2018-04-11 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 11, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of March 28, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Introduction to Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
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
April 11, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/11/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of March 28, 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:
PB180328d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 28, 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
Nathan Monroe, Chair
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Megan Livingston, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Phil Lovell (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Monroe referred to the written Development Services Director Report, but there were no comments.
UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING STRATEGY
Director Hope said she was present to report on the status of the Housing Strategy and accept comments and questions from
the Planning Board. She emphasized that the project is still in the preliminary stage and public outreach is very important.
There will be numerous opportunities for public involvement as the project moves forward, and valuable information about the
project can be accessed at www.edmondshousin ste rategy.org. She reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan calls for
developing a Housing Strategy by 2019 that will increase the supply of affordable housing and meet the diverse housing needs
of the community. The project started in 2016 with preliminary research and feedback from the Planning Board. Progress
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
increased in 2017 as housing issues became more and more urgent and other resources became available. In 2017, the Mayor
appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force with participations from across the community with housing expertise. The City also
hired a consultant, Berk Associates, to help move the project forward.
Director Hope announced that the draft Housing Strategy will be presented at a public open house in May, and announcements
will be sent out once the date has been finalized. Valuable information will be made available on the website, as well. There
will also be a variety of other public meetings as the strategy is further defined, and it will come back to the Planning Board
for additional work, too.
Director Hope provided a brief review of the most current housing data, cautioning that there is no way to know exactly how
many people have housing challenges and what those specific needs are from year to year. However, the information is useful
in providing a snapshot of what the needs are. She shared that the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median
Family Income (HAMFI) in Snohomish County was about $96,000 in 2017, and the median family income in Edmonds was
slightly higher than the County as a whole. The average household size in Edmonds is about 2.25 people, but the majority of
households are 1 or 2 people. About 190 senior families and 665 seniors living alone in Edmonds have an income below 30%
HAMFI. There are also an estimated 130 large families and 455 small families with income that is less than 30% HAMFI.
She noted that renter and non -family households were much more likely to have lower incomes for a variety of reasons. The
median home value increased by $250,000 over the past six years, from $314,500 in September 2011 to $554,400 in September
2017. By February 2018, the median home value had increased to $561,000. In addition to the rising costs, the inventory of
homes available to purchase is very low at this time.
Director Hope explained that households who are required to pay more than 30% of their income into housing are considered
"housing cost burdened." This might not be a problem for some people who have other resources, but it is a significant problem
for many others. She provided a graph showing rental affordability limits based on unit size and pointed out that vacancy rates
are currently low for all unit sizes (3-4%). That means there is not a significant inventory available even for people who can
afford the higher cost. She pointed out that average rents are not affordable to households at 60% HAMFI or less. The largest
groups that are cost burdened in Edmonds are small families and non -family, non -senior households.
Director Hope advised that about 11,000 people work in Edmonds, but 77% of them live outside of the City and 42% live more
than 10 miles from their workplace. If greater workforce housing was available in Edmonds, more Edmonds workers would
be able to live in the community. This would reduce traffic, reduce transportation costs, and be a positive impact on the
environment.
Director Hope reported that 21% of the City's population is over the age of 65, and this percentage is expected to grow
significantly over the next 10 years. Nearly 2,000 elderly households are cost burdened, and 422 are renters. Housing needs
among the senior population will continue to increase across the entire income spectrum.
Director Hope advised that, currently, there is a significant misalignment between the size of housing units in Edmonds and
the size of households. Some of this disparity is due to a large number of "empty nest" households with older residents.
Currently, 71% of households have only one or two members, and only 11% of the units have one or fewer bedrooms. About
38% of the unites have two or fewer bedrooms. In 2017, there were 18,663 total housing units in Edmonds, and detached
single-family units accounted for 63% of the available stock. There were 68 new units permitted each year since 2010 and 107
new units permitted since 2015. About 44% of the permitted units were in larger multifamily buildings. Only 9% of the units
permitted were in the "missing middle" formats (duplexes and 3-4-unit buildings).
Director Hope summarized that there are a variety of housing types that are needed to serve the various populations in the City.
For example, more market rate housing in the "missing middle" formats could serve small families with incomes between 60
and 100% HAMFI; market rate apartment production and transit -oriented housing options could serve workers, small families
and senior households with incomes between 60 and 100% HAMFI; programs to support affordable aging in place would serve
low to middle -income senior households; and subsidized multifamily housing at targeted income levels and household types
could serve small families, workers and senior households with incomes between 0 and 80% of HAMFI. She provided the
following needs assessment highlights:
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
• There are homeless people in Edmonds, including about 260 homeless or doubled -up students. Subsidized
multifamily housing and transitional housing would help these families.
• Over 1,100 low-income workers commute more than 25 miles to jobs in Edmonds. In addition, there is a large number
of low-income households that are between 0 and 50% HAMFI. These populations could be served via more
subsidized multifamily housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
• There is a large number of low-income senior households (440 renter and 890 homeowner) with an income between
0 and 50% of HAMFI that could be served by more subsidized senior housing, ADUs and tax/fee relief.
• Moderate income workers and families (between 50 and 80% HAMFI) could be served by more market -rate
multifamily rental housing, ADU's and subsidized multifamily housing.
• Middle income households, including seniors seeking to downsize, (between 80 and 150% HAMFI) could be served
by more condominiums, townhomes, cottages, and ADUs. They could also be served by more market -rate multifamily
rental housing and market -rate senior housing.
Director Hope advised that the consultant has interviewed a number of local developers, seeking insight on the current issues
and needs relative to housing. Interviewees included 2 affordable housing developers; 4 market -rate, multifamily/mixed-use
developers; 2 market -rate, 2 primarily single-family developers; 1 ADU architect; and 1 in the construction business. They
provided the following feedback:
• Height limits in Edmonds are too low. It was noted that multifamily development generally needs 45 feet in height,
and even more if underground parking is provided. Single-family development needs 30 feet.
• The parking requirements can make multifamily development difficult to pencil out.
• The ground floor retail requirements in the downtown zones need to be reconsidered. The current requirements reduce
the space for housing and it is difficult to fill the retail space in today's market.
• There needs to be clear and consistent expectations regarding Development Code requirements.
• The permit review process needs to be fast and have a predictable timeline.
• The City should consider revising the engineering permit review process to reduce redundancy and unnecessary steps.
• The City should provide more information about incentives and reconsider impact fees. Several of the developers
were unaware of the City's Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) and other incentives, but they voiced concern that
impact fees harm a project's feasibility.
• Edmonds should inventory all publicly -owned land for development potential. This is a great idea, but not very useful
for Edmonds because the City does not have a lot of undeveloped public lands.
• Consider a regional funding approach, such as King County's A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) Program or
Snohomish County's Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) Program. The cities and County could work together,
with each jurisdiction contributing funds or land for the development of subsidized housing.
• Bring in non -profits through the Requests for Proposals process after identifying goals and resources and conducting
outreach.
• Reconsider the City's current ADU provisions. The current height limits and parking requirements can make projects
infeasible or very expensive. Approving pre -fabricated designs would reduce the costs.
Director Hope advised that, as the process moves forward, the consultant has put forward for consideration the following list
of housing objectives, as well as tools for accomplishing each objective:
Objective 1 — Increase the supply and diversity of market -rate multifamily housing. Potential tools for
accomplishing this objective include reducing residential parking requirements, allowing greater building heights and
densities in multifamily zones, targeted rezoning of single-family residential areas to allow multifamily units, and
providing faster, predictable and user-friendly permit review.
Objective 2 — Expand opportunities for "missing middle" home production. Potential tools for accomplishing
this objective include relaxing restrictions on ADUs and backyard cottages and applying targeted rezones to allow for
townhouses, cottage housing and/or small -lot single-family development. Although the City has provisions for
ADU's, only attached ADUs are currently allowed.
Objective 3 — Provide incentives or reduce costs for affordable housing. Potential tools for accomplishing this
objective include expanding the existing MFTE program, developing voluntary inclusionary zoning and density bonus
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
programs, waiving or reducing impact fees for affordable housing, waiving or reducing permit fees for affordable
housing, and helping facilitate donations of land to use for affordable housing.
• Objective 4 — Increase resources for subsidized affordable housing. A potential tool for accomplishing this
objective is linkage fees. For example, a certain type of development could be allowed in a zone if the developer pays
a fee based on the size of the development. The funds collected could be used to help develop subsidized housing.
Other potential tools include a housing levy where tax money is paid into a fund and finding more ways to qualify for
grant funding. It was noted that Community Development Block Grants are typically geared towards lower income
areas, so it is difficult for the City to qualify for these funds.
• Objective 5 — Identify solutions for special needs populations. The beneficiary of this objective would typically
be seniors, veterans, and disabled and homeless populations.
Objective 6 — Provide protections for low-income tenants. The state recently approved legislation that prohibits
landlords from discriminating based on the source of income. That means that people who receive Section 8 funding
should not be eliminated from being considered for housing. A potential tool would be for the City to do more to
provide fair housing information.
• Objective 7 — Help keep some housing affordable. Potential tools for accomplishing this objective include
supporting third -party purchase of existing housing in exchange for long-term preservation of the units and finding
ways to help property owners make improvements in return for a covenant that the units must remain available to
households at a certain level of income.
Director Hope summarized that the intent is to show a range of opportunities that include partnerships, code changes, additional
incentives and obtaining more resources. Moving forward, the consultant will refine the tool list and conduct additional
research into tool viability. Some of the tools may not be practical for the City, but the intent is to put forward as many ideas
as possible. She invited the Board to provide additional input, noting that the updated tool list will be presented to the task
force for additional recommendations. Again, she advised that a public open house will be held in May to solicit community
input. As the plan moves forward, the Planning Board will have additional study sessions, as well as a public hearing, before
forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. The goal is to have the draft Housing Strategy before the City Council for
review and possible action in mid -summer.
Board Member Crank disclosed that she works for the YWCA Seattle King Snohomish, and housing challenges are something
she deals with every day. She said she is pleased to see the progress that has been made on the Housing Strategy since the first
task force meeting. She noted that most of the task force members are developers. She asked if the consultant has considered
meeting with organizations such as the YWCA, which owns 15 permanent housing structures with over 900 units across both
counties. The YWCA's Shelter Plus Care Program responds to the needs of homeless adults and families with disabilities,
assigning them with permanent housing and long-term support services. In addition to the YWCA, there are other organizations
that could provide great insight and resources. She felt it would be helpful to speak with other organizations to learn more
about what the needs are and what is and is not working. Director Hope said the consultant has had some conversation with
the Catholic community, which has thousands of housing units in the area, as well as some other organizations. But she
recognized that more could be done.
Chair Monroe asked if the City has reached out to neighboring jurisdictions and the County regarding the concept of creating
a regional approach to address housing issues. Director Hope answered that the Housing Strategy will emphasize the
importance of partnerships with other jurisdictions, as well as non-profit organizations such as the Alliance for Housing
Affordability. She announced that Snohomish County has provided up to $500,000 in matching funds to cities who build
affordable housing, and this is just one example of how the City could partner with other jurisdictions to get more done.
Board Member Rubenkonig advised that she followed all of the links provided at www.edmondshousin stg rategy.org. She
particularly referred to the Complete Housing Tool Kit published by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which
provided a list of 13 tools the City could use to address housing issues. The City is already using some of these tools. She
reviewed the list as follows:
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The PSRC provides links to websites that illustrate how the concept is used
successfully in other communities to meet a variety of housing needs. Director Hope noted that the City already
allows attached ADUs, but the current requirements are stringent.
• Cluster Development. Director Hope advised that a type of cluster development is already allowed in Edmonds
through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions, but the provisions are not user-friendly in their current
format. Typically, cluster development refers to cottage units clustered around a green space or single-family homes
clustered together on smaller lots. She acknowledged that the PUD code provisions could be amended to better address
opportunities for cluster development.
• Cottage Housing. Director Hope said cottage housing development is where you build an equivalent of two homes
on a single lot. Typically, cottage homes are clustered with a number of smaller homes that share some open space.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the City of Shoreline had provisions for cottage housing, but they were
later eliminated after concerns were raised about a particular cottage housing development. Director Hope said several
other cities, including Mountlake Terrace, have provisions for cottage housing, but design standards are very important
to make them work well.
• Infill Development. Director Hope said the City's opportunities for infill development are limited. Perhaps more
opportunities will come up depending on the market value of property and the zoning options available.
• Master Planned Communities. Director Hope advised that there is not a lot of opportunity for Master Planned
Communities in Edmonds because the City is primarily built out. Typically, this process is used for very large
• Mixed -Use Development. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that this concept has been used in various parts of the
City, most recently in the Westgate and Highway 99 subareas.
• Mobile/Manufactured Homes. Director Hope said they do not have any of this type of development in Edmonds,
and none have been proposed, either. Given the cost of land, it is difficult to image that this type of use would be
feasible.
• Multifamily Development. Director Hope observed that only a small portion of land in Edmonds is zoned for
multifamily development. Most of the multifamily -zoned property is built out, and it would be difficult to replace the
older stock given the 25-foot height limit. Most cities allow a greater height in their multifamily zones. Board Member
Rubenkonig pointed out that there are some multifamily developments that have a height greater than 25 feet, but they
were built under the County's jurisdictions prior to annexation. Director Hope pointed out that the City of Edmonds
used to have greater height limits, too.
• Planned Unit Development (PUD). Director Hope advised that PUDs are similar to Master Planned Communities.
• Preservation and Rehabilitation. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that perhaps the City could make funding
available to rehabilitate and preserve existing affordable housing stock to bring it up to code. Another option would
be for the City to purchase the housing units so they can remain available to the community. Right now, the City does
not have a program of this type. Director Hope agreed that the City is not involved in any of these situations currently,
but some non-profit organizations may have existing housing in the City and it might be appropriate for the City to
consider how it could support and help in this effort.
• Small Lot Development. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that in the recent past, the Board discussed the concept
of small lot development. Many of the lots in the downtown area are smaller than the minimum lot size allowed in
the zone, but the City cannot deny the owners the ability to redevelop or develop them. She asked how a small lot
development provision could help provide opportunities for affordable housing. Director Hope agreed that small lot
development could work in some places. Whether it is an option for Edmonds is questionable because so much of the
land is already developed. Some cities have developed standards for small lots so that development looks like single-
family homes. Small lot development provisions can allow larger lots to be subdivided even if the lots do not both
meet the minimum lot size requirement. She agreed that the City should consider this tool as a potential option.
• Townhomes. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Planning Board recently forwarded a recommendation to
the City Council that should help with townhome development, and it was subsequently adopted into code. She asked
if this tool should be given more attention, and Director Hope answered no, with the exception of perhaps Five
Corners.
• Zero Lot Line Development. Director Hope advised that, with the exception of Planned Residential Developments,
the City does not allow zero lot line development.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the PSRC's tool kit would be considered as the Housing Strategy moves forward, and
Director Hope answered affirmatively. Board Member Rubenkonig said it appears that much can be done to address the various
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
housing issues, and she welcomes the use of the phrase "missing middle." She commented that the issues are overwhelming,
particularly when considering all of the young people she is aware of who were raised in Edmonds but can no longer live here
because apartments are not as available as they once were. Many have been converted to condominiums, and most of the entry
units were lost. Director Hope pointed out that the legislature passed condominium liability laws that make it difficult for
people to build this type of entry housing. Although the legislature has considered changes to this law, none have been approved
to date.
Director Hope agreed that the issue of housing is complicated and there are no simple answers. Input from the Board and the
task force is helpful. There are a lot of different situations and needs. The hope is that the Housing Strategy will offer a variety
of tools that the City can prioritize and implement going forward.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that more narrative and examples should be added to the statistical presentation to help
people understand the importance of the numbers and the situations that many residents are experiencing. While Edmonds is
an affluent City, not all of its residents are affluent. They need to consider the needs of all residents.
Board Member Robles said he enjoyed reading through the preliminary information provided to the Board, and it is clear that
the staff and consultant have listened to the input provided by the Board thus far. It is exciting to see all of the ideas coming
together. He said he also likes the idea of addressing the "missing middle." The idea of providing a set of diverse tactics will
make the community more resilient.
Board Member Robles observed that there are a lot of "silent" costs associated with affordable housing that might not get
mentioned in the Housing Strategy. For example:
• Maintenance can add an enormous cost to living in a condominium, and poor management of repair contracts can
increase these costs even more. He suggested there needs to be more resources available to help condominium
associations and individual owners manage these costs.
• A senior property owner might not be willing to be assessed for a 20-year roof if he/she only plans to live in the
condominium for five years. Condominium associations need to be made aware that a non-profit organization can
borrow money from itself, and this eliminates the counter incentive. Perhaps the City could introduce a class of
entrepreneurs who can assist in getting these specialty financial products to the community.
• The income potential from an ADU can be subtracted from the mortgage to make a home more affordable, but banks
must be willing to count this additional income. Perhaps the City could negotiate with a local bank that is willing to
offer this one product because it is a viable option in Edmonds for making housing more available.
• There is a large number of split level homes in the area that could be divided into two units, with the upper and lower
units having separate accesses. Perhaps the City could offer pre -permitted plans that property owners could use to
understand exactly what needs to be done. This concept could result in trans -generational housing opportunities for
older couples who need assistance, young couples who need financial help with rent, college students, divorced
couples who both want to live near their children, etc.
• He is in favor of having the ability to look at a variety of solutions and offer unique insurance products that can cover
the gaps in liability that are introduced as they try to solve the housing problems.
• The City already allows some types of home businesses, and perhaps this opportunity should be expanded to include
new types of light industrial businesses such as online businesses, 3-d printing, etc.
Board Member Robles summarized that there are a lot of good ideas and many professionals are available to help the City
come up with architectural plans, etc. He noted that the Architectural Design Board has indicated a desire to participate in
coming up with Edmonds -type solutions, as well. They currently have awareness and support from the community to resolve
this issue, and he is glad to see a wide-open door to consider a variety of ideas.
Vice Chair Cheung said he supports expanding the ADU provisions to provide greater flexibility to property owners. Some
properties might not be suitable for an attached ADU, and a detached ADU would be a better option. There are a number of
situations that would benefit from the ADU option, such as live in child care, an aging parent, college students, etc. ADUs
offer opportunities for additional rental income, as well as opportunities to seniors who no longer want large homes to remain
in their same location. He recognized that some people are not inclined to support ADUs because of privacy and noise issues,
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
but many more people will likely be interested in the option. He said he would like input from the public regarding this
particular tool and its potential benefits and impacts.
Board Member Rosen applauded the work that has been done on the Housing Strategy thus far. He really likes the structure of
the presentation and how it was organized. The work done so far speaks well of the City staff, consultant and task force. He
said he also supports ADUs as a tool and is interested in obtaining public feedback about the pros and cons. He voiced concern
about the term "affordable housing. Moving forward he suggested that they either alter the term or look for ways to provide
qualifiers to make it clearer. In some cases, the term "affordable housing" could hurt more than help.
Board Member Rosen commented that the data shared is incredible. However, as they move forward with future discussions,
it will be important to put the data in the context of value and why it is important. They all want a place where they can work,
live, play, learn and age, and it would be nice if those needs could all be provided within the City. They also want their
neighborhoods to be safe and a place where young professionals can live, work and raise their families. They want to provide
opportunities for multiple generations to live together. Whatever they do, they want to preserve the aesthetics of the town
without compromising property values and property rights. They also need to accommodate growth. The current inventory of
affordable housing is low and the quality of this housing is also questionable. They must increase the inventory of quality,
affordable housing going forward. They need a place where tourists can come and spend their money and then leave, and
housing has something to do with that, as well. They must protect the environment and ensure that property owners and
developers have a level playing field.
Board Member Rosen observed that it is more challenging to address affordable housing in the City of Edmonds, which is
primarily built out already and more people are coming. Additional housing is needed and incomes and the cost of housing
have not kept pace with each other and the housing shortage is getting worse. There is no silver bullet answer. All of the tools
being considered are important, but he believes that ADUs, in all formats, are one of the most important. If you make a list of
all of the needs and all the things that ADUs can bring to the party, they become a sound solution that meets a large number of
the needs. The City of Edmonds is not unique, and they can learn from other jurisdictions. They need ADUs and they need to
continue to educate and engage the community in the discussions. The decisions should be driven more by values, so creating
minimum standards to protect the values and safety they all want will be important. He said he worries that the American
dream is going to become just that, a dream. There is no do -over button for the decisions that are made now. The decisions
are important for the fabric of the community and for future generations. He said he appreciates the thoughtfulness that has
gone into the process so far and hopes it will continue going forward.
Chair Monroe thanked the staff, consultant and task force for doing such a great job of defining the problem, and the data
provided was helpful, as well. However, he questioned how much of the HAMFI data is skewed by the homeownership of the
elderly. A number of senior citizens own their own homes and do not have a mortgage. Therefore, they can get by with less
income. Director Hope agreed that while some senior citizens do not have a lot of income, many already own their homes and
are in better shape. However, it would be difficult to collect this level of specific data.
Chair Monroe said he is also in favor of expanding the ADU provisions, which he does not believe would add a concentration
of density in any one location.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the American Housing Survey collects data on whether or not a person owns
his/her home. She also asked if the City's current ADU provisions allow for ADUs above commercial and industrial buildings.
She suggested that this could be a valuable option that would not consume valuable commercial and industrial property with
residential uses. Director Hope answered that ADUs are allowed in the mixed -use zones and all commercial zones allow some
amount of residential use, with the exception of the Commercial Waterfront zone. She said they do not have any heavy
industrial development in Edmonds, but there are some light -industrial uses. However, it is important to note that adding to an
existing structure might not always be feasible. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the staff and consultant research
this option further to see how it would impact the current inventory.
Board Member Robles noted that there has been no mention of Airbnb and other short-term rental organizations. This is another
way for a family or individual to live in place. The problem is not that the use is illegal, it is that it is extra -legal. There is not
a set of rules in place to protect owners and surrounding property owners. While adjacent property owners need to be aware
of the activity, he cautioned against restricting the use because it brings in tourists and provides income to people. But because
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
the use is extra -legal, there is no way to finance improvements or protect both parties, as well as the community. This can
result in problems that eventually lead to the uses being shut down. He does not believe the City wants to reach that point.
Instead, they want to allow homeowners this additional tool. Director Hope advised that bed and breakfast establishments are
allowed in the City, but a business license is required. Several are licensed and operating at this time. Mr. Chave added that
the City allows property owners to rent rooms and to operate bed and breakfasts. Airbnb is also allowed, depending on how
many rooms are rented and what process you go through. Director Hope explained that Airbnb and similar short-term rental
organizations have created problems in some cities. For example, in the Town of Leavenworth, bed and breakfasts and other
short-term rentals have been so successful that there are no longer places for workers to live. Property owners get so much
more money from tourists that workers are being frozen out of the housing market.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Monroe reviewed that the April III agenda includes a continued review and discussion of the Draft Urban Forest
Management Plan, with a public hearing following on May 91. The discussion relative to the Housing Strategy will continue
on May 9', as well.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe commended the Board for their thoughtful comments relative to the Housing Strategy.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that Board Member Lovell agreed to attend the April 4' meeting of the Edmonds Tree
Board where the draft Urban Forest Management Plan will be presented. She said she may attend the meeting, as well.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
March 28, 2018 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/11/2018
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:
Attachment: Director Report 04.06.2018
Packet Pg. 11
OF EQ-Af
5.A.a
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
April 6, 2018
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"Spring: A lovely reminder of how beautiful change can truly be.
- Anonymous
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board's next meeting is April 11. The main topic will be an
introduction to the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
REGIONAL NEWS
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
❑ PSRC's Executive Board has approved an updated Regional Centers
Framework, following a robust discussion. The update, which affects
planning for urban growth in the central Puget Sound region (area of
Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties), does the following:
o Encourages larger Regional Growth Centers to plan for more growth
o Creates a new path for designating manufacturing industrial centers
o Provides an approach to re -designate existing regional centers
o Recognizes major military installations
o Increases planning and performance for all centers
o Establishes guidelines to designate countywide centers
PSRC's Regional Staff Committee met in March to discuss:
o Regional Transportation Plan
o Regional Aviation Baseline Study
o VISION 2050
o Local activities
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
The SCT Steering Committee (comprised primarily of city and county elected
officials) met March 28 and recommended: (a) Rejection of a proposed
amendment to countywide planning policies that would allow the county to
swap urban growth areas from one jurisdiction to another; and (b) Rejection
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
of the City of Shoreline's proposal to allow an easier process for Shoreline to
annex across the county line to incorporate the Point Wells area.
❑ The SCT Planning Advisory Committee (comprised primarily of city and
county community development/ planning directors) will meet on April 12 to
discuss:
o Annexations
o "Housing Snohomish County" project report
o VISION 2050
LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB met on April 4. Items of discussion included:
❑ Introduction of new board member
❑ Sign modification: The ADB reviewed and approved a sign modification
request for signage on a nonqualifying building fagade at 22019 Highway 99
Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee met on April 5. Items of discussion included:
❑ Potential plastics & related issues (e.g., plastic straws)
❑ Climate Action Plan update
� � 2018 committee priorities
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met on April 4. Members discussed:
❑ Youth Forum (planned for April 27)
❑ Update from city officials
❑ Strategic planning retreat update
2018 sub -group reports for policies, events, partnerships, and
communications
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Economic Development Commission last met on March 21. Items of discussion
included:
❑ Five -Corners development feasibility
❑ Membership & leadership 2018-19
❑ Subgroups for development feasibility, art, civic facilities, and affordable
housing
❑ 2018 priorities
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission will meet next on April 12. Items of
discussion include:
❑ Ground Floor requirements in BD1
i Updates on Historic Register applications
21Pane
Packet Pg. 13
5.A.a
Housing Strategy Task Force
The Housing Strategy Task Force will meet next on April 12 at 8:30 am in the
Brackett Room. The agenda will include:
❑ Community land trust update from Homes and Hope founder
❑ Preliminary Draft Housing Strategy concepts
For more information about the strategy and the task force, see:
www.edmondshousingstrategy.org.
NOTE: The Planning Board has already provided initial input on this topic. A draft
housing strategy is expected to be ready for the Planning Board in May. After a
public hearing in June, the Planning Board may provide a recommendation to the
City Council.
Tree Board
On April 5, the Tree Board considered a presentation and discussed the draft Urban
Forest Management Plan. The agenda also included:
❑ Appointment of a student representative
❑ Tree Board pamphlet final bids for printing
❑ Update on upcoming events & activities.
City Council
The City Council's April 3 meeting included the following:
Cemetery Board annual report
❑ Update on Waterfront Connector Project
❑ Public hearing on amending critical area regulations regarding certain allowed
activities
(With approval from the Council to have the city attorney move
forward with an ordinance that would include a minor amendment to
the draft language and would be brought back to the Council for the
next available consent calendar)
❑ Presentation on feasibility of moving forward with plan/zone changes for Five
Corners area (based on prior work)
o With approval from the Council to move forward with as reasonable
speed as resources allow
The City Council's April 10 meeting will include following:
Presentations:
o Annual Report - South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue
o Annual Report - Economic Development Commission
Marsh Study - Windward contract update (approved)
Ordinance Establishing a Fund for Homelessness Response (adopted)
❑ Ordinance Establishing a Fund for Opioid Response (adopted)
Review of Planning Board recommendation on amending critical area
requirements for vegetation removal in certain circumstances
Japan Trip
Mayor Dave Earling and other city representatives left March 31 for a week-long
trip to Hekinan, our sister city in Japan.
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 14
5.A.a
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• April 19: Edmonds Art Walk, 5 pm
• April 21: Earth Day work party at Yost Park, Yost Park parking lot at 9 am
• May 4: Archaeology at Night, Edmonds Historical Museum, 5 - 8 pm, click for
further information
• May 5: Watershed Fun Fair, Willow Creek Fish Hatchery, 11 am
• May 5: Garden Market Opens, 9 am - 2 pm
41
Packet Pg. 15
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/11/2018
Introduction to Draft Urban Forest Management Plan
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
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,
property owners know that having the right trees in the right place must be considered too.
Edmonds is designated as a "Tree City USA" city. It has a citizen Tree Board. A Street Tree Plan and
some aspects 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 any significant changes to tree regulations.
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
Online survey
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.
Packet Pg. 16
8.A
Staff Recommendation
Provide any questions or comments
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
At the Planning Board's April 11 meeting, a presentation will be given by the consultant to introduce the
draft UFMP. A public hearing to get public input and a Planning Board recommendation is tentatively
scheduled for May 9. The draft UFMP is expected to be updated for clarifications/corrections, photos
and approximate funding levels before being brought to the City Council in June.
Attachments:
Att. 1: Urban Forest Plan Draft March
Packet Pg. 17
'F-
LIP
.OF
Ur
Z7
'IdIL
*,Mtn
14A
Ar
46
a
Urban Forest Master Plan 2017
DRAFT March 2018 A
8.A.a
Q
Packet Pg. 19
8.A.a
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Master Plan 2017
DRAFT March 2018
`0C. 189v
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. 20
8.A.a
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments Group 1
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Acknowledgments Group 2
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Acknowledgments Group 3
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Acknowledgments Group 4
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
Name Name, Position
OF hll-
O
DAVIE Y o
Resource Group
Ins. 1890
Packet Pg. 21
8.A.a
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation
Introduction
Community
Benefits of the Urban Forest
What Do We Have?
i Edmonds' Urban Forestry History Regulatory Framework
Regional Plans and Legislation Regional Urban Forestry Resources
Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies
lk- `.wlhvlg 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. 22
8.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. 23
8.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,
What
What
Do We
Do We
Have?
Want?
How How Do
Are We
Doing?
We Get
There?
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
The City
Acres 6,095
Population 41,840
Land Cover
Tree Canopy
30%
Grass & Vegetation
27%
Impervious Surfaces
34%
Bare Soils
2%
Open Water
7%
Tree Canopy Cover
Maximum Potential Canopy 57%
High Priority Planting Acres 384
Investment
Tree Care Per Capita $7.74
a
Executive Summary
Packet Pg. 24
8.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. 25
Land Cover
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
8.A.a
.anopy 47
)%
IL
s E
Grass/Vegetation Impervious
27% 34% �w
;! U-
_
Figure 1: Land Cover � ;,
Z�'CU}r..'. O
.,�.=
s O
1. O
L
r;r . p ..: .'V�
Tree Canopy
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation
Impervious Surfaces
r
Bare Soil
r O
Open Water
a�
E
ti Y �:� A Q
Miles
Map 1: Land Cover
Executive Summar-
Packet Pg. 26
8.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. 27
8.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 2048. 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.
Q
Executive summary 6
Packet Pg. 28
8.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 is the oldest city in Snohomish County,
and was founded 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.
Q
% Introduction
Packet Pg. 29
8.A.a
Benefits 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. 31
ad
T1
,yyy..: 1 +r rf• fi 1•.' by,.�'. �• .mot
/P -
Vl
r
1. f t.
y.;,4 �� .• . i . -. - . , Ttr . `+'.�. • : a": S#-1`.a 1F::. .;i"R"- .a w1
Overall Overall Benefits ifv
InterceptStormwater
Common Name Scientific Name Stormwater
Benefits cared for to 13" Value
+ Runoff (gallons)
8.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. 33
8.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
'Chanticleer'
148.00
$68.00
$1.22
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
a
Introductior 12
Packet Pg. 34
8.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. 35
8.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
ri xinus pennsylvanica
Leprachaun ash $83.00
'Johnson'
$144.00 207 $88.10
$68.00 70 $29.66
$119.00 151 $64.51
$124.00 166 $70.67
Japanese stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 61 $25.93
a
Introduction 1-.
Packet Pg. 36
8.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.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
15 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 37
8.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.
a
What Do We Have? 16
Packet Pg. 38
8.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.
a
17 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 39
8.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.
Wk
a
What Do We Have' 18
Packet Pg. 40
8.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.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
19 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 41
8.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.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
r
a
What Do We Have' 2v
Packet Pg. 42
8.A.a
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 Cityof Edmonds:
• 30.3% existing canopy, including trees and
woody shrubs (525 acres)
• 1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare
ground
• 6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree
canopy is unfeasible
• 27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying
vegetation
• 34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads,
parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres)
• From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased
from 32.3% to 30.3%
• Total possible canopy is 57.4%, considering
suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the
existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of
3,495 acres
• Private properties have most of the canopy
(83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and
commercial (4.1%) properties.
• Among parks in Edmonds, Snohomish
County Park has the most canopy cover
(117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park
(44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26
acres)
` ,sec ," ►•�� r _ .
J1
w. �1c4. .' S K . •. 164 eW
,t` ter` [ �, lift •� - w,,: •�.\ ' •!,•' 1 'i
49
� �•.ar .- I . -r 'ram' . ^�' ,'..r, ■• y - _ . � � •r.*, ' •J � T
., •� �e ` '{ .-` yrf - , -z i n.,, +: i .-.. �.. ■ - R� �- •fir ,'•.*tti:,.(.
14
a
21 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 43
Land Cover
Water
7%
Bare Soils
2%
8.A.a
:anopy 47
)%
IL
s E
Grass/Vegetation Impervious
27% 34% �w
;! U-
_
Figure 1: Land Cover � ;,
Z�'CU}r..'. O
.,�.=
s O
1. O
L
r;r . p ..: .'V�
Tree Canopy
Grass/Low-Lying Vegetation
Impervious Surfaces
r
Bare Soil
r O
Open Water
a�
E
N
a
0 0.5 1 4' '" ` n `'ri 7.....
Miles
Map 1: Land Cover
What Do We Have? 22
Packet Pg. 44
8.A.a
Canopy Fragmentation
As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds' existing
UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the
distribution of canopy (Map 2). The overall health
of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the
ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and
humans to interact collectively as a whole.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
will vastly improve by creating linkages between
multiple patches of forest.
Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable
management tool due to the importance of Edmonds'
critical areas and environmental stewardship. The
analysis found that Edmonds' urban forest includes
the following:
• 10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy
8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy
55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy
26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to
improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top)
leads to isolation and declining habitat quality.
�• -�•�
A .
µtime
,•
Y r •fir
•� � • -
�• '
,/
` �
'
'�
�
� r'
� 4 ���.. i �
� �
.'1
ry
ti
l�•.
�
r
01
Ir
� , •� .�r� •ram -
r. -:_
a
2.3 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 45
8.A.a
Forest Fragmentation
Patch Forest
�, 56%
Core Forest
10%
Perforated
Forest
8%
Edge Forest
26%
Figure 2: Forest Fragmentation
Patch Forest
Edge Forest
Perforated Forest
- Core Forest
0
N
A,
0.5
znm
Miles
1
Map 2: Forest Fragmentation
What Do We Have? 24
Packet Pg. 46
a
8.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 (greaterthan 96.7%).
However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not
currently near maximum potential canopy.
An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the
parks where there is a much larger gap between
current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. For
example, Mathay Ballinger Park has 54.4% canopy
cover, but the potential is 93.8%. Haines Wharf
is another example where the potential canopy
(40.6%) is much higher than the existing canopy
(11.9%). The 5 biggest parks are listed at right.
r
a
25 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 47
8.A.a
Tree Canopy By Park
Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Park Name
Total
Arras
Can..
Acres
Potential
Snohomish
..Canopy
118.55
117.05
98.73
99.47
County Park
Yost Memorial
44.14
41.28
93.53
97.45
Park
eadowdale A
2S 54
25.16
98.50
99.77
each Park
Pine Ridge Park
23.78
21.36
89.83
96.66
dmonds Marsh
e
cl
U
Under15% �l
15% - 30%
30% - 45% LJ
45% - 60%
Over 60%
A
D ❑.5 1
Miles
tot
Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park
What Do We Have? 26
Packet Pg. 48
a
8.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
7 What Do We Have?
80.65 5.48 13.56
1.76 59.36
Packet Pg. 49
8.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
Q
What Do We Have? 28
Packet Pg. 50
8.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
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
Watural 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).
r
a
29 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 51
8.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? 3
Packet Pg. 52
Overall Benefits
Figure 4: Overall Environmental Benefits
8.A.a
Edmond's land cover data was used within i-Tree
Canopy to model the environmental benefits from
the entire urban forest (all public and private trees).
The trees in Edmond's are providing air quality
and stormwater benefits worth nearly $1.6 million
annually. To date, trees in Edmonds are storing
187,590 tons of carbon in their leaves and woody
biomass. The stored carbon is valued at $6.8 million.
Annually, tree canopy in Edmonds provides the
following environmental services:
• Reduces 42.8 million gallons of stormwater
runoff, a benefit worth nearly $1.2 million.
• Improves air quality by removing 42.2 tons
of pollutants (CO, NO2' 03, SOz) and PM10)1
valued at $146,823.
• Sequesters 6,294 tons of carbon, valued at
$221,885 annually.
Ca.__..
Sequestration
14%
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
Stormwater
Management
76%
Air Quality
10%
31 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 53
8.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
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
a
What Do We Have? .32
Packet Pg. 54
8.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
Trees in Parks
Recreation and
Tree Pruning
g
Cultural
Tree Removal
Services
Tree Planting
Public Works
Hazardous Tree
Trees within
and Utilities
Inspections
City Rights -of-
(with Parks'
Tree Pruning
Way
assistance in
Tree Removal
MEMENNEEk
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.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
33 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 55
8.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.
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.
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: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures
a=
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance $79,779
Tree Removals $37,565
Management $62,771
Volunteer Activities $134,579
TOTAL $134,069
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�dActivitire
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
a
What Do we Have? 34
Packet Pg. 56
8.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).
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
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.
.35 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 57
8.A.a
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
a
E
a
What Do we Have? 36
Packet Pg. 58
8.A.a
Major and Emerging Diseases America. The EAB is a destructive, non -
and Pests native, wood -boring pest that exclusively
kills both stressed and healthy ash trees
Another important aspect to tree maintenance is two to three (2 — 3) years after infestation
staying alert to managing emerging diseases and (NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native
pests that can be costly to control with individual to Northeastern Asia. EAB larvae feed on
trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest, the vascular tissue of trees and populations
these are potentially catastrophic matters to grow exponentially. This pest has been
consider. Among the many diseases and pests that identified as moving slowly into the Western
affect trees, City Staff and residents remain alert to U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest
the following: for Ash tree populations.
♦ Asian Long -Horned Beetle (ALB), is an
♦ Dutch Elm Disease (DED) has devastated
invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety
American elm populations, one of the most
of trees in the United States, eventually
important street trees in the twentieth
killing them. The beetle is native to China
century. Since first reported in the 1930s,
and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start
it has killed over 50 percent of the native
to show about three to four (3 — 4) years
elm population in the United States (NASPF,
after infestation, with tree death occurring
2005), although some elm species have
in ten to fifteen (10 - 15) years depending
shown varying degrees of resistance.
on the tree's overall health and site
♦ Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of
conditions. Infested trees do not recover,
the foliage disease of Douglas -fir caused
nor do they regenerate. There are a broad
by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus
number of tree species this insect will feed
gaeumannii. SNC is known as a "cast"
in and most common deciduous trees in
disease because it causes the premature
Edmonds are at risk.
shedding of needles (or casting) from
♦ Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed
the tree. resulting in sparse tree crowns
hundreds of millions of ash trees in North
and reduced growth. Although it is called
Asian Long -Horned Beetle
r
Emerald Ash Borer
.37 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 59
8.A.a
"Swiss" needle cast, the fungus is native to
the Western United States throughout the
range of Douglas -fir. SNC disease symptoms
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.
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
r
a
What Do We Have' 38
Packet Pg. 60
8.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.
39 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 61
8.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.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
a
What Do We Have? 40
Packet Pg. 62
8.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
]FORESTRY
Washington State Urban and
Community Forestry Program
Under the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban
and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides
technical, educational, and financial assistance
to Washington's cities and towns, counties,
tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and
educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is:
"To provide leadership to create self-sustaining
urban and community forestry programs that
preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for
public benefits and quality of life."
A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of
financial assistance programs including; Community
Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree
Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree
Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration
Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of
financial assistance, their availability in a given year,
and their associated dollar amounts are dependent
on continued funding through annual grant
allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF
communicates events, educational opportunities,
and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter.
The Washington Community Forestry Council
advises the DNR on policies and programs. The
program does this by teaching citizens and decision -
makers about the economic, environmental,
psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees.
The program also helps local governments, citizen
groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy
trees throughout Washington. The council was
established under RCW 76.15.
41 what Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 63
8.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.
i
• � .� 111 1
Municipal Research and Services
Center
The Municipal Research and Services Center
(MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local
governments across Washington State better serve
their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance
on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local
information from parks and recreation departments,
land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations
to promote and manage urban forestry resources.
Example resources include local urban forestry
programs in Washington State, legal references, and
related articles.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
r
a
What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 64
8.A.a
future
wise j
Futurewise
Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent
sprawl to protect the resources of communities
in Washington State. Futurewise was founded
to help support implementation of Washington
State's Growth Management Act, and to focus on
preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open
space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions
and development.
Futurewise provides data analysis and research,
community and environmental planning and
policy development, community engagement and
outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy,
legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services
are all provided through strategic collaboration with
businesses, governments, community organizations,
and nonprofit partners.
w
COLLEGE
of the
ENVIRONMENT
The University of Washington
Restoration Ecology Network
TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN)
is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional
center to integrate student, faculty and community
interests in ecological restoration and conservation.
Students in the program are required to complete
capstone projects, where students of different
academic backgrounds work together to complete
a local restoration project. Students learn how
to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration
project while working in teams. The Capstone
spans three academic quarters beginning in the
fall. Communities collaborate with the program to
develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the
community and excellent learning experiences for
the students.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
43 what Do we Have?
Packet Pg. 65
8.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.
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
a
What Do We Have'
Packet Pg. 66
8.A.a
Urban Forestry
Practices:
Case Studies
In orderto 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.
45 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 67
8.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? 46
Packet Pg. 68
8.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
47 What Do We Have?
Packet Pg. 69
8.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://static.spokanecity.org/documents/
urbanforestry/permits/commercial-tree-
license.pdf
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 0
0
nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds
maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued r
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.
L
w
0
L
0
c
a
N
L
0
U_
c
0
PLACEHOLDER.
r
Picture
c
as
E
a
What Do We Have? 48
Packet Pg. 70
8.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.
49 what Do we want?
Packet Pg. 71
8.A.a
%-�O
k
n1!Pits II
r
Q
What Do We Want? 'JrV
Packet Pg. 72
8.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
51
What Do We Want?
Packet Pg. 73
8.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
L
R
r
I
�a
0
c
CU
a
(D
L
O
U-
c
L
7
r
Q
C
a)
E
c,>
a
What Do We Want? 52
Packet Pg. 74
8.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%
preservation on private property, with 79.0% of
respondents identifying these as their preferred
methods.
Respondents were asked to select the types of
education and public outreach they would like to
see offered by the urban forestry program. The
most popular educational materials were website
resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails
and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks
(55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%).
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
10%
0% _
Take care of hazardous trees. Holistic Plant Health Care Best possible care (all trees Clearance only (keep the
(Improve the urban forest, should look good) sidewalks and streets clear)
but not necessarily every
tree)
Maintenance Expectations
53 what Do We want?
None -Keep them natural
a
Packet Pg. 75
8.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? 54
Packet Pg. 76
8.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.
55 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 77
30 4
lob
'Al
31
Id
Urban Forest Asset Goals h�_.I
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
OF Goal #UA1- Maintain Citywide Canopy Coverage Priority:
Performance Measure -Tree Canopy Cover(% of City land covered bytree canopy) Time:TBD
Cost:
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.
r
a
57 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 79
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? 58
Packet Pg. 80
8.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:
59 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 81
8.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? 60
Packet Pg. 82
8.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 goals.
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.
Priority, Time, Cost
Priority:
Time: TBD
Cost:
61 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 83
8.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:
r
a
How Do We Get There' 62
Packet Pg. 84
8.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:
63 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 85
8.A.a
Objectives
OF Goal #UA8 - Encourage Tree Species Diversity
Performance Measure - Diversity ratio of species, genus and family, especially
within City parks and rights -of -way
Rationale - Through modifications of existing City regulation, policies, and public
education, the City can directly influence the biodiversity of the tree population
toward the optimal performance level that preserves and enhances local natural
biodiversity. A generally accepted rule suggests an urban tree population should
include no more than 10% of any one species, 20% of any one genus, or 30% of
any family.
Risk -Insufficient diversity of tree species could make the City more susceptible to
catastrophic pest or disease.
Benefit - Trees will be suited to their environment and become an important part
of a balanced ecosystem.
Actions:
A. Develop a publicly accessible list of desirable and undesirable tree species.
a. Periodically update the list according to Washington State invasive
species guidelines.
B. Establish policy that prohibits planting of invasive tree species on City
property.
Priority, Time, Cost
Priority:
Time: TBD
Cost:
How Do We Get There? 64
Packet Pg. 86
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:
r
a
65 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 87
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:
r
a
How Do We Get There? 66
Packet Pg. 88
8.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:
r
a
67 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 89
8.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 UFMR
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.
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? 68
Packet Pg. 90
8.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:
69 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 91
8.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? 70
Packet Pg. 92
8.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:
r
a
71 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 93
8.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:
r
a
How Do We Get There' 72
Packet Pg. 94
8.A.a
Community Resource Goals
Objectives
Community Goal #C1- Establish a Tree Bank (Fund)
Performance Measure - Dollars ($) in Fund
Rationale - Establishing a tree planting funding mechanism whereby residents
can pay in -lieu fees to fund planting trees in other areas of the City when any
planting on -site is not a reasonable option.
Risk - Residents and developers get frustrated with having to replace trees they
do not even want.
Benefit - Trees will be preserved, cared for, and/or planted in desirable locations
with more City controls to ensure their successful establishment and growth.
Actions:
A. Establish a tree in -lieu fund.
a. Ensure funds are dedicated specifically for tree care operations,
including planting and replacement.
b. Work with Finance department to develop appropriate fees and
mechanisms for tree replacement.
i. Perform in -lieu fee comparison in the region and increase in -lieu
fee to reflect a regional fee structure.
B. Identify opportunities for additional sources of revenue.
a. Appraisal fees for trees damaged in vehicular accidents.
b. Fines for malicious damage to public trees.
c. Charitable contributions and 'in -memoriam' options.
Priority, Time, Cost
Priority:
Time: TBD
Cost:
r
a
73 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 95
8.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.
r
a
How Do We Get There? %.-.
Packet Pg. 96
8.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:
75 How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 97
8.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? 76
Packet Pg. 98
8.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:
%% How Do We Get There?
Packet Pg. 99
8.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:
r
a
How Are We Doina' 78
Packet Pg. 100
8.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.
r
a
79 How Are We Doing?
Packet Pg. 101
8.A.a
PLACEHOLDER:
Picture
a
E
a
How Are We Doing? 80
Packet Pg. 102
8.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/
Clarke, 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.
81 Appendices
Packet Pg. 103
8.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 82
Packet Pg. 104
8.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
83 Appendices
Packet Pg. 105
8.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 0
Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Species
11
Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Species
12 N
Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Species
13 c
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 a
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 a
Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels
34
Appendice-
Packet Pg. 106
8.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):
IL
a�
L
U°
Improve Quality
Energy Savings
rprotect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage
a
Wildlife Habitat
r
Other
E
r
a
85 Appendices
Packet Pg. 107
8.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
L
CM
G
M
L
C
M
IL
as
L
O
U-
a
M
L
T
a
c
a�
E
a
Appendices 86
Packet Pg. 108
8.A.a
Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible 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
Beauty/Aesthetics
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails
Shaded Parking
Improve r reas and neighborhoods
Increased Property Values
Passive recreati ,
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles
14.86%
26
21.71%
38
16.00%
28
13.14%
23
34.29%
60
21.14%
37
14.86%
26
14.29%
25
21.71%
38
17.14%
30
24.00%
42
11.43%
20
5
3.43%
631
8.57%
15
9.71%
17
_2.86%
%�4 %
9
10.29%
1
%
22
13.71%
24
4.00%
7
5.14%
79f5.1 %
9
9.71%
17
.0
.86%
12
12.00 /
21
13.14% 23116.00% 28112.00% 21116.00% 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 th urban forest program
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)
87 Appendices
Packet Pg. 109
8.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
19.43%34
18. 9%
32
14.29%
25
6.29%
11
175
4.25
�10.29%
18
13.71%
24
22.86%
20.00%
40
35
29.14%
51
175
3.05
15.43% 27
14.86% 26
21.71 8
13.71%
24
13.14%
23
9.71%
17
6.29%
11
175
4.89
Answered
175
Skipped
Question 5 (Extended)
36.69%
62
23.67%
40
52.07%
88
14.79%
25
°
a
Appendices 88
Packet Pg. 110
8.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
r
a
89 Appendices
Packet Pg. 111
8.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 Su
AM
9.47%
16
Answered
169
Skipped
61
r
a
Appendices 90
Packet Pg. 112
8.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 the sidewalks 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.
0
U_
c
c�
100
59.17%
Open spaces and Natural Areas
60.36%
102 r
pr ets
%
100 a
Golf Courses
11.24%
19
owntown
.60%
72 E
Trails and bike paths
45.56%
77
Lmonds has enough public trees
20.12%
34 a
Other (please specify)
17.75%
30
Answered
169
Skipped
91 Appendices
Packet Pg. 113
8.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
c
IL
c
aD
E
m
a�
c
r
y
L
0
U-
R
L
R
L
0
r_
O
ci
0
L
ci
L
CR
C
L
CU
IL
a�
L
0
U-
E
L
r
Q
0
Qi
E
c,>
Y
r
a
Appendices 92
Packet Pg. 114
8.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 wa <s
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 view 24.70% 41
Trees shading my yard 9.04% 15
Tree debris in 12.65% 21
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67% 114
anop 57.83% 96
Loss of wildlife habitat
72.29% 120
a
c
M
E
a
93 Appendices
Packet Pg. 115
8.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.
a
(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
29.34%
49
Trees near my property are beautiful
67.66%
113
Trees near my property are healthy
59.28%
99
1 want more trees near my property
25.15%
42
ri-have no trees near my property T
0.60%
11
I don't agree with any of these statements.
2.40%
4
Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be
impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
reasonably possible. JW 53.89% 90
No. This City of Edmonds should not concern
itself with trees on private property. _ 17.96% 30
Not sure. This issue is more complicated. 28.14% 47
r
a
Appendices 94
Packet Pg. 116
8.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 1 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
r
a
95 Appendices
Packet Pg. 117
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
8.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 96
Packet Pg. 118
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds' urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
8.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
97 Appendices
Packet Pg. 119
8.A.a
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
Answered 33
Skipped 142
r
a
Appendices 98
Packet Pg. 120
8.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/
r
a
99 Appendices
Packet Pg. 121
8.A.a
Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate? -
A. Improved Air Quality
11
B. Energy Savings
4
0
0
1. Water J11111111ILLuced Stormwater Runoff
14
0�
c
D. Carbon Storage
7
1
0
a.
W Wildlife Habitat
14
0
E
F. Beauty/Aesthetics
12
0
0
G. Shaded trail ewalks, and bike trails
4
0
3
H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods
3
1
4
y
I. ased property
7
2
3
J. Shaded streets and parking lots
4
1
0
�°
K. Additional Ideas
D
Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade-
2
calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi -class (untreed
c
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
o
desertification
`
rcity revenue increase with more views
2
Air quality requires big, tall trees
0
0
1
i
c�
L
a
as
L
O
U-
E.
L
T
r
Q
c�
C
(i
Q
Appendice, 100
Packet Pg. 122
8.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
C
�i. Tree plantin�
1
0
0
a
iii. Tree pruning
4
1
0
E
OEMiv. Interactive tree selector
1
1
0
a),
V. Irrigation
1
0
0
olunteer opportuniti
1
0
0
y
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)
3
0
0
0
WSpecies selection
3
1
0
ii. Tree planting
1
0
0
Wr Aar
Ill. Tree pruning
3
1
0
v
iv. Irrigation
0
0
0
0
C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars)
2
0
0
`o
i. Tree planting
2
0
0
;
ii. Tree pruning
5
0
0
°
iii. Irrigation
0
0
0
c
=-
Volunteer opportunities
1
0
0
L
D. Additional Ideas
7
1
0
MENrod meetings for education and out
0
0
L
Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest
0
0
0
0
C
amphlets telling what species of trees on city property-
a
amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which
c
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
Wirt ation'l
T
New name needed
0
0
0
a
c
a�
E
a
101 Appendices
Packet Pg. 123
8.A.a
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds? ARE
A. Trees blocking my view
11
1 9
B. Trees shading my yard
3
0 7
�C . Tree debris L1
1 5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed
12
0 3
[E. Canopy 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
70m—eone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
1
0 0
Ito come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests
0
0 0
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
0
0 0
is removed for development
This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which
are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we
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.
'Note: for this opinion board:
Green dots = concerned
Red dots = not concerned
2 0 0
Appendice, 102
Packet Pg. 124
8.A.a
Opinion Board #4: What level of m
for public trees?
A. None (keep them natural)
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)
C. Clearance only (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.
1
7 1 3
7
10 2 0
0 0 0
2 0 0
0 -@�=
0 1 0
There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional
Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote "Agree" directly on MM
the note itself.
103 Appendices
Packet Pg. 125
8.A.a
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees ■
planted?
A
s
B. Open Spaces
Onommercial properties
D. Streets and medians
W Parking lots
F. Private properties
K Additional Ideas
Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all
arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool
I PC(z trPPC In MOW nrPaC
10
0 0
10
0 1
9
2 0
7
3 2
10
0 0
8
1 1
1
Q
Appendices 104
Packet Pg. 126
8.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
bL 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
ation- 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)
105 Appendices
Packet Pg. 127
1. What tree benefits do you mast
cppreciote?
A inprew'1.4F f
rrrresr■rer *
•see
• . glvdrsrd lM+evwe►x a�ereli
•##i*ii •
*M/ *4*0*0 OF •#i
r. ems'//..sttw4c.
#i *■i■�■*i
O. ss,oe.d *rri.� Frd""e .and Pik. hail.
is # #*•� 'wdr,"*'e""how.
k h"FsairdPm4ti•'i}��—
r** # i■ • i■
i' iiyd�i+ nselttiki—
#*• # eY las
.-
L_
I^
F
4. What level of rnafntendnce would
you prefer for public trees?
A. HoneIKeep th—n ctural)
i
i i
e. Raft passible care JcOtmes shoald leak good)
# ii iiii •
i
C. Clearance only jke'rp sidewalks d, streets deft
•#ri ■** #
D, Take cart of he:o.do.. r—
# *ir #i#*i +
E. Halistic Plant H*,Ah Care llrnpm-* the .,bon
forest, but not necVsFP6ly erery rrea}
sir • • r i
Addtion. I Ideas i
8.A.a
2. What types of outreach and 3. What isf are your biggest r
eduction are preferred valued? con corn (s) For trees in Edmonds?
A. RodY(aic [Wehsile, Links, Youtube, Apps)SA- Tmes Mocking my VIOW *
:. Sswyt Ssket:en �� � � �
41. rr.. Pla,rshq
sw..,a S. Troas shading my yard 'i i i 0 • 00
*. Irri�iq. � • •
+'iti'alrer*ir oPPerM.iMr� �
B. Hard Copy {Pamphlets, rdiwsle"FF )#* i
i.
sp«». s.w. e •
nce P%*fi.3 •
C- Nns.ds•On IWorkdkops. Seminars}
t Trei PI—s-P
N. Yklaener Orpwssniries
ID, Adk ilivnal ldw t `L�
C. Tree C611126e in my yard i
0 • ♦# i
p, MooBhy mature tre'Osk�aing ramowed0 ii 0
100000 000 0 0
E. Canopylpss0 90 0000i
r. Loss oFwiWiNs,habital 0000lo040 V
•o@ •o•
i, Add RionalColKarns
r �
4
Mon 6. 1hat are the best ways to
encourage tree planting and
5. Where would you like to see more preservotion on private property
treesplanted? j A. Free (or low-<4sl) Trees
A. Parses
■ sirs •iii
OPO.s Spaces
r �i r it
C. Commercial Properties
r i• i si ii
D. Streets and Medians
i *■ r
•• r
E. Parking Lots
%#i sr
i
F. Private presperties ;
i iii* • r
(j, jyddltlOnel �a9F
•
M• !*# 00
El. Information abatitt haw to hire a proFessfarsal
ft" carry company
66
C. Eduaatiion and Outreach #
1�
0. Tree PlanlidR Events
*0 go*
E. AddilianalIdeas y
r-
t
V
L
CM
G
+,I
LL
c
Its
IL
L
0
LL
C
M
T
r
Q
a.i
C
E
1.i
Q
Appendices 106
Packet Pg. 128
8.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.
107 Appendices
Packet Pg. 129
Attendance
8.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
r
a
Appendice- 108
Packet Pg. 130
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/11/2018
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:
Attachment: 04-11-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 131
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
p AMM BOARD
ARDD
��c. 1890
Extended Agenda
April 11, 2018
Meeting Item
APRIL 2018
April 11 1. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Review and Discussion
April 25 1. Discussion on Code Update to Permit Decision Making ECDC 20.01.003A
(tentative)
MAY 2018
May 9 1. Public Hearing on the Urban Forest Management Plan
2. Update on draft Housing Strategy
May 23 1. Next step on Code Update to Permit Decision -Making (tentative)
JUNE 2018
June 13 1. Review of draft Housing Strategy
June 27 1. Public Hearing on draft Housing Strategy
JULY 2018
July 11 1.
July 25 1.
AUGUST 2018
August 8 1.
August 22 1.
Packet Pg. 132
items ana liates are subject
9.A.a
o 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. 133