotiated standards for a PRD can Planned unit developments are intended to implementation. (link) Zoning Code as "Planned Residential promote more efficient site designs and be larger -scale projects, often at the level of PUD ordinances allow developers flexibility to depart from existing zoning requirements in •This MRSC tool description provides Development" (ECDC 20.35). It has not been lower infrastructure and maintenance costs a subdivision. Negotiation for specific exchange for fulfilling an established set of examples of implementation in different used for recent projects given the scale of these projects and nature of the benefits to ■ Applicable to a range of ownership types. development considerations may not be feasible for smaller developments. planning criteria. These criteria may include communities (link) developers. Although PRDs are typically focused on housing goals such a density, affordable housing, residential subdivisions for owner -occupied diversity of housing stock, or sustainability. housing, this can incorporate the • Provides opportunities for site -specific considerations. PRDs give the City an opportunity to tailor a project design to meet goals for a specific neighborhood or site. a� m L a� c 0 x r 0 c 0 0 0 c 00 0 NI to r N N .a c a� a a Q CD am .r L Cn 0 L Y E V a r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 210 8.A.c 3. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING Facilitate donations of land Although the City does not own significant parcels of land that are appropriate for new affordable housing development, it can playa role in facilitating donations of land from other organizations for affordable housing. ■ Bellevue: The City of Bellevue has provided direct assistance in the form of leases or donations of public lands for four affordable housing projects: Hopelink Place, Habitat Eastmont, Brandenwood Apartments, and Park Highlands at Wilburton Apartments. (link) ■ Significant parcels of land available for development. Although there are few larger tracts of land available for new greenfield development in the City, some institutions (including local churches) do hold vacant or underutilized parcels that could be used for developing new housing. ' Supporting role for the City. As the City does not have substantial land holdings to donate and will not typically be involved directly as a land developer, it will likely serve as a champion and mediator for these types of arrangements. ■ Supports productive use of available lands for affordable housing. Encouraging the use of donated lands for affordable housing can move sites that are currently vacant or underutilized into productive use to support affordability in the local market. ■ Addresses costs of land acquisition to affordable housing projects. As land prices can be one major factor in the feasibility of nonprofit affordable housing projects, providing land at a low cost can improve the feasibility of development. ■ Cooperation with other stakeholders required. As the City of Edmonds does not have substantial surplus land reserves to donate, the success of land donation programs will require coordination with other stakeholders. While the City can mediate these efforts, it will require decisions by these organizations to succeed, and may be subject to goals and considerations specific to these organizations. Coordinate rental assistance programs Nationwide / Snohomish County: Section 8 ■ Currently administered by HASCO. Local ■ Significant demand for housing subsidies ■ Institutional capacity for administering Rental assistance programs such as federal Housing Choice vouchers are a federal management of Section 8 programs is could be met. Additional investment by rental assistance is limited. Although Section 8 Public Housing and Housing Choice program available nationwide to provide through HASCO. The Authority also manages Edmonds could provide direct subsidies to providing rental assistance may contribute Vouchers and local and county programs rent subsidies for households with 50 percent rent -controlled properties for low-income support housing affordability to vulnerable needed resources to these programs, supported by state funding opportunities. AMI or lower. For Edmonds this program is p g households and households with special p populations in the city itself. This could p p y administration b the Citymay be difficult y y Subsidies are based on HUD s Fair Market Rent, administered by the Housing Authority of needs, and has participated in voucher provide a direct means to support given the current lack of local capacity. which, in Edmonds, is set based on the Seattle- Snohomish County (HASCO. ) programs with the Sound Families Initiative affordability y in the city. public housing Coordination with existing p g Bellevue HUD FMR area (King and Snohomish of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. agencies such as HASCO would be more Counties combined). * Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City effective. of Edmonds does not manage rental assistance programs as part of municipal operations. Coordinating rental assistance programs may require partnerships with public housing agencies or other nonprofits. Expand the multifamily tax exemption ■ Shoreline: The Shoreline Property Tax ■ Currently adopted in Edmonds. The City ■ Affordable units built and managed by * Expiration of program benefits. Under the (MFTE) program Exemption (PTE) program is offered in seven recently adopted a new MFTE program in private developers. The City is required to legislation, affordability requirements for specific areas of the City. Under the the Westgate Mixed -use District and SR-99 monitor the status of affordable units units built under this program will expire The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is program, 20 percent of a� projects units must subarea. The program requires 10 percent provided by private developers for the after 12 years. These could be retained as a voluntary incentive that exempts private be rented at affordable rates to qualify. of units affordable at 80 percent AMI and MFTE program affordable units, but it would require multifamily housing developments from property taxes for up to 12 years if rent -restricted For studio and 1-bedroom units, this is 10 percent affordable at 150 percent AMI. ■Helps provide housing for moderate- and additional expenditures by the City. affordable units are maintained in the calculated according to 70 percent of King County AMI, with 2-bedroom or larger units No projects have been built to date under this program, however. middle -income households. MFTE programs ■Reduced City revenue. An MFTE program development. affordable to 80 percent of King County can require housing affordable to 80 will reduce future property tax revenue from AMI. (link) 'Lack of awareness in the development percent of AMI, providing opportunities for the corresponding development, which could community. Interviews indicated that there housing to meet the needs of this income have fiscal impacts if its use is widespread in ■ Lynnwood: The MFTE program in Lynnwood was a lack of awareness of the MFTE group that may otherwise be priced out of the City. provides exemptions for apartment and program among developers in the the community. Not applicable for creating highly condominium projects of 50 units or more community. Better communication by the City Can provide incentives for market -rate subsidized units. Units constructed as part located within the City Center. Tax could increase participation in this program. housing. MFTE programs may also be used of these projects are typically rented at exemptions of eight years are permitted for any multifamily project, with a 12-year a to promote the development of new affordable rates, but this program is not exemption permitted if 2 percent the multifamily housing units that are not income feasible as a means of creating housing units are affordable. (link) restricted in specific areas where affordable to very low-income households redevelopment is desirable. that may require additional subsidies. a� m L a� c 0 2 0 0 c 0 0 0 c 00 0 NI to N a� �a c a� a a Q a� m L Cn a� c 0 0 x c m E t U 0 r Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 211 8.A.c Develop voluntary inclusionary zoning ■ Shoreline: Under the Shoreline Municipal ■ Fiscal assessment required. The feasibility ■ No public funding required. As inclusionary ■ Expiration of program benefits. Under density bonusing programs Code, density bonuses are provided in for inclusionary zoning requirements must be zoning provides incentives through increased inclusionary zoning requirements, multifamily areas, with up to a 50 percent carefully designed to provide enough entitlements for development on a site, these affordability requirements for units built Changes the Edmonds Municipal Code can increase in density provided for units incentives to make development feasible. projects do not require direct public under this program will expire after a permit greater ater building height and�or densities affordable for households up to 80 percent investment or diversion of revenue from the specific period (typically longer than for for residential developments in certain areas, in AMI. Covenants are registered on the * An Urban Land Institute report provides City. MFTE programs). These could be retained as exchange for a percentage of the units being retain property to retain this affordable housing on guidance on optimizing the effectiveness of affordable units, but it would require would allocated to affordable housing for a specified the site fora period. (link) incentives for inclusionary development. (link) ■ Units built and managed by private additional expenditures the City. period. * Additional resources from the provide developers. The units developed from • Federal Way: Multifamily housing that details about inclusionary zoning. (link) zoning. ( inclusionary zoning are managed over the ■ Impacts of increased height and bulk of includes affordable housing (80 percent long term by private developers, and do not buildings. There are potential impacts to AMI) can include one bonus market rate unit a MRSC provides links to other resources require intervention by the City. adjoining single-family neighborhoods due for each affordable unit included in the related to inclusionary zoning. (link) to bulk and shading from larger buildings. project. In single-family developments with This can be mitigated using a transition zone affordable units, lot sizes may be reduced or design standards. by 20 percent. Units are required to be Not applicable for creating highly affordable for the lifetime of the project subsidized units. Units constructed as part through a covenant on the land. (link) of these projects are typically rented at affordable rates, but this program is not feasible as a means of creating housing affordable to very low-income households that may require additional subsidies. Waive or reduce impact fees for ■ Everett: Affordable housing projects for ■ Currently adopted in Edmonds. Discounts ■ Reduces the cost to develop new ■ Reduced City revenue. Waiving impact fees affordable housing households of 50 percent median family for certain impact fees are already affordable housing. Eliminating or reducing can reduce revenue for the City that is income or less in Everett may apply for a implemented in Edmonds for new affordable impact fees can reduce the costs to typically earmarked for capital improvement Impact fees in the City of Edmonds are collected transportation impact fee exemption, which housing development. developers, which can help to boost the programs, such as for parks and streets. This to finance capital spending for community infrastructure such as parks and streets. Discounts is granted on a case -by -case basis. An ■Further discounts or waivers would need feasibility of affordable housing may also require the City to expend other are provided for certain levels of affordable exemption requires the developer to register to balance revenue needs and cost development. funds directly to replace these fees housing. This program could be modified to in use for affordable housin lia covenant on title to ensure the site remains g. (rink) incentives. Additional discounts waivers of (depending on the amount of the waiver). further reduce or waive impact fees for new impact fees may provide further incentives affordable housing, which would reduce ■ Bellingham: Affordable housing projects for that improve the feasibility of new development costs and improve the financial households of 80 percent median family affordable housing development in Edmonds. feasibility of the development. income or lower may receive exemptions This must be balanced, however, with the from 80 percent of applicable park, need for this revenue to support local transportation, and school impact fees. These infrastructure. exemptions require a covenant to be registered with the property. (link, link, link) a� m L a� c 0 2 r 0 c 0 0 0 L c 0 0 N co I N a� c a� a a Q aM am .r Cn a� c 0 x 0 L Y E V a r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 212 8.A.c Support community land trusts ■ Homestead Community Land Trust ■ Oriented to a range of possible housing ■ Provides affordable homeownership: CLTs ■ Land and capital required to begin a land Community land trusts (CLTs) are one way to (Renton, Seattle, Tukwila): Homestead types. CLTs can be employed in different are a model to enable affordable home trust. CLTs typically require donations of enable stakeholders get involved in the Community Land Trust is a local CLT with situations where down payments or monthly ownership for lower income households, and land and capital to the managing trust to development of affordable housing through land r throughout Kin Count man of Projects g g Y� Ypayments mortgage a ments are a significant g can reduce the down payments and month) p Y Y start u projects. The availability of sites and p p I Y ownership. This involves alternative ownership which involve the local city as a partner. obstacle to homeownership. As a result, this costs for households to access single-family funding may impact the feasibility of a trust structures for land that can reduce costs for Homebuy ers typically icall have incomes from can include a range of owner -occupied g p housing units in the communit g y� tooperate in Edmonds but the City could development. 60-80 percent AMI to qualify for the housing types, including townhomes, Viable as a long-term program. Re -selling serve in a coordinating role for this work. link program. () a housing,and single-family duplexes, cottage g y detached housing. households are often required to sell the ■ Focuses on owner -occupied housing. CLTs home at resale -restricted and affordable are focused on owner -occupied housing, and ■ Requires an assessment of potential sites price to another low-income household. This typically include single-family options for for use. Although this could be appropriate ensures the unit maintains permanent larger households. This model does not for Edmonds, identifying appropriate sites affordability. include subsidized rental housing for lower - for CLTs will require an evaluation of income households. properties, including opportunities for donations of land in the community. Expedite the permitting process for ■ Pierce County. Affordable housing projects ■ Balance between permit processing times ■ Reduces time and costs to build new ■ Increases delays in processing other affordable housing for households with less than 80 percent of for different development types. Unless the affordable housing. Expediting these applications. Providing expedited services Pierce County median income can pursue an permitting department is expanded, permits can reduce the amount of time this will delay other projects, potentially those The City can choose prioritize the processing of expedited permit process. Under this prioritizing one permit type leads to more process will take for developers. This can that will contribute additional housing. permits for affordabllee housing projects, which will process, the permit is considered a priority delays for other permit types. This could also reduce associated costs with holding Developers interviewed for this study reduce the time spent in the permitting process for review by county departments, and a result in making Edmonds a less desirable property and carrying financing. expressed frustration with delays under the and the associated costs with holding the project manager from the Department of location for market -rate development. current system, and further delays could property. Planning and Land Services is assigned to make the market less attractive for new coordinate the review process. (link) market -rate housing. Provide historic tax credits * Seattle: Properties such as the Pacific Hotel ■ Applicable for developers. Tax credits ■ Provides an external source of fiscal ■ Supports building reuse only. Historic tax At the federal level, Low -Income Housing Tax and the Downtowner Hotel in the City of under the HTC program are applicable for support. Tax credits from the federal level credits are not applicable to new Credits (LIHTC) can be used in conjunction with Seattle have been rehabilitated into developers only. The City of Edmonds may can offset up to 20 percent of the costs of development, only building reuse. the Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate older affordable housing units through a have a role in promoting this program with rehabilitating older buildings for affordable ■Limited to historic buildings. These tax buildings for use as low-income housing. At the combination of LIHTCs and HTCs. (link) developers, and providing support for applications. housing. credits are allocated for rehabilitating local level, this can be supported through special ■ Supports reuse of historic buildings in the certified historic buildings with a "substantial assessments of the value of certain historic ■ Additional research required for historic community. In communities that have historic investment" for use as low-income housing. In buildings after rehabilitation. tax credits: Program criteria from the US buildings available for reuse, these credits the case of Edmonds, this tax credit would Department of Housing and Urban can be applied to repurpose these buildings not be applicable to a wide range of sites. Development indicates funds can only can be to provide value for the community. used for income -producing certified historic structures. Further research required to determine if there are any such structures that are appropriate to be used for affordable housing in Edmonds, but widespread use is unlikely. (link) r Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 213 8.A.c Support low-income housing tax credits ■ Everett: Housing Hope Properties was ■ Applicable for developers. Tax credits ■ Provides significant tax credits to support ■ Applications and competitive review The federal government provides Low -Income approved for almost $1.4 million in tax under the LIHTC program are applicable for development or rehabilitation. Under the required. Tax credits under this program are Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for use in credits for HopeWorks Station II, a 65-unit developers only. The Citycan provide p y� p LIHTC program, u to around 9 percent of p g p � p issued b the HousingFinance Commission y subsidizing affordable low-income housing mixed -use affordable housing project for support for applications and promote this the amount of a buildings qualified basis from a limited pool under a competitive projects through tax credits of up to disadvantaged veterans families and youth g Y program with developers. p g p annual) for 10 ears u to a resent value Y Y p p process, and receiving credits under the p g approximately 9 percent of the amount of a that incorporates a 1,000-sf kitchen as a of 70 percent of the building's qualified program is not guaranteed. buildings qualified basis annually for 10 years. In community meeting place and location for basis. A 4 percent annual credit up to 30 Washington State, these tax credits are issued by culinary training programs. (link) percent of present value is available for the State Housing Finance Commission, which Renton. The Low -Income Housing Institute projects receiving federal subsidies or for rehabilitation. requires applications for prospective projects (LIHI) successfully applied for $984,979 in interested in receiving these credits. tax credits for Renton Commons, a 48-unit ■ Support for special needs populations. affordable housing building in downtown Additional consideration is provided in the Renton. Half of the units in the building are application for LIHTCs to projects that reserved for households at 50 percent AMI provide housing for the homeless, large or less, and half are reserved for households households, the disabled, and the elderly. at 30 percent AMI or less. ■ Support for specific types of projects. In addition to special needs populations, LIHTC applications favor projects in transit -oriented areas and areas at risk for market conversion, as well as projects involving donations, nonprofits, and public funding. Waive or reduce building permit fees for ■ Everett: Fees for development permits may Fee waivers would need to balance ■ Reduces cost to develop new affordable ■ Potential for reduced City revenue. affordable housing be waived at the discretion of the planning revenue needs and cost incentives. housing. Eliminating or reducing building Waiving building permit fees will reduce the director if a landowner agrees to register a Waivers of these fees may provide further permit fees can reduce the costs to revenue received by the City specifically to Permit fees are charged by the City to cover the covenant on title to retain affordable units incentives that improve the feasibility of new developers, which can help to boost the offset the costs of permit review and costs of reviewing and auditing building and on the site for a 30-year period. (link) affordable housing development in Edmonds. feasibility of affordable housing processing. This would require the City to development permits during the process of construction. These fees could be discounted or •Kirkland: Development permit fees are However, waivers must be balanced with the development. offset these losses with other sources of waived for affordable housing projects to reduce waived in Kirkland for affordable units and need for this revenue to support staff resources to process permits, and the costs funding. the associated costs to the developer and improve the associated bonus market -rate units that would be distributed to other applicants. * Potential increases in other building permit the feasibility of development. developed under inclusionary zoning fees. If the need for additional revenue from requirements. (link) permit fees is passed to other applicants, this can increase the costs of other permits and reduce the feasibility of these types of development. Establish linkage fees ■ Seattle: The recently adopted Mandatory ■ Additional research required. Evaluation ■ New funding source for permanent ■ Disincentive to development in Edmonds. Fee charged to developers for every square foot Housing Affordability (inclusionary zoning) "performance could be informed by a comparison of affordable housing. Funds can be targeted Particularly if not implemented in of new development. Funds used to pay for new legislation includes a option" g p p developer cost burdens in Edmonds to other p to specific groups in need who aren't p g p neighboring communities. May reduce the g g y affordable housing. which charges a per square foot fee on all communities. Adopting a fee that is too high addressed by other tools. production of new housing supply. new commercial development in designated can be a disincentive to development when areas, with funds dedicated to affordable similar opportunities can be found in housing. neighboring communities. a� m a� c 0 x r 0 c 0 0 0 L c 0 0 N W I r N N c a� a a Q a) m am c 0 0 c m E t U 0 r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 214 8.A.c Develop mandatory inclusionary zoning ■ Redmond: Requires 10 percent of units to ■ Must be paired with upzone. Washington ■ New affordable housing. Provides new ■ Can be a disincentive to new requirement that all new development include a be affordable to an 80 percent AMI State law requires cities to implement a affordable housing funded by developers, development. Particularly if the c certain percentage of units that are affordable household. Applies to all new residential and rezone allowing additional height or density and thus requires no city investment. requirements are set too high. This can and rented to qualifying low-income households. mixed -use development in several when implementing mandatory inclusionary ■ Mixed -income projects. The inclusion of paradoxically result in less new affordable Some programs provide the option of paying a neighborhoods. (link) zoning. affordable units in market -rate housing than would be the case with lower fee instead of providing housing on site. Fees are ■ Issaquah: The City of Issaquah provides ■ Additional research required. Research is developments allows for a mix of incomes, requirements. then used by the City to fund affordable housing both mandatory and voluntary programs, necessary to determine appropriate providing better outcomes for families and elsewhere. with the primary focus of the mandatory affordability requirements that still children. programs on 70 percent AMI households. incentivize market rate production while also (link providing affordable units. ■ Seattle: The Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program requires 5-1 1 percent of units in new multifamily buildings to be affordable, or payment of an in -lieu fee. (link) ■ Federal Way: The City requires 5 percent of rental units to be affordable at 80 percent AMI, with up to 10 percent additional market units permitted. (link) Apply for Washington State Housing Trust ■ Communities across Washington State: ■ Funding uncertainty. For 2017, trust fund is ■ State funding source for affordable ■ Competitive process. An application under Fund grants Nonprofit housing providers across the unfunded by Washington State legislature housing projects. The Housing Trust Fund this process may not result in a successful region access Housing Trust Fund support for due to failure to pass a Capital Budget. represents a state -level funding source grant. The Washington State Department of Commerce financing affordable housing projects. Future funding availability will be dependent available for housing projects. (DOC) administers a Housing Trust Fund (Link), on future Capital Budgets. ■Focus of the grants. Priority for grants is which can be used to support projects involving given to projects with local government the construction, acquisition, andlor rehabilitation ■ Additional research required. Research is contributions and several other factors. of affordable housing, preferably for households necessary to determine the competitiveness with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of a specific proposal from Edmonds. of the Area Median Income. Other expenses related to low-income housing may also be eligible. Apply for CDBG and other HUD grants ■ Snohomish County: Deadline for 2019 ■ Generally, only for low-income areas. ■ New funding source. These grants would ■ Requires successful application. Funding The US Community Development Block Grant grant applications for public facilities and There are no Low -Income Housing Tax Credit provide an external source of funds for from these grants is limited, and a (CDBG) program and other sources of grant infrastructure projects is like) to be in fall p l Y qualifying census tracts in the City of q Y� g Y public facilities and infrastructure projects p p l competitive application is required to secure p pp q funding are administered by the US Department 2018. Applications must be consistent with Edmonds. Additional research would be that support affordable housing. funds for specific projects or programs. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). the 5-year consolidated plan, and the required to determine if this makes Edmonds Edmonds is a member of an Urban County applicant can be a city or nonprofit. rink pp y p () less competitive for all rant types. p g Yp Consortium in Snohomish County which administers funds from HUD in partnership with cities through an interlocal agreement. These funds can be used to support rehabilitation and infrastructure development to support affordable housing. r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 215 8.A.c Institute a City affordable housing levy A City-wide affordable housing levy can be instituted as part of the local property tax. This levy is typically developed as an excess levy, and requires voter approval (with a 60 percent supermajority). ■ Seattle: Housing levies have been approved in Seattle since 1981' with a median cost of $1 1 2 per year over 7 years. (link) 'King County: In 2017, King County voters passed a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1000 for housing and human services needs of veterans, seniors and vulnerable populations. ■ Bellingham: In 2012, Bellevue passed a 7- year levy combining asingle-year levy lid lift with an affordable housing levy under RCW 84.52.105. (link) ■ Additional research required. Research is necessary to determine potential level of public and elected official support. A successful campaign would also require the support of community organizations and funders. ■ Potential for future partnerships. Edmonds could also pursue a countywide levy in partnership with other cities and the county. ■ New dedicated funds for affordable housing. Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need who aren't addressed by other tools. ■ Requires voter approval. Voter approval is necessary to raise property taxes through a housing levy. *Increases tax burden. Local residents and property owners would need to pay additional taxes under this levy. Institute a City sales tax for affordable Ellensburg: In 2017 voters in Ellensburg, ■ Additional research required. Further ■ New dedicated funds for affordable Limited in scope. Increasing sales taxes housing WA approved a 0.1 percent sales tax to research is necessary to determine potential housing. Funds can be targeted to specific beyond the maximum allowed under RCW support affordable housing projects. The tax level of public and elected official support. groups in need who are not addressed by 82.14.030 are typically allowed only for The local sales tax can bincreased to fund passed with bl percent in favor. (link) A successful campaign would also require the other tools. specific uses, such as chemical dependency ams serving households affordable housing programs support of community organizations and or mental health treatment services. Housing with income below 60 percent of the Area funders. subsidies would be limited to these specific Median Income and within specific categories, categories. including: individuals with mental illness, veterans, * Potential partnerships. Edmonds could also senior citizens, homeless families with children, pursue a countywide sales tax in partnership * Can be repealed by referendum. Under the unaccompanied homeless youth, persons with with other cities and the county. law, increases in sales taxes require a disabilities, or domestic violence victims. This referendum to be upheld, and could be increase must be approved by a ballot measure. repealed by popular vote. ■ Impact on the cost of living in the City. Sale taxes are regressive and can increase cost of living for low income households. ■ Revenue reliability is tied to retail economy. As more residents buy products online, revenues from a sales tax can decline. Support employer -assisted housing • Resort communities: Employer -assisted Requires a major employer partner. This ■ Addresses housing options for the local * Requires a major employer partner. This programs housing programs are commonly found in tool has only limited potential unless a willing workforce. Affordable housing can meet the program requires a major employer or resort communities where local housing costs partner is identified in the city or surrounding needs of the workforce for a major coalition of employers in the city as a Employer -assisted housing programs typically far exceed that which is affordable to area. employer, and ensure that employees can partner to provide funding and/or other involve housing support programs funded by service workers, and housing access is live in the community where they work. support for affordable housing programs. major employers that provide financial and necessary to support the local labor pool. educational assistance to employees, typically to allow them to live within the community where they work. These programs may be co -sponsored or provided additional support by the City. a� m L a� c 0 x 0 c 0 0 0 r 00 0 N to r N N V c W a a Q a� m Cn a� c 0 2 c m E t U 0 r r Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 216 8.A.c Provide funding for affordable housing ■ Local funding for government programs is ■ Political focus. The recent move by City ■ New dedicated funds for affordable ■ Tradeoffs in budgeting. The use of general from the City General Fund typically drawn from the General Fund. Council to allocate general funds for housing. Funds can be targeted to specific fund dollars requires a trade-off with homelessness indicates an openness to using groups in need that are not addressed by funding other City priorities. Another source of funding for affordable housing funds for programs that address housing other tools. programs is through specific allocations from the needs. General Fund in the City budget. While this does not represent a new funding source and may be ■ Regional coordination. The amount of subject to tradeoffs within the budget, this does funding from this tool is not likely to be not require tax increases or ballot measures. significant compared to scale of need. In this case, contributing to a regional fund may be more effective. Contribute to down payment assistance ■ Seattle: The Office of Housing works with ■ Best when preserving long-term ■ Supports moderate income households in ■ Not viable for rental units. Low-income programs nonprofit partner organizations to provide affordability. Down payment assistance purchasing their first home. Providing households or other households that are not down payment assistance to first-time programs may be more effective when assistance with down payments addresses seeking homeownership may not be directly Some cities have down payment assistance homebuyers at or below 80 percent of area paired with CLTs or other tool that uses one of the main obstacles to homeownership, supported with this program. programs to help first-time low- moderate- median income. (link) affordability covenants to ensure homes and can target demographics that may be income homebuyers. Such programs are typically remain permanently affordable. (link) excluded from the housing market. run in coordination with local nonprofits and lending institutions. a� m L a� c 0 x r 0 c 0 0 0 L r 00 r N to I N N V C N Q Q Q d L 0 L Y E M V a r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 217 8.A.c 4. IDENTIFY AND ADOPT STRATEGIES TO REDUCE HOMELESSNESS Reduce barriers to tiny houses, boarding ■ Seattle: Othello Village is a City -authorized ■ Additional research needed. The City will ■ Provides short-term housing that is Neighborhood opposition. Community homes, and single room occupancy homeless encampment with 28 96-square need to determine there are any current inexpensive to build. Tiny houses can be outreach would be required to hear and housing foot tiny houses and 12 tent platforms. It is legal or development code barriers that rapidly and inexpensively built when address concerns of nearby neighbors. intended as a short-term housing solution for would prevent tiny house villages. Similar sufficient long-term affordable housing is not While Seattle's camps have been These are forms of multi -tenant housing where up to 100 people. Donations to LIHI fund the analysis would be needed to evaluate available. controversial, the City has succeeded in residents occupy individual rooms and typically materials for the tiny houses, with whether there are barriers to more generating some community support in share bathrooms andlor kitchens. These are construction mostly courtesy of volunteers. permanent structures such as SROs or nearby neighborhoods. typically rented as permanent housing for low- Seattle has five other similar encampments. boarding houses. income and formerly homeless individuals. Certain These are permitted for 12 months with the 'Temporary housing option only. Tiny code requirements in Edmonds may be less option to renew for a second 12 months. Appropriate locations would need to be houses do not provide adequate long-term applicable to this kind of housing. Modifications (link) identified. One option is underutilized housing options for formerly homeless or relaxations of code requirements can help to parking lots owned by the City or a willing individuals and families. reduce the costs of development, as well as the community partner such as a church. associated costs of housing for low-income and formerly homeless individuals. Pursue partnerships to develop winter ■ Multiple communities: Many communities Edmonds currently has one winter shelter ■ Provides emergency shelter options in the s Does not provide long-term housing shelter programs. have emergency winter shelters provided program. We All Belong is currently located community. Winter shelter programs stability. Limited long-term benefits for during extreme weather conditions. at the Edmonds Senior Center near the ferry provide a warm place to sleep when people suffering from homelessness and Edmonds could work in partnership with terminal. It opens for night where the temperatures are dangerously low, and housing instability, although winter shelters nonprofits to develop emergency overnight temperature drops below 34 degrees. potentially connecting homeless individuals can be an opportunity to connect homeless shelter programs that operate during the winter Outreach to this shelter could help inform and families with resources. persons with services and permanent housing months. Such programs can also help connect level of demand and need for additional opportunities. homeless individuals with services resources. capacity. (link) Pursue partnerships to develop a housing ■ Snohomish County: According to the Requires the availability of permanent ■ Housing stability. The purpose of these ■ Additional research is needed. Research is first program. Snohomish County Homeless Prevention and housing. For a housing first program to programs is to provide stability and attend necessary to determine what kinds of Response System Strategic Plan, the County work, housing units appropriate for persons to necessities like food and shelter without partnerships would be most effective and Edmonds could partner with nonprofits uses a housing first approach to quickly transitioning from homelessness must be preconditions such as sobriety, treatment, or what role(s) the City can play first regional partners develop a housing frst move people to permanent housing. (link) available. Therefore, this tool may be best service participation requirements. program that prioritizes providing permanent pursued as a regional strategy in housing to people experiencing homelessness. partnership with the County Office of Community & Homeless Services or nonprofit developers of permanent housing for individuals and families transitioning out of homelessness. Pursue partnerships to develop housing ■ King County: In 2017, King County voters • Requires a partner seeking to develop a ■ Provides options for additional support. • Limited impact on overall housing issues. for veterans passed a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1,000 facility in Edmonds. Census data and the New affordable housing designed to meet The needs assessment for the City indicates for housing and human services needs of Snohomish County PIT report indicates there the unique needs of veterans can access that there is not a sizeable number of Military veterans can experience post -traumatic veterans, seniors and vulnerable populations. aren't likely to be a lot of veterans in programs and funding sources specifically veterans in Edmonds who are challenged by stress, injury and other unique challenges as they Edmonds that suffer from poverty or housing for these households. poverty or homelessness. return from duty and re -integrate into society. instability. Edmonds could partner with nonprofits to help fund and develop new housing targeted towards veterans which may include case management services. Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 218 8.A.c Pursue coordination of housing and social ■ Snohomish County: According to the ■ Identify appropriate role for the City. If ■ Connecting services to households in need. ■ Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City service assistance programs. Snohomish County Homeless Prevention and Edmonds decides to develop more homeless Providing coordinating services can ensure of Edmonds does not currently manage Response System Strategic Plan "The housing in the city, it can play a role in that residents are connected with housing or social service assistance programs Many factors can contribute thomelessness and homeless housing and service system, which making sure it is integrated in the county's appropriate services from different as part of municipal operations. i housing instability. These can include poverty, uses a low -barrier and housing first coordinated homeless housing and service agencies, presenting a "one -stop" solution Coordinating assistance programs would illness, domestic violence, mental health, and approach to quickly move individuals and system. for accessing these services in the community. require partnerships with public housing addiction. Edmonds can explore ways to address families to permanent housing consists of: agencies or other nonprofits. these root causes of homelessness through support outreach services, Coordinated Entry and for and coordination with social service providers. navigation services, homelessness prevention, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and other permanent housing." (link) a� m a� c 0 x r L 0 0 0 ++ ci 0 L r 00 r N to I N N V C N Q Q Q d L Cn 0 L Y E V a r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 219 8.A.c 5. SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF AN AGING POPULATION Pursue partnerships to support aging in place. Demographic forecasts indicate that the senior and elderly population of Edmonds will grow significantly over the next decade. One way to address the housing needs of this population is to provide resources to support aging in place. Such programs could include home modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, or care management and counseling. ■ Seattle -King County: The Seattle -King County Advisory Council on Aging & Disability Services is exploring models such as "virtual villages" for supporting aging in place. There are at least three different virtual villages in the Seattle/King County area: NEST (link), PNA Village (link), and Wider Horizons (link). ■ Identify appropriate role for the City. This tool may be best pursued in partnership with another entity such as Aging and Disability Services of Snohomish County. ■ Addresses the growing needs from seniors. Aging -in -place programs help address the housing needs of a senior and elderly population in Edmonds that is expected to grow considerably in the coming years. ■ Does not expand the housing supply or improve housing affordability. These programs are intended to provide seniors with the ability to stay in their own homes, but does not include creating new, affordable units. ■ Requires additional funding and administrative costs. This program will require additional funding from the City, and may compete against other budget priorities. Promote or develop property tax relief ■ Bellevue: Bellevue's Utility Tax Relief ■ County currently provides property tax ■ Reduced housing costs. Tax and fee relief ■ Reduced utility/tax revenue for City. and utility rate/tax relief programs. Program offers a year-end rebate check of relief. As noted, this program is currently in provides a reduction in housing costs for low- Encouraging fee or tax relief for low-income Low-income homeowners can be at risk the utility occupation taxes paid to the city. place for county taxes for the residents of income homeowners and those on fixed- homeowners requires that the City address economic displacement when property taxx or This program is open to residents who meet Edmonds. incomes, allowing them to stay in their the shortfall in revenue through cuts in utility charges increase. Edmonds could expand low-income guidelines. (link) ■ Expansion of the program possible. homes. services or increases in charges to other residents. participation in the County exemption and ■ Bellevue: The City offers low-income seniors Additional tax and fee exemptions may be deferral program, and could also coordinate and low-income permanently disabled possible from the City of Edmonds. This could ■ Does not increase the housing supply. This similar programs for utility costs. persons relief on their utility costs for water, be focused on property taxes and/or utility program is directed to existing homeowners, wastewater and drainage. Rate Relief fees. and does not encourage the creation of new affordable housing. offers up to 75 percent off utility costs. (link) ■ Snohomish County: Snohomish County has a property tax exemption and deferral programs for senior and disabled persons as well as property tax deferral program for limited income homeowners. (link) Reduce barriers to group homes and ■ Additional research needed. While these ■ Edmonds currently has facilities available. ■ Provides more senior housing options in ■ Additional research needed. Further housing for seniors kinds of facilities are in communities across According to WA DSHS data the following the community. Increasing the supply of research is necessary to determine if there the State, we have not yet found examples licensed facilities have mailing addresses in senior housing can provide more options for are any barriers currently that can be Housing in retirement and assisted living of jurisdictions that have taken actions to Edmonds: Edmonds residents who wish to remain in the addressed by the City. communities, as well as units in nursing homes or reduce barriers. City during their later stages of life. More memory care facilities, may have certain code o 47 adult family homes (accept Medicaid) supply will be needed as the elderly requirements which are less applicable to the o 5 assisted living facilities (no Medicaid) population of Edmonds grows in coming needs for seniors or other group home residents. years. Modifications or relaxations of code requirements o 2 nursing homes (accept Medicaid) can help to reduce the costs of development, as ■ Current examples of new development. A well as the associated costs of housing for seniors memory care assisted living facility was and other special needs populations. recently permitted for development in Edmonds. Review of that permitting process may provide insight into the barriers (if any) with Edmonds code requirements. ts� m L a� c 0 2 L 0 0 c 0 L 00 0 NI to N N .a c a� a a Q a� m Cn ts� c 0 0 c m E t U 0 r r Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 220 8.A.c Waive or reduce utility connection fees for ■ Kirkland: In 2017, the City of Kirkland ■ Fee waivers would need to balance ■ Reduces cost to develop new affordable ■ Reduced City revenue. The cost of affordable housing passed an ordinance to allow sewer, revenue needs and cost incentives. housing. Eliminating or reducing utility connecting new affordable housing to potable water, and stormwater connection Waivers of these fees may provide further connection fees can reduce the costs to services would have to be funded with other Development projects may also he charged fee charges to be waived "with respect to the incentives that improve the feasibility of new developers, which can help to boost the revenue sources, or otherwise passed on to to connect with city services, such as sewer and d construction of any shelter or low-income affordable housing development in feasibility of affordable housing utility rate payers. r dtosystems. These fees could housing project found by the city manager to Edmonds. However, waivers must be development. disccounteounte d or completely waived for aff fordable serve low-income persons�, under RCW balanced with the need for this revenue to housing projects to reduce the associated costs to 35.92.38. (link link link) support connections to local infrastructure. the developer and improve the feasibility of development. a� m L a� c 0 x r L 0 0 0 ci 0 L r 00 r N to I N N V C N Q Q Q d L 0 x L Y E M V a r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 221 8.A.c 6. PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR LOW-INCOME TENANTS Create requirements to provide fair ■ Seattle: Under city regulations, landlords in ■ Additional research required. Additional ■ Promotes educated tenants that are aware ■ Not linked with housing affordability. Does housing information the city must provide state and city research may be required to determine if of their rights. If successful, could aid with not help to make rental housing more landlord/tenant regulations as addenda to discrimination (particularly against the education of and outreach to tenants affordable. An ordinance which requires property managers the lease, as well as voter registration households using vouchers) is a significant who may be at risk of discrimination. to provide information to all tenants regarding information. (link) problem in Edmonds. ■Challenges to enforcement. Enforcing the tenant rights and property manager requirement could be difficult, and it does responsibilities under federal fair housing law. not ensure that property managers abide by fair housing laws. Create anti -discrimination requirements ■ Seattle: A Source of Income Protection ■ Additional research required. Additional ■ Supports the uptake of subsidized renters ■ Additional costs to the City. Developing for tenants Ordinance prohibits discrimination against research would be required to determine if into housing. Could provide significant and administering a program would be an renters who use subsidies or alternative discrimination (particularly against benefits to low-income households who use additional cost to the city. Ordinances intended to prevent the discrimination sources of income among other households using vouchers) is a significant vouchers to subsidize rents. of prospective tenants based on source of income, requirements. Landlords must accept first problem in Edmonds. ■Not linked with housing affordability. Does race, ability, or other factors. qualified applicant. (link) ■ Reduces potential discrimination in the not help to make rental housing more ■ Controversial application in other housing market. Could help reduce other affordable. communities. Seattle's requirement for forms of housing discrimination that may landlord to accept first qualified applicant exist in Edmonds. has been controversial. However, without this requirement it is difficult to enforce fair housing laws. Provide rental housing inspection ■ Seattle: A Rental Registration & Inspection ■ Additional research required. Additional ■ Promotes healthy and safe rental units. ■ Additional costs to the City. Developing programs Ordinance helps ensure rental units are safe research would be required to determine if Helps to ensure that rental units in Edmonds and administering a program would be an and meet basic housing maintenance significant portions of Edmonds' rental are safe and/or healthy to live in. additional cost to the city. An ordinance or program intended to educate requirements. (link) housing stock present unsafe or unhealthy property owners, managers, and renters about conditions for tenants. ■ Not linked with housing affordability. Does City housing codes. It may also include not help to make rental housing more requirements for owners to register all rental units affordable. and verify their property meets standards. Develop a tenant relocation assistance ■ Seattle: A Tenant Relocation Assistance ■ Range of options for tenant education and ■ Assists with members of the community ■ Households may relocate outside program Ordinance (TRAO) aids low income (below assistance. There are many ways to crafts displaced by rising rents. This program can Edmonds. These programs do not provide 50 percent AMI) households displaced due ordinances to help educate tenants of their help current renters who are displaced any assurance the renters will find housing ordinance or program that provides financial to demolition or renovation of their rental rights and prevent property owners from during times of rapid redevelopment. that is affordable or will choose to remain in as sistance andservices to households that are as unit. Half of the cost is paid by the property exploiting loopholes. Financial assistance can relieve some of the Edmonds. physically displaced due to redevelopment or owner and half paid by the city. (link) financial burdens of moving and move -in renovation of their rental unit. ■ Additional research required. Additional costs. ■ Increase in costs to developers. Requiring research would be required to assess developers to pay for relocation provides a whether there are many building with renter small disincentive to redevelopment and households that are at risk of demolition and therefore could, potentially, reduce new redevelopment. housing production. ■ Potential to expand to include economic displacement. City Council members in Seattle have proposed expanding their program to include economic displacement due to rising rents. r Q :III DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 222 8.A.c Support third -party purchases of existing ■ Seattle: The City of Seattle uses Housing ■ Additional research. Further research would ■ Promotes preservation of existing ■ Does not increase the housing supply. This affordable housing for long-term Levy funds for housing preservation with a be required to determine if there are known affordable housing. Third -party purchases program is directed to rental housing preservation. required minimum affordability period of 50 properties in Edmonds that would be good can ensure the long-term affordability of renovations only, and does not increase the years. (link) candidates for such a program. existing low-cost housing units in Edmonds number of units on the market. Units in older, more affordable apartment that are at risk of loss or price increase. buildings may be at risk of loss due to ■ Does not provide net new affordable redevelopment, renovation, or expiration of housing. This program provides an affordability requirements as rents continue to opportunity to preserve existing low-income rise. The City could provide funds to a nonprofit housing, but does not provide new units. to purchase for long-term preservation. Assist property owners with ■ Seattle: Assistance for renovations in • Additional research. Further research would ■ Cost-effective approach to maintain ■ Does not increase the housing supply. This improvements in return for affordability exchange for affordability covenants has be required to determine if there are known existing affordable housing. Renovating program is directed to rental housing covenant been proposed in Seattle's HALA Report as properties in Edmonds that would be good existing housing stock can be more cost- renovations only, and does not increase the one option for encouraging affordable candidates for such a program. effective than building new affordable number of units on the market. Owners of rental housing that is currently priced housing. (link) housing. This can ensure the long-term for lower income tenants can face a tradeoff affordability of existing low-cost housing Does not provide net new affordable between raising rents and making needed units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or housing. This program provides an improvements, or selling the property due to price increase. opportunity to preserve existing low-income inability to finance needed repairs. The city could housing, but does not provide new units. create a program to provide low cost rehab loans in exchange for an affordability covenant. a� m L c 0 x L C 0 c 0 0 L r c 0 0 N to I N N V C N Q Q Q d L tM 0 M L Y E M V a r r Q VII DRAFT 5/1 8/201 8 City of Edmonds I Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools Packet Pg. 223 8.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2018 Permit Decision Making - Quasi-judcial Processes Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History The Edmonds' City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. Staff Recommendation Continue discussion of quasi-judicial permit decision code amendments at the June 13th Planning Board meeting in preparation for a public hearing. Narrative Introduction At this Planning Board meeting, staff is introducing code updates related to the Council's role in quasi- judicial decision making. The topic will be broadly introduced, with more specific code updates to be presented at future planning board meetings. Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial Decisions The distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial decision -making in zoning practice is an important one. The basic difference between the two categories is that legislative decisions establish policies for future application, while quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions are the application of those policies. In quasi-judicial proceedings the decision -making body must follow stricter procedural requirements (the term "quasi-judicial" literally means court -like; implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings). If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process, including: Proper notice of the hearing Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (i.e., no ex parte contacts) Packet Pg. 224 8.6 An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest Decisions based on the facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition City Council Quasi-judicial Decisions The city council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following applications and appeals (see ECDC 20.01.003): Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; Preliminary planned residential development. Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; Site specific rezone. In addition to the Type IV applications, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the City Council also sits in the quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. As the City Attorney summarized in his memo to the Council on this subject: "For the city council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma. On the surface, being able to decide the outcome of a land use hearing offers the lure of being ultimately responsible for what could be a controversial land use application or appeal. One can imagine the city council coming heroically to the side of its constituents to make whatever appears to be the most popular decision on the matter. The reality, however, is fraught with danger (in the form of potential liability) and difficult choices. This reality is rooted in the fact that the city council has significantly less discretion when hearing a quasi- judicial matter than it has when hearing a legislative matter. It cannot simply decide the matter however it wants to. The city council, like any other land use decision -maker, must apply the decision criteria to the facts surrounding the application or appeal. While those criteria are legislatively adopted, they cannot be changed during the quasi-judicial hearing. So, if the adopted criteria do not allow the council to address a particular issue of public concern, the council could be forced to choose been making a legally defensible, but unpopular decision and making a decision that feels right in the short term only to have that decision overturned by a court. In extreme cases, the court's reversal might be combined with liability to pay a significant damage claim for having made a decision that was later deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. The closed record nature of these hearings presents another limiting factor because the evidence that can be presented to the city council is generally limited to that which was presented during the open record hearing (usually before the hearing examiner). Councilmembers have expressed frustration with the ex parte contact prohibition that comes along with the quasi-judicial process. The appearance of fairness doctrine does limit the interactions that councilmembers can have with constituents when quasi-judicial action is pending." As a result of its discussions on this subject, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council. Packet Pg. 225 8.6 quasi-judicial Code Amendments Removing the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions in the Edmonds Community Development Code primarily involves eliminate the Type III-B permit process. Attachment 2 contains a modified ECDC 20.01.003 which includes tables for permit type and decision framework, and procedure for development project permit applications. Type III-B have been moved into the Type III -A column and removed the "-A" and "-B" qualifiers. Staff has also has conducted an electronic search of the code for "Type III" and removed all the "-A" and "-B" qualifiers from the text. Other amendments included eliminating the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests, and modifications to the subdivision chapter (ECDC 20.75) and planned residential development chapter (ECDC 20.35) that discuss Council review of final approvals. Related Code Amendments In reviewing the code to address quasi-judicial decision making by the City Council, other items were identified that logically should be addressed concurrently with this update. Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC are the Open Record Public Hearings and Closed Record Appeals chapters of the code. The distinction is not clear between these chapters as appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decision are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. As part of this amendment Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC are proposed to be combined into a single chapter to remove this confusion. As part of this combination, detail on the appeal format and procedures before the hearing examiner may be addressed. In addition, the Hearing Examiner noted the following code issues during a case he decided in 2015. ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of approved permits, is a problematic code section in that it is likely noncompliant with state law. The Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.7013 RCW. RCW 36.70B.050(2) provides that city and county land use permit review procedures can only authorize one open record hearing per project permit application or consolidated project permit application. The purpose of this requirement is to provide for a more efficient permitting system by preventing decision makers from holding one new hearing after another ad finitum as new factual issues occur and also to prevent public confusion about when to participate in an on -going series of public hearings. See RCW 36.7013.010. ECDC 20.100.040 would clearly be noncompliant with the Regulatory Reform Act one hearing rule if it were construed as authorizing an additional hearing on a permit application every time three residents alleged noncompliance with city code. Indeed, ECDC 20.100.040 could easily be abused by project opponents as a means of subjecting a project to endless public hearings with one issue of asserted noncompliance after another. Another state statute at issue is the Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA"), Chapter 36.70C RCW. A significant concept that runs through many appeals under LUPA is "finality", the concept that once a final land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved. See Nykreim Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002); Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397 (2005). In Habitat Watch, the state supreme court further elaborated that when a local land use permit has not Packet Pg. 226 8.B been timely challenged, it cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. Specifically, in Habitat Watch project opponents failed to timely appeal a special use permit, so they attempted to defeat the project by challenging a grading permit on the basis that the special use permit was incorrectly issued. The Habitat Watch court concluded that "[b]ecause appeal of the special use permit and its extensions are time barred under LUPA, Habitat Watch cannot collaterally attack them through its challenge to the grading permit." 155 Wn.2d at 411. Given these concerns, staff is proposing to delete ECDC 20.100.040. Attachments: Attachment 1- Resolution No. 1367 Attachment 2 - Chapter 20.01 ECDC Packet Pg. 227 8.B.a RESOLUTION NO. 1367 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the city has undertaken a comprehensive review of the city's land use permit processing regulations; and WHEREAS, the city council has played a quasi-judicial role in certain land use permits for many years; and WHEREAS, the city council has been deliberating whether to continue serving in that role; and WHEREAS, the city council understands that many citizens want the city council to serve in a quasi-judicial role, believing that the council would be more responsive to the desires of the public than a hearing examiner who is not elected; and WHEREAS, that desire of some of the public underscores one of the main difficulties with the council serving in that role, namely, that the council may be pressured to make a decision that L may be contrary to the standards that the council has adopted to govern such decision -making; a and c~o M WHEREAS, that difficulty also increases the legal risk to both city and to the councilmembers themselves; and WHEREAS, council engagement in quasi-judicial decision -making also prevents the city council from being able to freely discuss pending land use matters with constituents and suggests that councilmembers should not testify before the hearing examiner out of concern that they might later need to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal to the city council; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that it can adopt additional procedures that will ensure that the city council stays abreast of pending land use applications and that the public interest in access to justice is adequately addressed; now therefore THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, The city council intends to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the city council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. Packet Pg. 228 8.B.a Section 2. The city council hereby requests that city staff and the planning board prepare and forward to the city council revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that are consistent with this resolution. RESOLVED this 9ch day of August, 2016. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, S OTT SSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. F EDMONDS YOR, DAVE EARLING August 5, 2016 August 9, 2016 1367 Packet Pg. 229 8.B.b Edmonds Page 1/6 20.01.001 Types of actions. There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity. A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative decisions made by the development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director"). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II permits are administrative decisions where the director makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004. B. Quasi -Judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II and Type M (B enly) decisions are quasi- judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific application. Quasi- judicial decisions are made by the hearing examiner, the architectural design board, and/or the city council. C. Legislative Decisions. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and management of public lands. 1. Planning Board. The planning board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. 2. City Council. The city council may consider the planning board's recommendation in a public hearing held E in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable a law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the planning board for a hearing. V w 3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in Chapter 20.03 ECDC. 4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010]. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 230 8.B.b Edmonds Page 2/6 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV -A TYPE IV-B TYPE V Zoning compliance Accessory dwelling Contingent critical area Outdoor dining Essential publie Final €ewmal plats Site specific rezone Development letter unit review €aeilities agreements Lot line adjustment Formal interpretation of Shoreline substantial Technological Design review'-- hefe Final plamed Zoning text the text of the ECDC by development permit, impracticality waiver �..wr�g by .widen,.,' develop a«♦ amendment; area -wide the director where public hearing for amateur radio afehiteevafal deli zoning map not required per ECDC antennas weak amendments 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA determinations Critical area variance Comprehensive plan determinations amendments Shoreline exemptions Preliminary short plat Contingent critical area Annexations review ifpublic hearing (where publie heaWnm requested -q—ed) Minor amendments to Land clearing/grading Shoreline substantial Varian,.e.. Development planned residential development permit, regulations development where public hearing is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Minor preliminary plat Revisions to shoreline Shoreline conditional lame eeeugatian amendment management permits use e..,,:. (.A40re puhlie Staff design review, Administrative Shoreline variance including signs variances Final short plat Land use permit Essential public Preli.-.inaf . planned extension requests facilities- residential develop e Sales office/model Guest house Design review (where public hearing by (ECDC 17.70.005) architectural design board is required Final formal plats Innocent purchaser Conditional use permits (where public hearing determination by hearing examiner is re uired Final planned Variances residential development Home occupation permit (where public �J N C d E t C� R Q r-� C d E t v to r r a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 231 8.B.b Edmonds Page 3/6 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV -A TYPE IV-B TYPE V hearing by hearing examiner is required) Preliminary formal plat PreliminM planned residential development The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. s� C Y M C O y d E L d a U U W r O O N L Q M t U N C d E t C� R Q r.+ C d t V !4 r.+ r.+ a Packet Pg. 232 Edmonds Page 4/6 8.B.b B. Decision Table. Aj Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 233 8.B.b Edmonds Page 5/6 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I — IV) LEGISLATIVE TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE 11-B TYPE 111-A TVPE H1 B TYPE IV -A TYPE IV-B TYPE V Recommendation by: N/A N/A N/A N/A NfA N/A Planning board Planning board Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City council City council City council examiner/ADB examinerADB Notice of application: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Open record public No Only if appealed, (1) If director Yes, before hearing Yes, before hearing No Yes, before planning Yes, before planning hearing or open record open record hearing decision is appealed, examiner or board to examiner or board board which makes board which makes appeal of a final before hearing open record hearing render final decision render final deeisieft recommendation to recommendation to decision: examiner before hearing council council or council examiner could hold its own (2) If converted to hearing Type III -A process Closed record review: No No No No Yes, e are the No Yes, before the eaaneil council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. XJ Packet Pg. 234 8.B.b Edmonds Page 6/6 C. Any reference to "Type II" in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as "Type II-B" shall be construed to mean Type II -A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. [Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. U C U W The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 235 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/23/2018 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: 05-023-2018 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 236 np EbAf � -ter OHO 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLANKNO BOARD Extended Agenda May 23, 2018 Meeting Item MAY 2018 May 23 1. Next step on Code Update to Permit Decision -Making 2. Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy 3. Recommendation on Draft UFMP J U N E 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. SEPTEMBER 2018 September 12 1. September 26 1. R c a� a� Q m c m x w CU 0 m a� c c a 3 a� a� cu c m a� Q W c aD r x w m a 00 0 N M N O LO O c m E t �a r r Q Packet Pg. 237 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change 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. 238