Loading...
2019-08-28 Planning Board PacketAgenda Edmonds Planning Board COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUGUST 28, 2019, 7:00 PM Edmonds Planning Board Agenda August 28, 2019 Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report B. RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Update on Urban Forest Management Plan 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/28/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft minutes Narrative Draft minutes are attached Attachments: PB190814d 2.A Packet Pg. 2 SUBJECT TO AUGUST 28TH APPROVAL CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting August 14, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Nathan Monroe Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2019 AND JULY 24, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 – STREET VACATIONS Ms. McConnell explained that the street vacation provisions currently reside in ECDC Title 20.70, and the proposed amendment would relocate them to ECDC Title 18, which is the Public Works section. The amendment also clarifies and reorganizes the provisions and adds a definitions section. The appraisal process and timing provisions were revised, as were 2.A.a Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 2 the provisions related to applicability of monetary compensation. Lastly, the timeframe was modified to satisfy conditions. Specifically, the proposed amendments: • Move Title 20 to Title 18 (Public Works Section). • Change the review lead from Planning Division to Public Works Division. • Add a new definition section (ECDC 18.55.005) to provide additional clarity. • Revise Section 18.55.015.D to reflect the types of plans and other documents needed for the application. • Add a new Section 18.55.030, which gives the City the right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways and trails. • Add a new appraisal section (18.55.XXX) to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for 3rd party appraisal. • Add Section 18.55.140 to clarify the processing of street vacations, allowing the ordinance to address timing by which the conditions need to be met, establishing compensation of the area to be vacated based on the appraisal, and giving the City Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on review of the appraisal should they choose. Mr. McConnell explained that a “street vacation” means that the public is letting go of, or vacating, the public interest in a property. After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer has a right to use the property for access. Street vacations can be initiated by private property owners or the City Council. As per Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.79.040, “If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each.” City Attorney Taraday shared a tool he learned at law school called a “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights,” which is uses sticks to illustrate the concept of real estate ownership He explained that real estate ownership, in actuality, is the ownership of a number of potential rights of land, and the largest bundle of rights (sticks) available for private ownership is called the “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights.” Fee simple ownership means that that the property owner owns every possible right that pertains to the real estate. If someone has the underlying fee, it might mean that they own just one tiny right or stick and the rest have been transferred via dedication. It is important to understand this concept in the context of street vacations. City Attorney Taraday explained that in the vast majority of instances an abutting owner owns the underlying fee. Therefore, if the public’s interest in a street ever goes away, the City doesn’t deed the property back to the abutting property owner because they already have a reversionary interest. Instead, the City vacates the dedication that had been on the property. He explained that a dedication, which is what creates a street, is defined in the subdivision statute as, “the deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself or herself no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted.” Thinking of that definition in the context of the “Bundle of Rights” concept, it is important to understand that an owner cannot take advantage of many of those rights by having the underlying fee in the street. Property owners cannot exclude people from the street, sell the street, occupy and/or use the street without the City permission, or get a bank loan using the street as collateral. He summarized that when a dedication creates a street, many of the sticks in the bundle are being taken out of the bundle and given to the public. While there are some sticks left in the bundle that is owned by the abutting property owner, the majority of the sticks are now owned by the public. Regarding the Board’s earlier question about whether the City can or should require monetary compensation for street vacations, City Attorney Taraday referred to two court cases that clarify the issue. The first is Nystrand vs. O’Malley, a 1962 Washington Supreme Court decision, which was referenced in Mr. Reidy’s comments at a previous meeting. He read the following quote from the case, “The use by the plaintiffs in extending their garage onto the area, planting the trees and hedge and constructing the bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public’s easement since the right to open the street for the public’s use had not been asserted by the City.” In this case, the dispute was between two neighbors and did not involve a city. One neighbor felt he had the right to use the street in a particular way, and the other was saying he didn’t have the right. The city did not take a position and was not party to the case in any way. Because the City did not participate or assert its own rights, the case makes it sound like the abutting property owner has more rights than he/she actually has. The second case is Baxter Wycoff vs. the City of Seattle, a 1965 Washington Supreme Court decision. He read the following quote from the case, “The lack of rights of the abutting owner to so use the street in front of his property does not depend on his interference with an actual or proposed public use of the street. The abutting owner simply has no legal right to make this 2.A.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 3 kind of use of the dedicated public street unless an ordinance expressly authorizes permits for such use to be issued by the City even though no member of the public is inconvenienced by the private use.” In the latter case, a city is asserting its right to hold the property in trust for the public. When you consider the context of how they came before the court (one involved a city and the other did not), it explains why the law was articulated so differently. He shared another quote from the 1965 case, “The abutting owner has no right to build permanent structures in the street nor to set up storage yards therein for private business purposes. Assuming that such power exists, the granting of permission to a private person to so use the streets is totally within the discretion of the city.” Going back to the bundle of sticks. City Attorney Taraday summarized that there are not a lot of legal rights left to the underlying owner once a street has been dedicated to the public. For that reason, streets are not counted as part of the lot size when a property is appraised. City Attorney Taraday referred to a 1989 Washington Court of Appeals case, City of Seattle vs. ?? Land Company. The older streets in Seattle have glass tiles with space underneath that are frequently attached to basements of buildings abutting the street. Property owners pay the City of Seattle to use that space. In this case, a property owner claimed that, as the abutting owner, he had the right to use that space as long as it wasn’t interfering with the public. He argued that that “other jurisdictions have held that where the fee is in the abutting owner, the City may not charge the abutting landowner rent for the use of such space.” The court, however, determined that, “To the extent that these authorities so hold, that is not the law in Washington.” City Attorney Taraday summarized that case law makes clear the extreme limitations placed on abutting owners within the context of a street dedication. On the other hand, a street vacation has a lot of value to an abutting property owner because all of the rights that applied to the street dedication would be given back to the property owner. All of the rights (or sticks) have value. Anytime they go back and forth between parties, there should be some transaction to compensate for the transfer of property. City Attorney Taraday read from Washington State Constitution Article 8 Section 7, “No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money or property or loan its money or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm or become directly or indirectly the owner in stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.” He said that while there is not a case that directly addresses this constitutional provision in the context of a street vacation, it is his opinion that City should require compensation for a street vacation because it would be considered a gift of public funds or property not to. The rights (sticks) are owned by the public. If the City gives them back to the property owner without compensating the public for the loss of those sticks, it would be a gift of public property, which violates Article 8 Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. The State uses a two-prong analysis to determine if a “gifting” has occurred. The first is, are you trying to carry out a fundamental purpose of government, and he can’t see any argument that giving property rights back to a private citizen would be classified as a fundamental purpose of government. Secondly, the court focuses on the consideration received by the public for the expenditure of public funds and the intent of the appropriating body. The court would look at what consideration the City received for giving the rights (sticks) back, and he believes having the rights appraised is appropriate. Appraisers are trained to measure the differences in fair market value between a before and after situation. Board Member Pence pointed out that the City does not pay compensation when it acquires “bundle of sticks” when plots are dedicated. At the time of a subdivision, developers are required to gift street dedications to the City to provide access to the lots. He understands City Attorney Taraday’s viewpoint that street dedications are owned by the City and have value and that abutting property owners who have reversionary interest in the properties should provide compensation if the streets are vacated by the City. However, it is important to note that the City didn’t pay to acquire the street dedications in the first place. City Attorney Taraday responded that consideration doesn’t have to be identical in terms of flowing both directions. The consideration the original owner gets is an approved plat. While it is true that the City doesn’t pay cash for the streets that are dedicated, it approves the plats and the owners profit from the approval. The only way you can get a subdivision approved is to transfer those sticks (rights) to the City. Once they are owned by the public, it is not relevant any more how they got to be in the public’s hands. What is relevant is, should they be given back, and if so, why? Board Member Pence summarized that the City acquires sticks within the public right-of-way, and its payment is the administerial act of approving the subdivision. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is one way to look at it. It is pretty clear that a developer dedicates property for streets in order to get a subdivision approved. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 4 Board Member Monroe observed that the City sets the value of those rights at zero when they enter into negotiations with a developer of a subdivision, but then they want to sell them back for fair market value. City Attorney Taraday responded that the City does not establish a value when the property is being dedicated for streets as part of a subdivision application. No money changes hands at that point. Not all consideration is in the form of cash. Board Member Monroe commented that when a street vacation is granted, it expands a property and property owners are then required to pay taxes on the additional land. He asked if that would be enough compensation to the City to warrant approval of a vacation request. City Attorney Taraday said his opinion is that every property owner pays taxes, but not every property owner gets to have the street in front of their property back. He cautioned that if the City were to vacate every potential property without requiring any compensation, some residents in the City would get a windfall and others wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be fair to distribute public property unevenly so it goes to some people but not to all. His view is that the fair approach would be to compensate the public for the loss of those rights. The current code allows the City to obtain compensation, but State Law allows the City to require higher levels of compensation than the code currently provides for. It also doesn’t force the City to make an either/or choice between an alternative easement or cash compensation. Board Member Monroe summarized that City Attorney Taraday’s position is that paying taxes on the newly acquired property would not address the concern about the gifting of public funds. He asked if there are other states that do not require money to change hands. City Attorney Taraday was unable to answer the question but explained that it is a Washington State constitutional provision. Board Member Rosen commented that a street vacation could result in a property owner acquiring land that he/she does not want and is not equipped to pay taxes on, and this could cause a hardship or financial burden. City Attorney Taraday emphasized that no one would ever be forced to seek a street vacation. Most street vacations are initiated by a petitioner, who is the abutting owner who happens to want the property. Even if the City Council initiates a street vacation, it would not take affect until compensation is received. If the appraisal comes back higher than a property owner anticipates, he/she can pull the plug on the street vacation. No one would ever be forced to follow through. Board Member Rosen asked what would happen if one of the 10 property owners along an alley doesn’t support the vacation. City Attorney Taraday said it would depend on the location. Highly motivated neighbors might be willing to pick up someone else’s tab. Another scenario is that just half of the block could be vacated. However, he does not foresee the City would ever allow a checkerboard pattern of street vacations. Continuity would be required. Chair Cheung asked if the appraisal would be based on value to the City or the abutting property owner. There must not be a whole lot of value to the City if they are willing to give it away. All the City would lose is the public right-of-way. City Attorney Taraday recommended the Board seek feedback from an appraiser to provide specifics on how an appraisal would be done. He knows that when the City acquires right-of-way from an abutting property owner in order to widen a street, the property is appraised in the before and after conditions, and any damages the dedication might cause to the property are taken into account when determining how much the City must pay the abutting property owner. He suspects that a similar process would be used in street vacation situations, too. Board Member Monroe referred to proposed Section 18.55.040.B, which states that “The city shall not proceed with a city- council initiated vacation if the owners of 50% or more of the lineal footage of property abutting the subject property file a written objection.” He asked if this provision implies that the City could force property owners to assume ownership of the land. City Attorney Taraday said that, as proposed, the decision to not proceed with a vacation would occur earlier in the process and before there is a Resolution of Intent. If 40% of the abutting property owners object, his experience tells him the City Council would not approve the street vacation. If the Council does approve a street vacation in this situation, a certain dollar amount would have to be paid to the City in order to finalize the transaction. The 40% who object would not be required to pay the compensation amount, in which case, the 60% in favor could either withdraw their request or pay the entire compensation and the property owners in opposition would get a windfall. Board Member Monroe asked who would own the properties, and City Attorney Taraday explained that it doesn’t matter where the money comes from. The properties would revert back to the apparent abutting property owners. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the 40% who object could end up with a higher tax bill for property they didn’t want. City Attorney Taraday agreed that is possible, but the likelihood of that being a significant amount of money is small. Vice Chair Robles thanked City Attorney Taraday for clarifying that a property owner would not be forced to purchase a street vacation. As far as unjustly receiving a windfall, 2.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 5 citizens are already subjected to windfalls and judgment through the course of rezones, code changes, etc. He is not sure that argument would be strong in this case. Vice Chair Robles asked if fair market value assumes that anyone could bid on a 10-foot strip of right-of-way. City Attorney Taraday answered that an appraiser would define fair market value as the price at which a reasonable, willing and able buyer and a reasonable, willing and able seller are likely to enter into a transaction. This is typically determined by looking at comparable sales in the area. The properties are analyzed and a judgment is made to come up with a price per square foot for the land. Vice Chair Robles questioned how the fair market value would be established for a 100 square foot area in the middle of property abutted by two unwilling owners. It’s attached to someone’s property, which gives it value. A 100 square foot peace of land does not have any value on its own. City Attorney Taraday said it would have some inherent value, but Vice Chair Robles’ question is more about whether an appraiser in this context would look at an assemblage premium. For example, an owner of a lot that is 9,500 square feet in size might request a street vacation because he/she needs an additional 500 square feet in order to subdivide the property into two, 5,000 square foot lots. The City would expect an appraiser to take into consideration that the street vacation would enable the property owner to get another lot worth of value. On a per-square-foot basis, 501 square feet might not be a lot of money. However, a vacant, buildable lot in Edmonds is worth quite a lot. Vice Chair Robles asked if an abutting property owner could list the street vacation as an amenity to the property when it is sold in a real estate transaction even if he/she has not exercised that right. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City Council has complete and total discretion to approve or deny a street vacation, and there are no criteria. The City Council does not have to provide a reason for the denials, either. He does not think anyone would want to stake a real estate purchase on this potential opportunity. Vice Chair Robles commented that the appraiser would also be making a speculative argument that the 80 square feet of land has value. City Attorney Taraday responded that, once an appraisal comes back, a property owner can decide to pay the compensation to have the extra land added to his/her lot or leave the land as is. Vice Chair Robles acknowledged that a property owner would not be forced to pay the compensation, and he asked if having a third-party appraiser to identify a transaction’s value, who it is valuable for, and how the money is assigned would be a positive thing or confuse the matter more. City Attorney Taraday said he views the independent appraiser as being a key part of ensuring fairness. When appraisals come in for street vacations, City staff has noted there is too much variation in terms of what the City will receive. It is unfair that some people are submitting junk appraisals and paying hardly anything, and other people are doing it right and paying a fair amount of compensation. That disparity should not exist. The City can create a system where everyone is playing by the same rules and the appraisals are being done the same way. This provides confidence that a disparity in price is not because a completely different methodology was used. This is preferable to letting property owners choose whoever they want to do the appraisal. He said he and Ms. McConnell have given some thought to a process that would allow a property owner to have a second appraisal if they don’t like the initial one. Ms. McConnell continued her presentation by pointing out that most of the street vacations that come before the City are initiated by private citizens versus the City Council. Petitioners understand that an appraisal is required and that compensation could potentially be necessary for the vacation to be completed. State Law requires compensation to the City in an amount equal to one-half or the full amount of the appraised value, which means that an appraisal needs to be done. In the existing code, an appraisal is the minimum application requirement and the appraiser is selected by the petitioner. As discussed at the last meeting, having that be a minimum application requirement means that the appraisal is being done before the City Council has determined it would even consider the property for vacation and before any easement requirements have been identified that would devalue the property. The proposed code moves the appraisal requirement to later in the process after staff has completed review and the City Council has approved a Resolution of Intent to Vacate. A requirement for a third-party appraiser was incorporated into the code, and the petitioner would be responsible for covering that cost. She noted that the current code also requires the petitioner to cover the cost of the appraisal. Ms. McConnell shared some ideas for how to address situations when a petitioner does not agree with the independent appraisal. The ideas include: • The petitioner could select an alternative appraiser from a list provided by the City. The list would have at least three names on the list. • The petitioner would pay for the alternative appraisal, as well as the initial independent third-party appraisal. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 6 • Both appraisals would be included in the City Council packet, along with the street vacation ordinance and the City Attorney’s analysis of the differences between the two appraisals. • The City Council would decide the compensation amount using the two appraisals as brackets for their discretion. Ms. McConnell explained that RCW 35.79.030 states that compensation to the city or town shall be in an amount equal to one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated or at an amount not to exceed the full appraised value, which applies if the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty five years or more or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense. The City’s existing code states that the City can accept monetary compensation or reservation of an easement to the City. The proposed code would state that monetary compensation and allowance for reservation of easements are both possibilities. The current code limits the compensation amount to one-half the appraised value, and State Law allows the City to accept the full appraised value. Ms. McConnell said that, as per the existing code, certain conditions can be placed on the City Council’s approval of a Resolution of Intent to Vacate such as reservation of certain easements. The code requires that the conditions must be met within 90 days of approval of the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. The proposed amendment still has a 90-day requirement for compliance, but adds a provision that allows some flexibility if otherwise stated in the resolution. If there are extenuating circumstances, it might take more time for a petitioner to comply with the conditions, and the proposed amendment would allow the City discretion to grant an extension. As requested by the Board, Ms. McConnell briefly reviewed the 2018 compensation history, noting that one street vacation was initiated in 2018 by an abutting property owner. The owner paid half of the appraised value, which was $28,800. The property owner approached the request knowing about the compensation requirement. They fell under the existing code, which meant an appraisal had to be done before an application was made. This is indicative of the types of street vacation requests the City receives. Ms. McConnell reviewed that the proposed amendments were introduced to the City Council Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee on July 9th and the Planning Board on July 10th. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing tonight and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing and final decision by the City Council on September 17th. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that the discussion about the “Fee Simple Bundle of Rights” did not included a discussion about opened and unopened easements. When an easement is not being used by the City to open up a street or alleyway, the fee title owner of the property has rights to use the property. Mr. Taraday read about those rights in court case Nystrand vs. O’Malley. He said there are numerous examples all over the City where property owners use the right-of-way when the City hasn’t put in a street or alley yet. He specifically referred to a situation where someone sold their servient estate ownership interest to a neighbor, which is another bundle of sticks. He summarized that the rights of the two are not absolute. The servient estate also has rights, and that’s really important to appreciate. Mr. Reidy recalled that when the proposed code amendment was introduced to the Board on July 10th, City staff did not mention that the 2012 Planning Board was tasked by the City Council on two occasions to review this same item. Amendments were needed to clarify certain parts of ECDC 20.70 and make the wording consistent with State Law. He spoke at both of those public hearings (May 9, 2012 and November 14, 2012). The end result of this effort was that the City Council adopted Ordinance 3910, which made the City’s laws more consistent with State Law (RCW 35.79.030). He questioned why the Planning Board is now being asked to consider a major rewrite of this code section. He said he is unaware of any changes to State law that makes this necessary. He asked who is pushing this effort that changes laws adopted by a previous City Council. For example, the either/or provision is legal under State Law, and the City Council made a legislative choice to establish that law. Why is staff now proposing that the either/or law be eliminated. It is good law that the citizens support. He asked that the Board recommend that the either/or provision be left intact. Mr. Reidy asked why the proposed code amendment has been in the works since at least May 3, 2018 without an opportunity for property owners or citizens to be involved in the process. He noted that Ordinance 3910 clarifies the type of easements the City may retain when deciding to vacate a street or alley easement. The City Council may reserve rights for the City for construction repair and maintenance of public utilities and services, which is consistent with State Law. Ordinance 3910 does not say that the City Council may require property owners to grant rights to third parties, yet the Edmonds City Council 2.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 7 has required property owners to grant easements to third parties during the last three street vacations. Instead of correcting their historical acts, he fears the City is attempting to change the code to promote similar acts in the future. He said he is not aware that any property owner has asked for this change. He pointed out that Ms. McConnell’s reference to a recent street vacation that required a $28,800 compensation failed to mention that the property owner was also required to grant an easement to the Edmonds School District for an unpermitted pipe they had put in years ago. He cautioned against the City elevating third-party rights above those of the property owner. Mr. Reidy referred to the proposed language in ECDC 18.55.140.B.3, which states that, “Any challenge to one or more conditions imposed pursuant to a resolution of intent to vacate must be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court no later than 30 days following the adoption of the resolution of intent. If such a challenge is successful, the city council shall determine whether to amend the resolution of intent by adopting a different set of conditions or to deny the street vacation in its entirety.” He said RCW 35.79.030 does not say anything about a 30-day challenge period. It simply says that “such ordinance may provide that the City retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services.” Mr. Reidy stated that it is not the property owner’s job to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced; that is the Mayor’s job. Shifting the burden to others by giving them 30 days to challenge the City Council’s required conditions is very wrong and unfair. It should be kept simple to comply with State and City Laws. The City Council can retain an easement or rights. Retain means to keep possession of, but it does not mean that the City can require property owners to grant easements to third parties. Mr. Reidy pointed out that street vacations are legislative acts. He asked what would be the next legislative act that someone tries to make subject to a 30-day appeal period to Snohomish County Superior court if the proposed amendments are adopted. He commented that the courts do not want to be involved in the legislative process. Legislative acts are the City Council’s responsibility and the City Council should be able to act within the law without involving the Superior Court. Mr. Reidy recalled that at the Board’s July 10th meeting, City staff explained that if there was thought to be value to the land and an appraiser found value to the property, the City would not be able to just gift public land to an adjacent property owner. However, Ordinance 4143, effective February 20, 2019 did not require compensation even though the related appraisal showed the property had value. This was perfectly legal, as requiring compensation is permissive. The statement about gifting of public land is alarming for several reasons. It shows that City staff tasked with updating the code section may not have a complete understanding of this area of law. History shows that the City has not required compensation on many occasions. If gifting public land was not something the City was able to do, why would it have done so earlier this year? He suggested that gifting is not an issue because the property owner almost always owns the title. If the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for less than 25 years, State Law allows the City the option of requiring compensation in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. He questioned why the other half wouldn’t be considered a gift of public funds or a windfall? Resolution Number 1145 documents that the City Council voted to credit back costs, including the cost of the appraisal, to the abutting property owner by reducing the required compensation by $3,750. Should this be considered a gift or a windfall? He asked the Board to appreciate that compensation is permissive. He asked why City Attorney Taraday is talking about a potential windfall if payment is not required. The City Council has great legislative discretion, and they don’t have to require compensation ever. In fact, since 1998, the City Council has not required compensation for most street vacations. For example, there were 15 street vacations in 1998 and none required compensation. History proves that it can be a public benefit to vacate streets without the need to require compensation. Mr. Reidy referred to City Attorney Taraday’s memorandum, which also states that payment for a street vacation would benefit the general public. He questioned if the general public would have legal standing to contest a street vacation if the City Council did not require compensation? He referred to Grays Harbor 2000 vs. the City of Seattle, in which the City of Seattle vacated 15.2 acres of streets and did not charge compensation. Citizens appealed the decision, saying they were harmed as part of the public because the City did not charge compensation, but the judge ruled that they didn’t have standing to contest the decision. He emphasized that the City and property owner have higher rights than the general public. Mr. Reidy commented that State Law is clear that the respective rights of the City and property owner are not absolute, and case law is clear that the property owner, and not the general public, has the right to use unopened streets and alleyways. In conclusions, Mr. Reidy expressed his belief that staff’s comment that the City would not be able to just gift public land to an adjacent property owner indicates that they do not have a keen understanding of the las. If such a major code rewrite was needed, he asked why the citizens were not made aware of it? He recalled that in late 2016, he pointed out in a public hearing 2.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 8 on a street vacation that acquiring an appraisal so early in the process was wrong. He is glad the proposed amendment will address this issue, but in general, the existing code is good. It was just reviewed in 2012 and it remains solid. He suggested the best approach would be to leave the recently updated code as is, with just the one change to move the appraisal requirement to later in the process. He asked the Board not to move away from the legislative intent of the City Council that adopted the either/or law and compensation law that didn’t go for the full appraisal value. There is no need to change the choices that were made in 2012. At the request of Board Member Pence, Mr. Reidy submitted his statement in writing. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 39 years and his property was part of George Brackett’s original plat. His northern boundary line was the northern boundary of the City, and there is a 7.5-foot undedicated alley easement in his backyard. He noted that the street code requires 15 feet, but when the City annexed the Holy Rosary property to the north of his property, it did not require them to dedicate the other 7.5 feet. If you view the property on Google Maps or the City’s GSA maps, you will see that almost every property owner has put up a fence and incorporated the 7.5 feet into their lots. In the 39 years he has lived in the City, he has witnessed many street vacations, especially in his neighborhood. For example, some of 8th Avenue that was never going to be opened because of a stream was vacated. A 7.5-foot easement between 8th and 9th Avenues was also vacated with no compensation required. Mr. Tupper referred to Mr. Reidy’s earlier question about why it would be okay to give away half of the public’s funds by not charging the full amount. It is just not a valid legal argument. He said he watched the July 10th Planning Board Meeting on Channel 21 and was flabbergasted at some of the testimony that was provided by staff. He visited the Municipal Research Service Center’s (MSRC) website (www.msrc.org) for additional clarification. The MSRC is a non-profit organization that helps local governments across Washington State to better serve the citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. He learned that a public right-of-way is generally an easement, and when the right-of-way is vacated, the fee title to the property underlying the right-of-way held by the abutting property owner becomes unencumbered by the easement. What the vacation accomplishes is extinguishment of the right-of-way easement. Ms. McConnell said that abutting property owners cannot use the easement because the City has jurisdiction over it. However, per the MSRC, if the right-of-way has not been opened and is not improved, the obstruction of public travel is not an issue and the property owner is not subject to the same restrictions as when it is opened and improved. Typically, property owners can use the unopened, unimproved right-of-way as they can the rest of their property, but it is subject to the possibility of it being opened and improved at some point in the future. Mr. Tupper also referenced Ms. McConnell’s statement that if there was thought to be value to land and an appraiser did find value to the property, the City could not just gift it to an abutting property owner. However, it is important to note that the City does not have title to the property. It only has an easement right, which is just one stick (right) in the bundle. Mr. Tupper said that about six years ago he discovered that the Lighthouse Law Group’s corporate registration with the State had lapsed and hadn’t been paid for or renewed. After discovering that, he went to the City of Seattle’s website and found that the law firm, which had been formed about five years earlier, had never applied for a City of Seattle business license or paid City of Seattle taxes. He asked Mr. Taraday for a copy of his business license, and he told him it had lapsed. However, the following day he was down at the City of Seattle applying for the license. There is something about integrity and truth, and telling him that the license had lapsed was very untruthful. Michelle Dotsch, said she was present at the last meeting and heard Mr. Reidy address the Board. She was born and raised in Edmonds and knows there are a lot of alleys that people walk and bike through. She recalled that City staff displayed a map at the last meeting that showed an alley in just one area, but a short Google search located a variety of Google Map photographs of local streets with unopened easements. In many of these situations there is landscaping, buildings, fencing, etc. She submitted maps showing where all of the easements are located, noting that some have access to driveways to actual parking garages on the backside with no access for vehicles on the front side. The owners of these properties would be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments, yet there are only two public hearings during the summer when people are out of town. It is easy to do a Google Map search to find the property owners. She expressed her belief that the process needs more time and attention. The City needs to reach out to the public by mailing notices to affected property owners. Chair Cheung closed the public comment portion of the hearing. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 9 Board Member Monroe advised that Board Member Rubenkonig was unable to attend the meeting but submitted a written comment asking about the impetus of staff’s proposal to update the street vacation provisions. City Attorney Taraday explained that as staff has worked through street vacations over the past few years, it noted provisions that were either not as clear as they needed to be or not as helpful to the City as allowed by State Law. He disclosed that he represents the City of Edmonds and his responsibility is to advance the interest of the City of Edmonds and not individual property owners. If he sees that State Law allows the City of Edmonds to collect more money for a street vacation than it is currently collecting, it is his job, as the City Attorney, to make that option available to the policymakers and let them decide whether or not they want to amend the code. The City is leaving money on the table right now. He feels an obligation to bring that forward and let the policymakers make a decision about whether that is a good thing or not. Board Member Monroe noted that, as proposed, the city attorney would provide an analysis of an appraisal. City Attorney Taraday said that is one option. He spent a lot of his career doing imminent domain work and deposing appraisers. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the proposed amendment does not say that Jeff Taraday will provide an analysis, it simply says that whoever is the city attorney would do the analysis. City Attorney Taraday expressed his belief that most city attorneys would be able to do that work. Board Member Monroe observed that, as per his earlier statement, City Attorney Taraday is charged with advancing the City’s interest and not that of private property owners. City Attorney Taraday said he would provide an analysis to the City Council, and the City Council Members are also tasked with representing the City of Edmonds and looking out for the City’s interest. He asked who better to advise the City Council than the person who has the fiduciary duty to look out for the interest of the City of Edmonds. Ms. McConnell explained that the proposed amendments are intended to clarify and address issues that have come up over the past few years as staff worked through street vacation applications. As proposed, the restructured process would be smoother to follow and easier for the staff and public to understand the requirements. Moving the appraisal to a later point in the process after the Resolution of Intent to Vacate has been approved will benefit petitioners so they don’t spend money up front on something that may have no traction. The provisions were looked at holistically and are intended to address issues that kept coming up as staff dealt with residents coming to the front counter. In an effort to be transparent, City Attorney Taraday said the intent behind the current either/or provision is unclear to him. They could review the legislative history and try to identify the intent, but there is not always a clear answer for why a provision was adopted into the code. However, it is completely arbitrary to try and equate the reserving of a simple easement to the City on one hand and fair market value payment for the street vacation on the other. For example, you could have a huge street vacation worth a lot of money, but if the City happens to have a small water line there that requires the preservation of a small easement, the existence of the water line could create a completely arbitrary condition where the City either needs to vacate the street cost free, reserve the easement or deny the street vacation. Denying the street vacation request is not in the property owner’s best interest. It is important to create conditions that allow street vacations to come forward, and the either/or provision forces the City to make a difficult choice between three options that are not good. Eliminating the either/or provision could create a situation where a reserved easement could end up reducing the amount of compensation that a property owner is required to pay. On the other hand, retaining the either/or provision would prohibit the City from requiring compensation if any portion of the easement is reserved. Board Member Crank said her initial understanding was that the proposed amendments were intended to catch the City’s code up with the State Law, but it appears that has already been done. She asked if the true intent is to collect the money that is being left off the table and put it into the City coffers. If that is the case, itis important that the intent is clear so that the Board doesn’t continue its conversation thinking they are trying to catch up with something that they have already caught up to. Secondly, she asked if there is a timing issue that requires that the Board’s recommendation be forwarded to the City Council for a September public hearing. City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the focus of the 2012 update was fairly narrow and not intended to be a full rewrite of the street vacation code. One reason it has taken so long to bring the proposed update forward is that, frequently in City government, there is too much to do and not enough time and resources. Projects end up getting re-prioritized. It took a while for staff to realize that the full appraised value provision was not in the code. Rather than doing piecemeal amendments to the code, staff felt it was better to wait until they could do a complete rewrite of the entire chapter. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 10 Ms. McConnell said that once staff starts a project, they try to keep it moving. They are pulled to a variety of different projects, and staff availability to work on projects is limited. The larger the gap is in between, the more time it takes staff to sync back into the project and bring it forward again. The tentative public hearing before the City Council on September 17th is purely an effort to keep the amendment moving forward while the issue is fresh on everyone’s mind. Regarding the issue of retained easements by either the City or another agency, Board Member Pence commented that petitioners are asking the City to give the bundle of sticks back to the abutting property owners. The retention of an easement is the City merely saying that one of those sticks will have to be retained in the public interest. The petitioner would still have all the rights to use the land subject to the easements that are retained, and this will have an impact on the appraised value of the parcel. He doesn’t see retained easements as an issue at all since they are part of the reality of the process. Board Member Pence questioned the use of the term “third-party appraiser,” since it has not been referenced in the conversation. Currently, the appraiser is chosen by and becomes a client of the petitioner. Under the proposed amendment, the City would select the appraiser and that appraiser would be a servant of the City. There would be no third-party involvement in the proposed process. However, there may be some merit in having third-party appraiser who is truly independent of both the City and the petitioner. He said he has been involved in public property acquisition issues through condemnation, and the agency has its appraiser and if the unwilling seller doesn’t like the appraisal, he/she hires a different appraiser. The issue goes to court and the differences are adjudicated. He suggested that for smaller-scale issues, it would be more appropriate to have just one appraiser that both sides select from a list of qualified appraisers. This would save expense, if nothing else. Again, he said the use of a third-party appraiser is not properly chosen in the proposed amendments. Board Member Rosen asked if he understood correctly that, as proposed, the petitioner would be required to pay for the appraisal. If the petitioner disagrees with the appraisal, he/she would be required to pay for the second appraisal, too. City Attorney Taraday said that is one of the options for addressing the Board’s initial concern about the appraisal process. From his perspective, it would not make sense for the City to pay for an appraisal unless the street vacation was initiated by the City Council. Board Member Rosen suggested that the better distinction would be for whoever initiates the street vacation to pay for the appraisal. Board Member Rosen voiced concern that the proposed amendments might set the City up for some unintended consequences. He asked how the City could reduce that risk. City Attorney Taraday responded that the proposed amendment would not have any impact on rights that abutting owners have to use streets, whether opened or unopened. From his perspective, it has always been the case that if you want to build something in a street, you have to get an encroachment permit from the City. They are not making any changes regarding City policy on that issue. Board Member Monroe asked if the conditions attached to a street vacation approval could require a petitioner to obtain an agreement from a third-party utility. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City can never be compelled to approve a street vacation. It can deny the request at any time for any reason. In addition, the City is a code city organized under Title 35.A, which is different than other types of cities that exist in the state. Code cities have the broadest possible powers under the Washington State Constitution. Code cities are home ruled cities in that they don’t need to point to something that is expressly stated in State Law to authorize their actions. They just can’t contradict State Law. As long as they aren’t violating the statute, they are good. He cannot point to a specific State Law that requires petitioners to obtain agreement from third-party utilities, other than Title 35.A, which grants code city home rule authority. Board Member Monroe summarized that the answer to his question is yes, the City can require a petitioner to obtain agreement from a third-party utility. Board Member Monroe asked why the timeline for challenging a street vacation is 30 days and not a longer time period. City Attorney Taraday referred to the case, King County vs. Federal Way, where a street vacation was challenged. The issue in that case was whether or not the challenge was timely. The court determined that when challenging a street vacation under a declaratory judgment action, the action must be brought within a reasonable period of time. The court ultimately held that 30 days was the appropriate time period. He expressed his belief that it is not fair to citizens to make them guess about how much time they have to file a challenge. It is a lot more transparent to put the timeline in the code. Because a timeline is not set forth in the RCW, the City has the authority to decide what the reasonable time period is, but it must be a reasonable period of time to get something before the court and before a street vacation has been finalized and the ordinance adopted. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that it might be difficult for a property owner to get everything in order in that short amount of time. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 11 Board Member Monroe reiterated that the City takes all but one of the sticks when a property is subdivided. If a property owner asks for them back, the City will determine what they are worth and require the property owner to provide compensation. In addition, the City may decide to give only some of the sticks back and hold onto others sticks for some type of public use. The petitioner would have 30 days to challenge the City’s decision. Again, he asked if the City would require a petitioner to obtain an agreement with a third-party utility if an easement is to be retained. Ms. McConnell answered that the petitioner would be responsible for contacting the utility and working out the easement agreement and this would be spelled out as part of the condition process. That is why 90 days might not be enough time, and the ordinance might establish a longer time period as appropriate. Board Member Monroe commented that City Attorney Taraday and Ms. McConnell are doing a great job of maximizing City revenue wherever possible, and that’s what the amendments are about. However, that is not something the Planning Board is has to do. City Attorney Taraday cautioned that this is not a type of taxation. In the case of a street vacation, the City is transferring valuable property rights at a price that has been agreed upon by a professional appraiser. It is not an unfair transaction. Board Member Monroe observed that the City has a lot of power and discretion in these transactions. City Attorney Taraday agreed, but in all of his years doing imminent domain and other types of appraisal work, he has never seen a situation where a city tries to low or high-ball an appraisal. In the grand scheme of the budget, the City won’t be motivated to game the appraisal process to get an extra amount of money. Money matters a lot more to the smaller guy. Board Member Monroe referred to City Attorney Taraday’s earlier comment that sometimes the City receives a low-ball appraisal, and he would provide an analysis to the City as to what appraisal is the most accurate. City Attorney Taraday said his analysis would be informed by many years of working with appraisals. Board Member Monroe commented that as long as necessary easements are retained, the City would not be impacted by a street vacation. The land belongs to the property owner and not the City, and the City needs to show a reason to use it. If the City isn’t using it, the rights, by default, should be given back to the property owner. As long as the City would not be damaged by the transaction, it is incumbent on the City to make it easy and cheap. He said he likes the current either/or language, which protects the City from damages, and he also likes the proposal to move the appraisal to later in the process. All of the other amendments are unnecessary, especially if the primary intent is to get more revenue for the City. In particular, he does not like the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, and he does not like the proposed appraisal process. City Attorney Taraday said he understands that the appraisal language is controversial, and a policy decision will need to be made. The Board’s task is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the policy question, and the City Council will make the ultimate decision. However, aside from this policy question, the other proposed amendments are needed to clarify the process and should be considered on their merit. Regarding the 30-day timeline for challenging a street vacation, City Attorney Taraday suggested that it is better for the City Council’s constituents to know what the timeline is rather than having to guess. He recommended that a timeline be clearly established in the code, and he suggested the Board discuss what might be a better period of time. Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that the timeline should be longer to allow sufficient time for a petitioner to gather the needed information to issue a challenge. Vice Chair Robles said he really appreciates City Attorney Taraday’s transparency that his job is to represent the City. However, the Board’s job is to represent the citizens. He also appreciates the working relationship that exists between the staff and the Board. However, if the Board advised the citizens that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to raise revenue for the City, he suspects that people who aren’t land owners would support the change, but those who own land would not. There are too many questions at this time for him to formulate a recommendation to the City Council. It will take more work to get enough information to get to the right solution. The City’s broad powers need to be carefully checked to figure out how they impact the citizens. He voiced concern that the proposed amendments are based upon the Fee Simple Bundle of Rights analogy, which cannot be codified. There needs to be a basis of logic for the code, and if they need to have a valid analogy to explain a proposed code amendment, it needs to be reconsidered. Board Member Rosen summarized that the City Council is looking to the Board for guidance. It appears that the Board agrees with the following: • Retain the current either/or provision. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 12 • Change who pays for the original appraisal based on who initiates the request. • Move the appraisal to later in the process. • Increase the timeline for challenging a street vacation to something greater than 30 days. Board Member Monroe asked if the Board had reached a consensus on who would choose the appraiser, the petitioner or the City. Vice Chair Robles responded that the City cannot expect to clean the process up with a third-party appraisal. It will be a messy process and negotiations will be required. If there is an appeal, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be possible to give the petitioner the option of either finding his/her own appraiser or using another appraiser from the City’s list. Board Member Crank asked if there are other cities in Washington State that have addressed the appraisal issue. It might be helpful to find out what processes other cities are using as opposed to grasping for their own ideas. City Attorney Taraday agreed that staff could research the processes employed by other cities and report back. Chair Cheung commented that the person who is asking for the street vacation will obviously be interested in a lower appraisal. On the flip side, the City will pick an appraiser that will identify the highest value for the property. Because the authority is already with the City, if the applicant had an unreasonably low appraisal, the City could simply deny the petition. He said he doesn’t see why the City needs to require a petitioner to choose an appraiser on the City’s list. If they come in with an appraisal that is incorrect, the City can simply deny the petition, and the petitioner could then appeal the decision and select a different appraiser from the City’s list. Vice Chair Robles pointed out that appraisers are all licensed and should be unbiased. City Attorney Taraday responded that appraisers are trained in different specialties, and the proposal is for the City to have a list of qualified appraisers who are trained to do street vacation work. Board Member Rosen suggested the Board could forward the proposal to the City Council with a recommendation of approval with the following exceptions: • Retain the either/or provision. • Change who pays for the initial appraisal based on who initiates the request. • Change the timeline for challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days. • Request that staff come up with a recommendation for alternatives to the appraisal process rather than requiring a petitioner to choose from the City’s list of qualified appraisers. • Encourage the City Council to specifically reach out to any resident who borders a project that might be impacted, notifying them of the upcoming public hearing. Vice Chair Robles suggested that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council should also make it clear that the objective of the proposed amendments is to raise additional funds for the City. Board Member Crank agreed that additional revenue is an underlying element the proposal, but not necessarily the intent. Board Member Monroe suggested that the timeline for challenging a street vacation should be increased from 30 days to 90 days. City Attorney Taraday commented that, whatever the timeline is set at, the City won’t be able to adopt street vacation until 30 days after the timeline has expired. Some constituents will want a street vacation to happen more quickly. Board Member Rosen asked if a petitioner could waive his/her right to appeal, which would then shorten the process. City Attorney Taraday agreed this is an interesting concept. He can imagine certain street vacations where it would be clean and easy for a petitioner to waive the right to appeal, but if several property owners are involved in the petition, it could be more difficult. The Board agreed they would like to add an option to waive the right to appeal if possible. The Board discussed retaining the current code language that would allow the City to accept either monetary compensation or reservation of an easement. The proposed new language would allow the City to require both. Board Member Monroe commented that a street vacation would not damage the City in anyway, as long as the necessary easements are maintained. City Attorney Taraday clarified that the current code only prevents the City from collecting compensation if the easement is for the City, but if the City directs a petitioner to work out an easement with a utility, the City can collect compensation, too. Board Member Monroe suggested this provision needs to be changed. From the petitioner’s point of view, it shouldn’t make any difference whether the easement is for the City or a utility. City Attorney Taraday agreed it doesn’t make sense, but rather than treat all easements equally, the intent of the amendment is to evaluate the effect of the easement on value and subtract that amount from the required compensation. He cautioned against a provision that would result in the City’s 2.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 13 inability to collect compensation if there is any condition involving retention of an easement for any party. Currently, only an easement to the City would ban other compensation. He explained that, currently, it is difficult for appraisers to take easements into account because appraisals are done before easement conditions are imposed. The proposed amendment would move the appraisal to later in the process so that easements can be taken into account when determining the correct compensation. Board Member Pence summarized that, if a petitioner does not get all of the sticks (rights) back and some are being reserved for a public purpose, it really shouldn’t matter whether that public purpose is the city or some other public entity. The sticks (rights) that don’t get turned back to the petitioner can all be accounted for in the appraisal. City Attorney Taraday explained that the City needs some motivation to approve a street vacation. He explained that it is not possible for the Board to know what the City’s future needs will be with respect to all of the streets and easements. He said he considers easements to be valuable rights, and simply giving them away could result in significant public cost in the future. Chair Cheung commented that if the City wasn’t able to collect compensation for street vacations, perhaps it would be more cautious about giving up easements. Board Member Crank commented that recognizing the monetary aspect of street vacations is neither good nor bad, it just is. You always need to know what something is valued at whether you end up giving it away for free or not. She recommended against spending too much more time talking about this aspect of the proposal. She suggested they move forward with discussions on the other elements of the proposal and then make a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair Robles expressed his belief that the City Attorney’s position regarding the monetary aspect of the proposal should be articulated to the public. Board Member Pence said he would like staff to provide feedback in writing, responding to the public comments and the Board’s conversations. The proposed amendments could be tweaked to represent more of a consensus and the Board could discuss the updated proposal at their next meeting. He said he is not comfortable sending a recommendation to the City Council now. Chair Cheung agreed and noted that the Board is particularly interested in increasing the timeline for challenging a street vacation from 30 days to 60 days and perhaps adding a provision that would allow a petitioner to waive the appeal period. There are also some outstanding questions regarding the provision that would allow the City to collect compensation and require that an easement be reserved. City Attorney Taraday agreed to work with staff to prepare an updated version of the proposed amendment that incorporates the thoughts expressed by the Board. However, it will take more time for staff to update the document. He summarized that there are some items that appear to have majority support. Where there are still issues, he agreed to provide alternative language for the Board’s consideration. The Board could continue their deliberation in October based on an updated draft. Chair Cheung closed the public hearing. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung advised that the August 28th agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies and a presentation on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report). The September 11th meeting is scheduled as a joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board and an update on the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Board will continue its deliberations on the Street Vacation Code Amendments on October 9th. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung announced that some parking issues will be coming before the Board, so it is important for them to keep apprised of what is happening with the parking study, etc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe reported that he attended the kickoff meeting for the parking study, which was well attended and informative. At this time, they are working to identify a framework for the study. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes August 14, 2019 Page 14 The Board Members expressed appreciation for staff’s hard work on the street vacation code amendments and their desire to represent the City’s best interest. Board Member Crank reported that there were public comments at the last Airport Commission meeting regarding noise. She predicts that noise will continue to be a topic since it was just announced that a new flight would be added from Everett to Spokane. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 2.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: PB190814d (Approval of Draft Minutes: August 14, 2019) Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/28/2019 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 The Development Services Director will give an update on the Housing Commission. Attachments: Director.Report.08.23.19 5.A Packet Pg. 17 1 | Page D8 Date: August 23, 2019 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report “It is time for us all to stand and cheer for the doer, the achiever – the one who recognizes the challenges and does something about it.” – Vince Lombardi Next Planning Board Meeting The next regular Planning Board meeting is August 28. It will feature updates to the Urban Forest Management Plan and Roadmap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report). STATE & REGIONAL NEWS VISION 2050 (Puget Sound Regional Council) PSRC has been seeking input on the Draft VISION 2050 plan, which provides guidance for growth and livability in our region out to the year 2050. Information on this will be provided at a future Planning Board meeting. However, it’s fine to learn more and provide individual input sooner. An online open house is a good way to do that. Our four-county region gained about 368,000 people in the last five years. That’s half of the current population of Seattle! LOCAL PROJECTS Housing Commission Appointments to the Citizens Housing Commission are nearly complete. A press release will be sent to the media and a copy provided to the Planning Board. The new Commission is likely to have its first meeting in late September. MEMORANDUM 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Director.Report.08.23.19 (Development Services Director Report) 2 | Page OTHER LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB held a Special Meeting on August 21 to continue the discussion on specific role in design review and its broader role in developing the guidance and standards necessary to guide building design in Edmonds. Cemetery Board The Cemetery Board met on August 15: Items of discussion included: Sales, burials and financial report Walk Back in Time review/changes Themes for Memorial Day and Walk Back in Time 2020 Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission meets next on September 4. An agenda will be posted online when available. Economic Development Commission (EDC) The EDC August 21 meeting was cancelled. The EDC will meet next on September 18. An agenda will be posted online when available. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner meets next on September 12. An agenda will be posted online when available. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The HPC meets next on September 12. An agenda will be available online when available. Mayors Climate Protection Committee The Climate Protection Committee meets next on September 5. An agenda will be available online when available. Tree Board The Tree Board meets next on September 5. An agenda will be available online when available. Youth Commission The Youth Commission met on August 21. Items of discussion included: Climate meeting statement What’s happing in Edmonds Quarterly Youth Forum: Homework topics City Council The August 5 City Council meeting included: Climate Goals Project and next steps 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Director.Report.08.23.19 (Development Services Director Report) 3 | Page Authorization for contracts related to the Waterfront Redevelopment (Community/Senior Center project) and the Dayton Street Pump Station Crumb Rubber Moratorium extension Confirmation of the City’s new Human Resources Director (Jessica Hoyson) Presentation of a new “Financial Intelligence Tool” to assist local governments. COMMUNITY CALENDAR • August 24: Moonlight Beach Adventure, Marina Beach, 7:30 pm • August 29: Low Tide Beach Walk, Olympic Beach Visitor station, 10 am • September 8: Classic Car & Motorcycle Show 2019, Downtown Edmonds, 10 am • September 13 - 15: Puget Sound Bird Fest • September 19: Edmonds ART Walk, Downtown Edmonds, 5pm What happened on this day in History (August 28)? 1830 – 1st American built locomotive, “Tom Thumb” races a horse-drawn car from Stockton and Stoles Stagecoach Company from Baltimore to Elliott Mills. Let history record that due to mechanical problems the horse won! 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Director.Report.08.23.19 (Development Services Director Report) Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/28/2019 RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Sometimes people think of the Growth Management Act as being the main law in Washington state that guides land use and infrastructure issues. It's an important law, but in reality, Washington has a variety of laws that guide planning and practices for land use, infrastructure, environment, etc. These laws have been adopted and amended over time. In 2017, the Washington State Legislature allocated funds to study what needed to be done to update laws and/or provide a more coherent framework. The resulting two-year study, a "Road Map to Washington's Future", was undertaken by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center. Staff Recommendation Consider the information and discuss or ask any questions Narrative For the study, the Ruckelshaus Center established a Project Team that traveled all over the state to talk with people and get their perspectives. From this effort, a 3-volume report was issued on June 30, 2019. An Executive Summary (attached) was also produced to highlight key information. The Road Map Report is intended to lead to legislative solutions and other actions that could update and better integrate certain laws or practices. At the Planning Board's August 28 meeting, one of the staff from the Project Team will make a presentation about the report. Attachments: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary 5.B Packet Pg. 21 A Road Map To Washington’s FutureFinal Report Volume 1. June 30, 2019 Executive Summary 5.B.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) The William D. Ruckelshaus Center is a neutral resource for collaborative problem solving in the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest, dedicated to assisting public, private, tribal, non-profit, and other community leaders in their efforts to build consensus and resolve conflicts around difficult public policy issues. It is a joint effort of Washington State University, hosted and administered by WSU Extension and the University of Washington, hosted by the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance. For more information visit www.ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS CENTER 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98164-2040 -and- Hulbert Hall, Room 121 Pullman, WA 99164-6248 DISCLAIMER The following report was prepared by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center, a joint effort of the University of Washington and Washington State University whose mission is to help parties involved in complex public policy challenges in the State of Washington and Pacific Northwest tap university expertise to develop collaborative, durable and effective solutions. University leadership and the Center’s Advisory Board support the preparation of this and other reports produced under the Center’s auspices. However, the key themes, findings, and proposals contained in this report are intended to reflect the opinions of the participating parties. This report provides a collective reflection of the views and experiences of over 2,500 participants who gave their time and talent to this inquiry. The role of the Ruckelshaus Center’s Road Map Project Team was to listen to and collect multiple viewpoints with neutrality, and then to consolidate, synthesize, and communicate the array of ideas shared by identifying themes and, ultimately, proposals to consider for action. Those themes, findings, and proposals for action do not represent the views of the universities or Advisory Board members, nor do they represent the personal views of Project Team members. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) ROAD MAP TO WASHINGTON’S FUTURE Final Report - Executive Summary In 2017, the Washington State Legislature allocated funds to the William D. Ruckelshaus Center for a two-year project to create a “Road Map to Washington’s Future.” The purpose of the project was to articulate a vision of Washington’s desired future and identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the state’s growth management and planning framework needed to reach that future. To understand how the framework aligns with, creates barriers to, and/or supports the desired future of the communities it is meant to serve, the Project Team traveled across the state, gathering information and hearing from ~2,500 individuals, which included nearly 400 elected officials (Appendix A). The Project Team is deeply grateful to the many individuals who gave their time, talent, and energy to participate in workshops, interviews, questionnaires, and to otherwise inform this report. Project Team and Support Staff Amanda Murphy, Project Co-Lead. Ruckelshaus Center Senior Project Lead; Assistant Professor, Washington State University Extension Joseph Tovar, Project Co-Lead. Affiliate Associate Professor, College of Built Environments, University of Washington Phyllis Shulman, Ruckelshaus Center Senior Facilitator, Special Projects Molly Stenovec, Ruckelshaus Center Project and Program Manager Michael Kern, Ruckelshaus Center Director, Associate Professor, Washington State University Extension Chris Page, Ruckelshaus Center Project and Development Lead, Assistant Professor, Washington State University Extension Amy Burkel, Ruckelshaus Center Project Intern Marcus Chaffee, Ruckelshaus Center Project Intern Shelby Thomas, Ruckelshaus Center Project Intern Benji Rinehart, Ruckelshaus Center Project Coordinator 5.B.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LISTENING The Road Map to Washington’s Future project was about listening. The voices of participants were heard through 67 workshops in 26 locations across the State, 147 individual interviews, questionnaires, letters, reports, and other documents. Participants included more than 2,500 people (Appendix A.). These participants shared their stories, lived experiences, ideas, and recommendations about a desired future, and what parts of the growth planning framework are working or not working in their communities, regions, and the State. Participants identified key historical events (social, cultural, economic, and ecological) that have influenced the patterns of community identity, development, engagement, and challenges and opportunities. They discussed what their communities need to thrive, and what contributes to their quality of life. Across the state, participants expressed their deep attachment to place (whether that is a neighborhood, a town, a river, or many other types of place), and gave examples of what contributes to the character of these places to which they are profoundly connected. Participants reflected on the value of the growth planning framework and shared examples of what has worked well, including the protection of farmland and forestry resource lands, reduction of sprawl, concentration of growth in urban areas, and public engagement. Stories were told of challenges and uncertainties brought on by unprecedented and rapid changes, economic downturns, complex social and public health issues, and climate impacts. Participants spoke of coastal erosion due to intense storms, and destruction of forests and infrastructure from wildfire. They described three-hour commutes due to the cost of housing, and a lack of housing due to residential units being used as short-term rentals. The talked about areas that have not recovered from the last decade’s recession, and other areas that are feeling overwhelmed by rapid growth. In doing so, participants shared an astute awareness of the difficulty of creating plans and policies that fully account for the unique nature and circumstances of the places they call home. For some, there was fear of change. For others, there was grief due to loss—loss of lifestyles, loss of property from fires, loss of local businesses, loss of community gathering places, loss of housing opportunity. Evident in the comments and stories were the interrelationships between economic, social, and ecological vitality. Participants shared that environmental protection, economic development, and personal and community health were at the core of their desired future. Many said they want more control over their lives, and to have their basic needs met. In both rural and urban areas, the seven most common concerns expressed were (not in order of priority): • Availability and affordability of housing for the current and next generations • Transportation choices and mobility • Impacts of a changing climate, and the ability and resources to mitigate and adapt to those impacts • Income availability and inequity • Maintenance of community identity, character, and sense of place • Protection of the environment, access to nature, and outdoor recreation • Control over their lives and livelihoods SYNTHESIZING The Ruckelshaus Center’s Road Map Project Team (Project Team) synthesized the wealth of information and insights collected from participants, in order to develop and communicate potential pathways to the 5.B.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 5 future. Regardless of participants’ specific interests and orientation, there were some common threads in their views: that issues need to be addressed as systems and not silos; that political will and leadership across political boundaries is needed to respond to change and consider new approaches; that the diverse regions of the State are actually interdependent and significantly impact each other; and that greater understanding of these impacts and interdependence is needed. Participants were asked to describe their desired future. The purpose of asking this was to understand those desires and expressed values and use them to guide any recommended additions or modifications in how growth management planning and implementation is achieved in the State. Implicit in this effort to provide a “Road Map to Washington’s Future” were a number of core questions: Does the collection of growth management laws, policies, and institutions developed over decades equip communities to address current and changing conditions? What new or modified approaches are needed to address the unique conditions around the state? What is restraining the ability of communities to thrive? Are there limits to growth? How can people have their needs met without compromising future generations? How can decision-makers best identify appropriate trade-offs, and make informed decisions? The Legislature asked for a Road Map to Washington’s Future. What became evident is that, while people wish to shape the future, it cannot be entirely predicted or mapped. The future that emerges will be the result of the dynamic interplay between historic and current forces and events, the choices of individuals, as well as political, ecological, social, technological, and marketplace dynamics. So why plan or regulate? A number of participants stated that the fundamental value of the growth planning framework is to compel people, especially decision-makers, to stop and think before taking action. The hope is that policies and plans provide a framework for choices and actions that can help lead to a preferred future. However, many participants commented that planning and policies alone cannot assure reaching that future. They emphasized that essential to successful outcomes will be the ability to implement, monitor, evaluate, and adapt plans and actions as the future unfolds. A number of participants shared that central to successful outcomes is the ability of communities to develop inclusive collaborations that create a desired community/regional vision and make policy decisions based on that vision. The comments from participants suggest that all levels of government have an important role to play in influencing the future, and that it is also important to recognize the role of the marketplace in influencing the quality of life. Participants called out the need for the actions of government and the actions of the marketplace to be better aligned, through the development of shared goals, values, and partnerships. GUIDING Through all of the information gathering, the Project Team was tasked with identifying common themes that help articulate a vision of Washington’s desired future. The Project Team was also tasked with analyzing interests, finding connections between issues, and identifying common concerns, in order to “identify additions, revisions, or clarifications to the State’s growth planning framework of laws, institutions, and policies needed to reach that future.” The resulting guidance to decision-makers is communicated in three ways: 1.Participant Perspectives Perspectives and ideas, as shared and recommended by individual participants or groups, are included in the following places: Volume 1: The Road Map to Washington’s Future Report •Section IV. Key Findings: Participants’ Responses Volume 2: Workshop Summaries and Online Questionnaire Summary Volume 3: University Partners Research and Data Inventories Volume 4: Formal Letters Received 5.B.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 6 Key Findings: ParticiPant PersPectives •PromotesDeliberativeDecision-Making •PrioritizesResources, ReducesSprawl •Promotes GoodGovernance •Creates Structure,Consistency,and EncouragesCoordination •Protects CriticalAreas, Agriculture,and ForestResource Lands •Requires PublicParticipation Purpose and Value of Growth Planning •Protects Critical Areas, Agriculture,and Forest Resource Lands •Reducing Sprawl •Shoreline Management Planning •The Voluntary StewardshipProgram •Public Participation •Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination •Regional Coordination andCollaboration •Requirement to Identify OpenSpace Cooridors •Essential Public Facilities Provisions •Growth Management AppealsProcess •Regional Transportation PlanningOrganizations Working Well in the Growth Planning Framework •Community and Civic Life •Independence, Self-Determination,and Self-Reliance •Identity •Equity and Diversity •Economic Opportunity andProsperity •Connection to and Protection ofNature •Viable Agriculture •Change •Resilience, Adaptation, andSustainability •Growth and Development •Infrastructure, Transportation,and Mobility •Housing •Health and Safety •Education •Government, Governance,and Coordination Visions of a Thriving Future 5.B.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 7 •Existing Growth PlanningFramework: “One Size Fits All” •Tax Structure and RevenueGeneration •Alignment and Coordination ofState Laws and Growth Planning •Housing •Economic Development •City, County, and StateCoordination with TribalGovernments •Planning for a Changing Climateand Natural Disasters •Annexation Laws and Processes •Economically Viable NaturalResource Industries •Transportation and OtherInfrustructure •Ecosystem Protection •Enforcement and DisputeResolution •Equitable Growth Planning andImplementation •Strategic Water Planning •Regional Planning •Monitoring and Evaluation •State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) •Coordination with Special PurposeDistricts •City, County, and StateCoordination with Federal MilitaryInstallations •Leadership, Engagement, andAccountability •Development Regulations andPermit Processes •Density and Community Character •Integrating Health into GrowthPlanning •Comprehensive Plan UpdateCycles and Time Horizons •Urban Growth Areas Key Findings: ParticiPant resPonses cont. Not Working Well in the Growth Planning Framework and Ideas for Improvements (Vol. 1. pgs. 42-74) 5.B.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 8 2. Guiding Principles The second form of guidance is contained in principles that could be used by decision-makers at all levels to help guide the direction and implementation of new actions, and future planning and policy-making efforts. Over the course of the Road Map project, through listening, reading, and synthesizing the vast amount of input received, the Project Team identified key common principles that emerged. Reflected in these principles (listed below) are underlying values and approaches that can serve as a foundation for the next generation of growth planning efforts. Respect that place matters. Each community and region of the state has a unique social, political, ecological, and cultural history that creates the story of that place. It is critical to understand the social and ecological dynamics and identity of each place, in order for growth to contribute to the health of its environment and people. People often develop strong emotional, spiritual, and cultural connections to place, to other people, as well as to lifestyles. Disruption of these connections can impact the quality of community life and human health. Maximize flexibility, adaptation, and innovation in the development and implementation of growth management plans and policies, as the future is highly uncertain, and the pace of change is rapid. Creativity, innovation, and collaboration are needed to address the impacts of change. Economic and ecological conditions are very different across the state. In order to meaningfully address the unique circumstances of place, communities need the capabilities to adapt. Align economic development with ecological resilience. Collaborate on approaches that move away from compromising the health of one system for another. Instead, consider how to develop and integrate approaches that support both the health of the environment, and the health of people and the economy. Use a systems approach to identify, plan, design, implement, and evaluate efforts and policies. A systems approach includes: • Taking a long-term, multi-generation view of planning horizons and desired outcomes; • Identifying interconnections; • Identifying influences and trade-offs;• Considering patterns, trends, and changing conditions; • Challenging individual and group assumptions; • Not being bound by how things were approached in the past; • Breaking down silos and working across disciplinary and sectorial boundaries;• Addressing multiple objectives whenever possible; and • Considering the appropriate scales to address issues, which in some cases will not correspond to political boundaries. Recognize that healthy ecosystems transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Maintenance and restoration of the health of ecosystems are foundational to thriving people and communities. It is important, when designing approaches to planning and implementation, to consider natural ecosystems, bioregions, and watersheds. Rethink the concept of land use in planning, to account for the interdependency and relationship of people with the land. It is the relationship of people with the land that is the basis for social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Land use often focuses on the adaptation, management, or utilization of land for human needs. Thinking more in terms of relationship allows for greater harmony between human activity and ecological vitality, and the potential that outcomes have multiple and mutual benefits. Consider all elements needed to create thriving communities. Planning and policy goals are often siloed and reduced to narrow indicators (for example, number of units of housing built may be a goal for housing availability). The nature of development, and the range of outcomes that development can serve, may be different if the focus is on building community. Focus on creating conditions for collaboration versus adversarial approaches. Given the complexity and challenges of managing growth and/or creating thriving communities, maximize opportunities for collaboration, and provide technical support, to achieve desired outcomes. Recognize that financial resources are required to achieve successful outcomes. Without sufficient resources and capacity, the best-laid plans will not come to fruition. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 9 A Road Map 3. Transformational and Systemic Change and Key Reforms The third form of guidance synthesizes the wealth of participant perspectives and ideas, and applies the guiding principles, to identify six actions that could create transformational and systemic change and twenty eight key reforms that could improve the current growth planning framework. Over recent decades, much has changed in the State of Washington, and with these changes, new challenges have arisen. Communities in Washington also now have decades of experience implementing elements of the existing growth planning framework, experiencing and observing what is working and not working to achieve desired outcomes. Becoming more evident is the complexity and interrelationships of the issues involved in growth management, and the inadequacies of trying to address them in silos and without adequate resources. This is compounded by uncertainty and significantly-changing conditions brought on by, for example, advances in technology, a changing climate, persistent economic distress, rapid population growth, widening disparities in income, and threats of natural hazards. Participants emphasized the need for new ways of thinking, more adaptive approaches, securing adequate financial resources, as well as increased opportunities for collaboration, in order to meet the needs of their communities. Even though the future can’t be precisely mapped, actions can be taken that increase the likelihood that Washington’s people, communities, and environment will thrive. The guiding principles provided above, and the six actions for transformational change provided below, can provide pathways to systemically address core challenges and gaps in the present growth planning framework. Transformational changes take time to manifest and require leadership, inclusive and authentic community engagement, and political will. Participants also identified numerous elements of the existing growth planning framework that could be improved in the short-term and offered many ideas for how those improvements could be made. Where there was widespread interest in change, the Project Team focused on these areas and distilled participants’ ideas into a number of key reforms to improve the existing growth framework. Although participants provided many different ideas for how to address these issues, there was common interest, and often urgency, in trying. Participant perspectives detailed in Section IV and Volume 2 provide additional comments and ideas related to each of these key reforms. While there are connections between some of these topics and the six transformational changes, it would be possible to move forward in the near-term to build agreement on these reforms or other actions. This could take many forms: convene interested parties to share information and refine options for further work; create collaborative work groups to build agreement for shared legislative or other solutions; and identify areas for potential further research by the universities or others (including, but not limited to, the issues preliminarily investigated in Volume 3). 5.B.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) 10The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary Actions: transformational & systemic change 1.funding and revenue generation Action 1.1: Focus legislative efforts on enhanced state funding and new fiscal tools that enable cities, counties, regions, and state agencies to address needs and manage growth. 2.adaPtive Planning at a regional scale Action 2.1: Convene a collaborative process to explore how best to achieve the goals of the GMA through the development of an adaptive management and regionally-based approach that provides flexibility, coordination, and creates opportunities to address local and changing conditions and needs. Consult with tribal governments, to determine if and how they may want to be involved in such a process. Action 2.2: Initiate government -to -government consultation with tribes in Washington State, to discuss the key questions asked, and guidance detailed, in the Road Map to Washington’s Future Report. 3.resilience to changing conditions and disasters Action 3.1: Develop comprehensive and integrated strategies, policies, implementation plans, and funding for climate adaptation and mitigation on the local, regional, and state level. Action 3.2: Integrate disaster preparedness, and emergency and recovery planning, with growth management planning and policies. 4.statewide water Planning Action 4.1: Establish a collaborative process to develop a statewide water plan for sustainably protecting, managing, and developing water resources in the state, for current and future generations. 5.equity Action 5.1: Integrate equity as a goal in growth planning, policies, strategies, and implementing actions, including adopting it as a goal of the GMA and an adaptive management regionally-based approach, if developed. 6.economic develoPment Action 6.1: Develop and implement a statewide economic development strategy that builds on the unique assets and needs of the diverse regions of the state. Place emphasis on improving rural economies and slow-growing cities. Identify in the strategy what is needed to support local economic development plans, including state agency programs and state investments. Action 6.2: Integrate the capital facilities and economic development planning of Ports with local and regional capital facilities, growth management, and transportation planning. Road Map to Washington’s Future 5.B.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 11 Key ReFoRms: to imProve the existing growth Planning framework state agency coordination with, and suPPort for, regional Plans •Integrate State agency planning into the GMA and consider how to improve coordination in theimplementation of regional growth management plans. funding and caPacity for Planning and imPlementation •Increase grants for cities and counties to plan under the GMA. •Align funding of county government with the realities of implementing GMA. monitoring and evaluation of comPrehensive and regional Plans •Fund and develop guidelines and methods for performance monitoring and measurement ofcomprehensive and regional plan implementation. education •Incorporate into already existing required training for elected officials an understanding of policiesin the growth planning framework; the roles of state, regional, and local governments and theresponsibilities of elected officials as policy makers, related to growth management. •Identify opportunities to strengthen civic education throughout the state and across all sectors,including K-12, as well as community-based programs. health of the environment •Add a Planning Goal to the GMA - Resilience to climate change and natural disasters. •Convene a collaborative process with, at a minimum, representatives of cities, counties, tribes, stateagencies, ports, business, development, planning, and environmental organizations to identify areasof agreement for reforming the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). human health and well-Being •Add a Planning Goal to the GMA on Human Health and Well-Being. Elevate and fund theimplementation of human health and well-being as a goal in growth management planning andimplementation, including the design and location of transportation and other infrastructure, landuse plans, and development regulations. •Prepare a “comprehensive planning and civic design for public health” guidebook to assist stateagencies and local governments on ways they could factor human health and well-being intoupdating their comprehensive plans, and the design and implementation of capital facilities suchas state highways, county roads, city streets, and public parks. This could be a joint effort of theDepartments of Commerce and Health, in consultation with tribal governments, state agencies, localgovernments, public health professionals, and county public health departments. housing •Develop funding strategies and new fiscal tools for cities and counties to implement the housingelements in their Comprehensive Plans and monitor achievement of housing targets. •Address availability of middle- income housing, low and middle-income homeownership, and theimpacts of short-term rentals and investment homes on housing availability and affordability. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Road Map to Washington’s Future The William D. Ruckelshaus CenterExecutive Summary 12 annexation • Convene a collaborative process(es) with, at a minimum, representatives of cities, counties, special districts, boundary review board, planning and environmental organizations to identify areas of agreement for reforming annexation laws in a way that streamlines the process and removes barriers to annexation of land adjacent to existing cities, maintains the fiscal sustainability of counties, clarifies the role of special districts, and reduces conflicts. economic viaBility of agriculture and other natural resource industries • Support policies and programs that enhance the economic and environmental viability of agriculture and identify and develop strategies and programs that address the needs of farmers. • Undertake an assessment that looks at the cumulative impacts of laws and regulations on the ability of agriculture and other natural resource-based industries to be economically viable and to achieve desired environmental outcomes. transPortation • Clarify how the six chief goals of the Washington State Transportation Plan can be achieved in context with GMA Planning Goals. • Provide funding support for WSDOT, WSTC, RTPOs, and local governments to monitor and evaluate how well their plans, policies, and systems are working, in order to enable them to consider appropriate course corrections. • Consider strengthening the requirements and incentivizing the use of multimodal performance measures within urban growth areas. • Consider strengthening and funding local planning requirements for freight. • Integrate state highways into the GMA transportation concurrency system. coordination with military installations • Coordinate planning between federal military installations and regional, county, and city governments. other gma modifications • Convene multi-sector urban and rural summits to dialogue and help identify priorities for modifications of the GMA that would improve planning and implementation for rural and urban communities. • Consider revising the update cycle for comprehensive plans from every eight years to every ten years. Begin this process in phases, starting with moving the next update deadline for the four Central Puget Sound counties from 2023 to 2025, in order to synch with population data from the 2020 Federal Census. • Convene a collaborative process to identify areas of agreement for improvements to the statewide planning framework’s development regulations and permitting processes to shorten the time needed to issue permits and increase predictability and achieve better outcomes both for permit applicants and residents in the vicinity of new development. • Convene a process to gather additional information and research and to identify areas of agreement for improvements to the GMA provisions for LAMIRDs. • Integrate school district capital facilities planning, including school siting, with the land use policies and capital plans of local governments. • Integrate water and sewer districts, school districts, and port district planning into the GMA. • Initiate a review of State statutes, beginning with the SMA and SEPA, to identify major conflicts or disconnects with the goals and requirements of the GMA, and undertake efforts to reduce gaps, conflicts, or redundancies. 5.B.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Att. 1: Road-Map-Final-Report_Executive-Summary (RoadMap Project (Update on Ruckelshaus Center Report)) Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/28/2019 Update on Urban Forest Management Plan Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History In 2016, a proposed tree code by the City's Tree Board was considered by the Planning Board at a public hearing and recommended to not go forward at that time. The City Council concurred. Development of an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) began in 2017, to have a major focus on City properties, along with ideas for addressing trees on private properties. The public process included open houses, website information, press releases, various public meetings and two public hearings. A first draft of the UFMP was reviewed by both the Tree Board and Planning Board. Some revisions were made, after which the City Council reviewed the new draft and requested several other changes. These changes were made and reviewed by the City Council on August 7, 2018. After further discussion at the Council meeting, a supplemental process began that included a small informal team of City staff, Tree Board members, a Planning Board member, and one or two active citizens. The process resulted in another round of edits which were then incorporated by the consultant into a new ("May 2019") revised draft UFMP. The new version was reviewed by the Tree Board and the City Council. Ultimately, the Council adopted it on July 16, 2019. A final version of the UFMP--with the new date of "July 2019"--is attached. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative In the past, certain questions have come up about the purpose of the UFMP and how it compares with other cities' UFMPs. Below are brief explanations. 1. Does the Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) deal with public properties or private properties? The UFMP focuses to a great extent on things the City can do to manage trees on City-owned property and the public rights-of-way. For private property, it largely focuses on education, incentives, and information that can be provided to residents to encourage planting the “right tree in the right place” and using best practices to manage trees on their property. But it also goes further to say that the City should continue its process to update the code regarding tree management, especially for development. 2. Is the UFMP similar to an Environmental Impact Statement? No, the Urban Forest Management Plan is intended to be a plan or policy guide about how trees 7.A Packet Pg. 34 should be managed/encouraged within Edmonds. An Environmental Impact Statement, on the other hand, is an analysis of certain impacts of a chosen project or proposal. 3. Is the UFMP for Edmonds similar in scope to the UFMPs of other cities? Yes, it is similar in scope to the UFMPs of some other jurisdictions, though different in detail. Examples of other UFMPs in our area include those of Kirkland and Shoreline. (Everett has a forest management plan but it is only for public trees.) A new revised draft UFMP (attached) has been adopted. It includes changes that reflect key public comments, for example: · More attention to native trees of our area · Re-write of Diseases and Pests section · Removal of map & references to specific tree planting “opportunity areas” (but still encouraging planting) · Modification of statements not backed by scientific findings for our region · More background discussion of tree issues · Additional information about City regulations for development and permitting · Additional information on selecting trees (“right tree, right place”) · Information on trimming trees · Caveat about applicability of a public survey that had been done early in the UFMP process · Removal of references to specific dollar amounts represented by tree functions (but still recognizing value of trees in many ways) The revised UFMP keeps the same five key goals and the actions recommended to achieve them. (The goals and actions are identified in a section called “How Do We Get There?”) They are repeated below: 1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage (Note: The original version only said “Maintain…”) 2. Manage public trees proactively 3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property 4. Provide resources to community to educate/inform on tree planting & care 5. Promote “right tree, right place”. The UFMP, as adopted, will help the City move forward to implement the document’s recommendations, which include important actions, such as: · Updating the tree code · Utilizing a city arborist · Updating the Street Tree Plan · Providing tree incentives · Establishing a tree bank. At the Planning Board's August 28 meeting, features of the new UFMP will be highlighted. Attachments: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 7.A Packet Pg. 35 Urban Forest Management Plan City of Edmonds July, 2019 7.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 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 City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan July, 2019 7.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS Shane Hope, Director, Development ServicesCarrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and Utilities Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Diane Cunningham, Administrative AssistantTerri Arnold, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair Gail Lovell, Position 2William Phipps, Position 4 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - ChairMatt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1 Daniel Robles, Position 2 CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Mike Nelson, Position 2 – Council PresidentDiane Buckshnis, Position 4 – Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Position 1 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3 Debra Dill, Parks Senior Laborer, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Jennifer Leach, Environmental Education & Sustainability Coordinator, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager, Development Services Department Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, Public Works Department Barbara Chase, Position 5 Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6 Vivian Olson, Position 7Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5Alicia Crank, Position 6 Todd Cloutier, Position 7 Mike Rosen, Alt. Dave Teitzel, Position 5Thomas Mesaros, Position 6 Neil Tibbott, Position 7 Acknowledgments 7.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Executive Summary Scope & Purpose Plan Foundation1 Introduction Community Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest8 What Do We Have? Edmonds’ Urban Forestry History Regional Plans and Legislation Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Existing Urban Forest Practices What Do We Want? Stakeholder and Community Input51 How Do We Get There? Goals and Actions of the Plan57 How Are We Doing? Monitoring and Measuring Results64 Appendices Appendix A: References Appendix B: Table of Figures Appendix C: Community Survey Responses Appendix D: Open House Summary Report 65 E Regulatory Framework Regional Urban Forestry Resources Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies14 E Table of Contents 7.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 1 Scope & Purpose Background & Purpose Urban forest simply means the trees in an urban area. An urban forest management plan is a long- term plan for managing trees in a city. The purpose of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan is to provide guidance for managing, enhancing, and growing trees in the City of Edmonds over the next 20 years. Special emphasis is placed on managing trees on public property and along the public rights-of-way. Public Involvement in Process Public involvement has been part of developing and finalizing the Urban Forest Management Plan. The involvement has included open houses, website postings, informal survey, press releases, and submitted public comments, as well as formal public meetings by the Tree Board, Planning Board, and City Council. Plan Overview and Conclusions Edmonds, like many cities in the Pacific Northwest, once had large stands of old-growth trees that included Douglas fir and Western red cedar. Most of these were logged off years ago and development of streets, homes, businesses, schools, churches, and additional settlement followed. In some places, new trees have grown up or been planted. For Edmonds today, tree canopy coverage is estimated to be about 30.3% of the total city area. Trees have many benefits, but also some challenges. Selecting the right tree for a particular location makes a difference in how the tree will perform and thrive. Appropriate planting methods and tree care are important too. The Cty has a program of planting and caring for trees in public places—such as City parks and along various streets. In addition, the City has regulations about certain aspects of trees on private property. Notably, Edmonds is certified as a “Tree City USA” city and supports an active Citizens Tree Board. The Tree Board, as well as City staff, helps provide public education and participation in volunteer events to plant trees. Throughout the community, many residents also value and take care of trees on their property. To promote future sustainability and urban forest health, thoughtful planning and actions are needed. The Plan identifies five long-range goals to help the City move forward. The goals are: 1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage 2. Manage public trees proactively 3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property 4. Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care 5. Promote “right tree, right place”. Specific action strategies are identified to address each of the Plan’s long-range goals. These would be implemented over time, as resources are available, to address priority needs. Furthermore, the Urban Forest Management Plan should be reviewed every five to ten years and updated as needed. Executive Summary 7.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) What Do We Have? What Do We Want? How Are We Doing? How Do We Get There? 2Scope & Purpose Overview The plan includes long-range goals and action strategies 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: ŠIllustrate the value and benefits of trees. ŠPromote shared vision and collaboration between community residents. ŠEstablish benchmarks and metrics to monitor the long-term success of management strategies. ŠEnhance the health and sustainability of the community urban forest. ŠIncrease the vital benefits that the trees provide to Edmonds and the region. ŠEnsure 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, current funding 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 Edmonds will reveal the abundant and diverse natural resources found within City parks and surrounding residences and businesses. 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 3 Scope & Purpose 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 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 principles for urban forest management set the framework for the UFMP: ŠOptimize the ecosystem services provided by trees. ŠControl tree maintenance costs to the community. ŠCreate pathways to stable and predictable funding. ŠMitigate risks and liabilities associated with trees. The structure and organization of the UFMP are based on the understanding of what we have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This structure, referred to as adaptive management, is commonly used for resource planning and management (Miller, R.W., 1988) and provides a good conceptual framework for managing community forest resources. The plan development process involved a comprehensive review and assessment of the existing community tree resource, including composition, value, and environmental benefits. The process explored community values, existing regulations, and policies related to 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. 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 Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 4Executive Summary 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: ŠComprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental Quality Goal A - “…Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community-based environmental regulations.” ŠParks, 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. ŠStreestcape 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: ŠPrivate owners control the majority of tree canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit tree removal, except when the trees are associated with development or are within an environmentally critical area. ŠThere is limited knowledge about the condition of trees in the urban forest. ŠThere is an estimated 1,651 acres is theoretically available for planting to expand the urban forest canopy1. The views of scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds’ identity as a community and require balanced consideration with the care of the urban forest. Scenic views are highly valued in long- established development. At the same time, appreciation of trees—especially “the right trees in the right place”—is a value shared by most residents. 1 This estimate is partly based on an analysis of low-lying vegetation areas. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Tree Canopy 30% Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation 27% Bare Soils2% Water7% 5 Executive Summary Figure 1: Land Cover Figure 1: Land Cover Land Cover 7.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 6Executive Summary What Do We Want? 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 on trees as problems are discovered, but they also look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic public places. In general, stakeholders from both the community and City Staff share the following desired outcomes for the UFMP: ŠPreservation and Enhancement of Tree Canopy ŠSustainability, Health, and Safety of the Community Tree Resource ŠPreservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and Habitat ŠIncreased Outreach and Education ŠIncreased Collaboration with Volunteers and Non-profit Groups ŠStrategies and Policies to Minimize Potential Tree Conflicts Open house forums and public meetings provided perspective on community interests and concerns about the urban forest. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Urban Forest Management Plan Goals Goal 1 - Maintain citywide canopy coverage Goal 2 - Manage public trees pro-actively Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care Goal 5 - Promote “Right tree, right place” 7 Executive Summary 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 through specific actions: ŠUrban Forest Asset Actions - which are intended to improve the urban forest resource over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest. ŠMunicipal Resource Actions - which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. ŠCommunity Resource Actions - which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. How Are We Doing? The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching framework for urban forestry operations, policies, and programs. It presents a high-level review of urban forest management in the City, including historical context and an exploration of the benefits of Edmonds’ trees. Building upon that information, the Plan connects the community’s vision for the urban forest with appropriate goals and actions. This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a 20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of operational objectives. The success of the UFMP will be measured through the realization of goals and will be demonstrated through the health 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. Youth volunteers helping with tree resource management. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 8Introduction Trees play an essential role in the community of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve the local environment and lessen the impact resulting from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees can 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 greater sense of place (Kuo, 2003). Community trees, 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 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. The urban forest in this community is defined by its public and privately managed trees. Through parks and public rights-of-way, the City maintains a diverse population of trees intended for city streetscapes (typically nursery grown hardwoods), as well as native trees (naturally regenerating conifers and deciduous trees). Privately managed trees may be remnant forest trees connected with early logging history, naturally growing native trees and even invasive hardwoods. 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. Edmonds’ trees are a valued community resource Introduction 7.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 9 Introduction Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate the effects of urbanization and development, which protects and enhances lives within the community. 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: ŠIntercepting 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. ŠIncreasing 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). ŠReducing 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). ŠProviding 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). Typical overview of waterfront homes in Edmonds. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 10Introduction Stormwater runoff from streets needs to be controlled. Trees will slow and intercept stormwater, reducing the burden on stormwater infrastructure. 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 (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), 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 is resulting 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 CO2, have increased by 25% (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces greenhouse gases. The carbon-related function of trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways: ŠDirectly – Through growth and the sequestration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass. ŠIndirectly – By lowering the demand for air conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions associated with electric power generation and natural gas consumption. 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 County Public Utility District (SNOPUD). This organization recognizes how trees can reduce energy consumption and encourages Edmonds 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 three principal ways: ŠShade 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). ŠTranspiration – Transpiration releases water vapor from tree canopies, which cools the surrounding area. Through shade and transpiration, trees and 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 canopy cover and more forested suburban areas (Akbari, et al., 1997). ŠWind reduction – Trees can 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 can reduce conductive heat loss. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 11 Introduction Air Quality Urban trees improve air quality in five fundamental ways: ŠReducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and smoke) ŠAbsorbing gaseous pollutants ŠShade and transpiration ŠReducing power plant emissions ŠIncreasing oxygen levels They protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate matter (PM10), 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 (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Shade and transpiration reduces the formation of O3, 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. 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: ŠBeautification, comfort, and aesthetics ŠShade and privacy ŠWildlife habitat ŠOpportunities for recreation ŠReduction in violent crime ŠCreation of a sense of place and history ŠReduced 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. In addition, trees and forests have positive economic benefits for retailers. There is 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 and forestlands provide important 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. The needles of these douglas fir trees help improve air quality. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 12Introduction A mix of large and small trees in a park. Tree Selection related to Location and Other Factors Selecting tree species that are appropriate for the expected functions, maintenance requirements, and locations in which they are planted is important. Generally, native trees should be considered for planting or replacement whenever practical. Along City streets, relatively compact trees that add color and interest, without tending to upheave pavement, are typically desirable. An example is the Bowhall maple, which has been used in numerous street-side locations in Edmonds. When street trees are planted on the same side of the street as SnoPUD overhead power lines, additional caution is needed in selecting appropriate species. These poles also usually carry major communication lines. Such facilities are often located at the very edge of the City’s rights-of-way or in planter strips between the sidewalk and the curb. Trees should be selected that do not result in the need for frequent topping or heavy pruning to keep them underneath the communication space on PUD poles, which can be as low as 15 feet above ground level. In large spaces, native coniferous trees may be very appropriate. Some of these species (such as Douglas fir) can grow very tall (up to 200 feet) and wide (30 feet). They are well-suited to the Pacific Northwest climate and have needles year-round. Also, various types of deciduous trees, including maple and oak, may be appropriate in large spaces. In view areas and in many relatively small spaces, lower-growing or less-spreading trees may be a good choice. For example, vine maples have colorful leaves in autumn and at mature height are generally no more than 15 feet tall. However, the branches of this species can spread wide, up to 20 feet. Other species, even fruit trees and small specimen trees, may fit well in settings where tree height or width needs to be limited. In critical areas where wildlife habitat exists, native trees should generally be chosen for planting. Depending on the type of habitat and space availability, such trees could include Western red cedar, Douglas fir, alder, and dogwood. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Tree roots lifting a sidewalk.13 Introduction Trees in streetscapes can grow into conflict with sidewalks. Right tree, right place Planting a tree is something that provide a sense of accomplishment and something to admire for decades. However, it is not a decision that should be made without careful consideration. When considering what tree to plant and where to plant it, one should remember the widely used phrase “Right Tree, Right Place.” Choosing the right tree depends on many factors including soil type, climate, and the amount of space the tree will have both underground and overhead. It is important to choose a tree that does not require more space in the future than a site can provide. To avoid any conflicts with overhead obstructions (e.g., power lines, utility poles, buildings) or underground obstructions (e.g., pipes, building foundations), consider the tree’s height, root growth, and shape at maturity. While above-ground growth is a little easier to envision, a tree needs plenty of room to grow underground too; tree roots can extend up to two to three times the width of the crown (the leaves and branches of the tree). Apart from the physical space available for a tree to grow, one may consider whether the property is in a view shed and how the tree at maturity will impact the views. Factors to consider when selecting a tree to plant. 1. The tree’s purpose will impact the suitability of different tree species, whether used for shade, aesthetic beauty, wind protection, screening, or other purposes. 2. Size and location of the tree, including available space for roots and branches, affects the decision on which species to plant. 3. Crown form or shape varies among species, including round, oval, columnar, V-shaped, or pyramidal shapes. Consider how the shape of the tree works in the space available. Note on Native Trees: Edmonds was once covered in forests of old growth Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. While these trees were once the right tree in the right place, they often may not be appropriate for urban environments. In natural conditions, a Douglas fir can grow to more than 200 feet in height with a diameter of five to eight feet. While the City’s parks and the larger zoned properties (12,000 – 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) primarily located in north Edmonds may provide sufficient growing space for these large native species, they may not be appropriate landscape trees within the Edmonds “bowl area” with its more dense development and view concerns. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) An example of skirting-up; the lower limbs on this tree have been removed to provide drivers with a clearer view. 14Introduction weakened top as the side branches all try to grow up. In addition, the cut top often becomes an entry site for decay organisms that weaken the tree and increase the danger of a top breaking in high winds. For broad-leaved trees such as maple, madrone or oaks, severe topping is even more damaging. It can seriously harm the tree’s health and cause various safety hazards. While views are important, other factors such as critical areas must also be taken into consideration. The north Edmonds view shed is associated with significant slopes (potential landslide hazards are slopes 40% and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that has specific regulations that apply to development in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC – Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical area regulations. The mechanical and hydrogeological benefits which trees and other vegetation provide to maintain slope stability and reduce erosion are well documented. Tree maintenance activities that maintain the health of existing trees will also help maintain slope stability. A landowner should explore alternative options to tree removal or topping. Below is a list of several trimming practices derived from Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners (Ecology Public 93-31) which can be used in combination to create views without compromising tree health or slope stability. View-enhancing Pruning Alternatives for Conifers 1. Windowing 2. Interlimbing 3. Skirting-up ŠNote: In any pruning practice or combination, 60% or more of the original crown should be retained to maintain tree health and vigor. The removal of too much live foliage can reduce the tree’s ability to supply food to the roots, thereby weakening them. ŠWindowing. This pruning practice allows a view “window” through the existing foliage of the tree’s canopy. In pruning major limbs and Trees and Views To some people, trees are the view and to others, trees block the view. The City of Edmonds is blessed with magnificent views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountain range. These views add to the quality of life here, as well as to property values. When views become obstructed, enjoyment of one’s property as well as property values may be impacted. The City’s Comprehensive Plan has many policies recognizing the protection of public views (views from parks or view corridors down streets and at street ends), but does not specifically address private view protection. Not all areas of Edmonds have views of Puget Sound and the Olympics. While a view shed study of the City of Edmonds has not been completed, the primary view areas are located in the Bowl and the properties on the west facing slopes of north Edmonds. When considering planting trees in these view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. Topping of trees for views is often the first consideration of landowners. However, topping is not generally recognized as good arboricultural practice. A topped tree requires periodic maintenance to maintain its reduced size. That can become expensive in the long-term. Also, conifers will often form a 7.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) A tree with multiple stems may become a hazard without proper care.15 Introduction Challenges Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest requires the coordination of many different stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with many other elements of the city. This can result in conflict or challenges including: ŠConflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure - Roots and branches of trees can damage nearby sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings. ŠHazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to the community. Storm events, accidents, improper maintenance, and the natural death of trees can all create structural weaknesses for trees and the surrounding area. ŠView Issues - Edmonds is known for the majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is possible for trees to block these views if they grow too large or were planted in improper locations. ŠMaintenance - Trees are living infrastructure. As such, they require active and regular maintenance. Structural pruning, irrigation, and the management of pests and diseases are some critical maintenance practices that must occur to ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest. ŠChoice of Tree Species - Different tree species have different needs, growth patterns, and resistances to pests and diseases. A diverse palette of species improves the resilience of the urban forest. branch whorls, sections that obscure a view are removed. Many people find that this technique creates an aesthetically pleasing effect. ŠInterlimbing. The removal of entire branch whorls or individual branches throughout the canopy allows more light to pass through, as well as reducing wind resistance of the tree. This practice can be used in conjunction with windowing to improve views. ŠSkirting-up. Limbing the tree up from the bottom allows a clear line of sight. Instead of an obscuring mass of foliage, the tree trunk is the only object between you and the view. This technique is useful when the tree in question is located high on the bluff face or upon the tableland. Relatively more branches can be removed with this technique because the lower branches contribute less nutrients to the tree than higher branches. Pruning Broad-leaved Trees Pruning and trimming of broad-leaved trees is usually more complicated, especially for trees grown in the wild. Generally, short-lived species such as alder, willow and Bitter cherry are not worth pruning, while trees like madrona, white oak, bigleaf maple, and vine maple will warrant the expense. Crown reduction is one of the most common methods that arborists use to control the size of the tree and keep its shape perfect. This method involves reducing the foliage of the tree while still preserving the general structure of the crown; doing this successfully trims the overall shape of the tree and controls its size. In a general sense, limbs that are located on the uppermost portion of the tree canopy are cut shorter in order to decrease the tree’s height. However, they are only removed to the next lateral growth to be able to ensure that they heal faster and grow again properly. It is highly recommended that only 20% or less of the tree’s canopy should be cut at once in order to avoid the tree from suffering. Properties owners should consult a certified arborist prior to undertaking any tree maintenance activity. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Big trees were common in Edmonds before its settlement.16Introduction 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 which trees are being considered 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. What Do We Have? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Common ground vegetation in wetland areas The state of Washington requires the City of Edmonds to manage and protect it’s critical areas. 17 What Do We Have? 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. 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 quality goals 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. Trees help protect the function and benefits from critical areas. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 18What Do We Have? 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: ŠSustainability ŠClimate Change Goals and Policies, including support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US Mayor’s Climate Change Agreement ŠCommunity Health ŠEnvironmental Quality The urban forest is a key component of the 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 greenhouse 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 reducing 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 19 What Do We Have? 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. Purchasing of Forested Properties The City’s policies with regard to the acquisition of open space (including the potential purchase of forested properties) are contained with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land acquisition is included in the capital project budget and the PROS plan notes that “expansions of the parks system will target the gaps identified in this plan and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds, this approach will require vigilance and proactive pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities for both parks and open spaces. The City’s inclusion of this item in the capital projects list recognizes the importance of swift action when rare property acquisition opportunities become available.” A specific policy addressing the purchase of forested properties could be considered for adding to the PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining the City’s tree cover through the selective purchase of forest properties as opportunities arise. Forested properties can be valuable acquisitions to maintain City’s tree cover. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 20What Do We Have? 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. Summary Considerations for Planning 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 updating the Street Tree Plan, 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. The PROS plan (2016) has specific goals for the City to steward the urban forest. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 21 What Do We Have? 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: ŠCore Canopy - Tree canopy that exists within and relatively far from the forest/non-forest boundary (i.e., forested areas surrounded by more forested areas). ŠPerforated Canopy - Tree canopy that defines the boundary between core forests and relatively small clearings (perforations) within the forest landscape. ŠPatch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small-forested area that is surrounded by non-forested land cover. ŠEdge 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: ŠThe location and extent of canopy over time (tracking changes) ŠThe location of available planting space (potential planting area) ŠThe best strategies to increase canopy in underserved areas ŠThe data, combined with existing and emerging urban forestry research and applications, can provide additional guidance in two ways: ŠFinding a balance between growth and preservation ŠIdentifying and assessing urban forestry opportunities. An example of perforated canopy in a park setting. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 22What Do We Have? Canopy Cover Summary The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of 9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9 square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water. By analyzing high-resolution aerial imagery, Davey Resource Group (DRG) determined the following land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds: Š30.3% existing canopy, including trees and woody shrubs (525 acres) Š1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare ground Š6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree canopy is unfeasible Š27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying vegetation Š34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads, parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres) ŠFrom 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased from 32.3% to 30.3% ŠTotal potential 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 ŠPrivate residential properties have most of the canopy (83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and commercial (4.1%) properties. ŠAmong parks in Edmonds, Southwest County Park has the most canopy cover (117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26 acres) Detail image of canopy cover in portion of the Edmonds “bowl” area. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Tree Canopy 30% Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation 27% Bare Soils2% Water7% 23 What Do We Have? Figure 1: Land Cover Figure 1: Land Cover Land Cover 7.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 24What Do We Have? 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. Canopy Fragmentation As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds’ existing UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the distribution of canopy (Figure 3). 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: Š10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy Š8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy Š55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy Š26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy Detailed image of canopy fragmentation showing canopy categorized as core, perforated, edge and patch forest. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Patch Forest56% Edge Forest 26% Perforated Forest8% Core Forest 10% 25 What Do We Have? Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Forest Fragmentation 7.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 26What Do We Have? Park Canopy Cover The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Figure 4). Edmonds’ parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%. Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site and size. Edmonds’ largest park, Southwest 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 douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), 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 (Southwest County, Yost Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%). However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not currently near maximum potential canopy. An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the parks where there is a much larger gap between current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. The 5 biggest parks are listed in Table 7 of this section . Canopy cover in Yost Park. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Sierra Park Pine Ridge Park Maplewood Park Seaview Park Hutt Park Hummingbird Hill Park Yost Park Edmonds City Park Edmonds Marsh Park Name Total Acres Canopy Acres % Canopy % Potential Canopy Southwest County Park 118.55 117.05 98.73 99.47 Yost Memorial Park 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45 Meadowdale Beach Park 25.54 25.16 98.50 99.77 Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66 Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 24.91 27 What Do We Have? Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Tree Canopy By Park Meadowdale Beach Park Southwest County Park 7.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Sensitive Area Total Acres Patch Forest Acres Edge Forest Acres Perforated Forest Acres Core Forest Acres Non Forest Acres Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 1.35 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78 Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 10.52 35.32 4.61 16.53 51.36 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21 Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 0.51 1.76 59.36 28What Do We Have? ŠBiodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding and Refuge) ŠNesting Habitat (great blue heron) ŠSensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon) ŠSensitive Habitat (bald eagle) ŠWetlands 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 habitat for the 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. Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 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: ŠWetlands ŠAreas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water ŠFish and wildlife habitat conservation areas ŠFrequently flooded areas; and ŠGeologically 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 important to 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: 7.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Sensitive Area Total Acres % Patch Forest % Edge Forest % Perforated Forest % Core Forest % Non Forest Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 0.54 21.42 10.76 58.64 8.65 Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01 Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97 43.40 Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80 Wetlands Area 80.65 6.79 16.81 0.63 2.18 73.60 29 What Do We Have? 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 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: ŠFoliage intercepts rainfall, causing absorptive and evaporative losses that reduce rainfall available for infiltration. ŠRoots extract moisture from the soil which is lost to the atmosphere via transpiration, leading to a lower pore-water pressure. ŠRoots 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 4: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation 7.A.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 30What Do We Have? Considerations for Planting Opportunities Edmonds’ existing tree canopy covers 30.3% of the City, and decision-makers can set a target canopy cover goal to pursue. Regardless of the canopy coverage goals established by the City, the following are planting opportunities that may be pursued in order to maintain and potentially increase the existing canopy coverage: ŠIncentivize tree planting on private property. ŠIncrease canopy with tree planting in areas of patch and fragmented canopy to reduce forest fragmentation and improve wildlife habitat and corridors. ŠConducting outreach to the community as an important tool for engaging public interest and support. ŠDefine goals and identify actions that will support these goal(s). ŠDevelop clear policies and standards to meet the 30% native vegetation requirement codified by ECDC 23.90.040.C (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 updates also facilitates planning and prioritization of tree maintenance duties. Based on this assessment, urban forest managers have the following opportunities: ŠEstablish and continually update a public tree inventory. ŠIntegrate maintenance cycles with the public tree inventory database. ŠStudy genus/species compositions to ensure best-management diversity recommendations are being followed. Park trees in Edmonds. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Tree Locations City Department Actions Permits for Tree Removal Permits for Tree Pruning Permits for Tree Planting Hazardous Tree Inspections Tree Pruning Tree Removal Tree Planting Hazardous Tree Inspections Tree Pruning Tree Removal Tree Planting Trees on Private Property Development Services Trees in Parks Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Trees within City Rights-of- Way Public Works and Utilities (with Parks’ assistance in downtown) 31 What Do We Have? 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. 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. Table 5: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest Management in Edmonds Parks trees require routine inspections and maintenance for public safety. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Urban Forestry Items Expenditure Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848 Tree Maintenance $79,779 Tree Removals $37,565 Management $62,771 Volunteer Activities $134,579 TOTAL $319,542 Budget Per Capita $7.74 UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000 City Services Common Urban Forestry Related Activities Estimated Hours per Week* Development plan review for compliance with tree protection codes Public inquiries (online, phone, and counter) Investigating and resolving tree complaints Investigating and resolving infrastructure damage complaints Tree planting and establishment Structural pruning on smaller trees Inspection and identification of hazardous trees Contract Management Managing contract tree crews 1 Community Service Requests Response Management Urban Forest Management Plan stewardship Federal, state grant procurement Tree City USA applications Volunteer events Coordinated tree planting Neighborhood association support Website content and public education Tree Board Meetings Addressing public issues related to trees 1 Comprehensive (Long-range) Planning <1 Community Education Action and Outreach 1 Permit Intake and Review 2 Code Enforcement & Complaint Investigation 2 Parks & Public Tree Maintenance 40-60 Emergency Response 0 32What Do We Have? Tree Maintenance Budgets The majority of tree maintenance costs are accounted for as general line items through the parks department budget. As part of the annual Tree City USA application, departments will summarize their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds’ urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita, which is more than the minimum $2 per capita for Tree City USA designation and more than the $7.50 national average reported by the National Arbor Day Foundation. Documented Edmonds’ expenditures have been in the range of $3 per capita in prior years. Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds’ urban forest produces about $1,567,000 in environmental benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of approximately $319,542. Service Levels To assess current urban forest workload and staffing levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were identified as persons who work with tree issues on at least an intermittent basis every week. From those who are involved with forestry issues or operations on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were identified with a quantifiable amount of time each week working with trees or tree-related issues. 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 6: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels 7.A.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 33 What Do We Have? Staff Training The science of arboriculture, and the management of urban forests are domains that are increasingly recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials are increasingly requested by many municipalities as evidence of competency. Bachelor’s degrees in Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences, and Horticulture are often the base requirements for leadership roles in urban forest management. Professional credentials can also demonstrate competency, with the most widely accepted credentials in Washington State coming from the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The City provides on-going training to any staff handling tree maintenance equipment, including chainsaw, chipper, and lift-truck safety. Stakeholder interviews revealed that landscape maintenance workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on structural pruning or tree care. The following is a summary description of staff resources and training within individual City departments: ŠIn 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. ŠThe 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. ŠThe 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. Tree Acquisition and Quality Control The City’s approach to acquiring trees is not guided by any formal standard practices that ensure the quality of trees during acquisition. As trees are planted, there is no planned follow-up or warranties managed with new trees. Image of a tree with a co-dominant branch defect (middle stem). The city has access to trained staff qualified to provide expertise for identification of these tree safety risks. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 34What Do We Have? 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 City of 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. Native Trees Trees native to the Pacific Northwest are well-suited to our climate. They also tend to provide good habit for local wildlife. Many native trees, both coniferous and broadleaved, are part of the City’s urban forest. They are currently encouraged in public and private plantings but not necessarily required, except in designated critical areas for wildlife habitat and/or wetlands. More information about native trees and their value is likely to be part of an upcoming round of community education in Edmonds. An example of some native trees for the Pacific Northwest include the following1: Broadleaved Trees ŠBig-Leaf Maple ŠBlack Cottonwood ŠOregon Ash ŠPacific Willow ŠRed Alder ŠVine Maple Conifers ŠDouglas Fir ŠGrand Fir ŠNoble Fir ŠShore Pine ŠSitka Spruce ŠWestern Hemlock ŠWestern Larch ŠWestern Red Cedar ŠWestern White Pine 1 A more comprehensive list can be found in Appendix F Cone from a douglas-fir. (Photo by Peter Stevens CC BY)Leaves of a big leaf maple. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 35 What Do We Have? Major and Emerging Diseases and Pests Another important aspect to tree maintenance is staying alert to managing emerging diseases and pests that can be costly to control with individual trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest, addressing both potential and actual problems is critical. Further information on the pests and diseases that threaten the forest ecosystems in Washington can be found at: ŠUSDA’s Forest Service website ŠPacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook ŠCollier Arbor Care website – Top 20 Tree and Shrub Problems in the PNW ŠWashington State Department of Natural Resources, Forest Health Among the many diseases and pests that affect trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to the following: Diseases ŠLaminated Root Rot (LRR) is the most important disease affecting Douglas-fir caused by the fungal pathogen Coniferiporia sulphurascens. In young stands regenerated following harvesting, dead or missing trees will be associated with large stumps. These decayed trees will serve as an inoculum source for neighboring trees to become infected, as their roots grow in contact with infected stumps/roots. Fungal growth invades the heartwood and sapwood, resulting in reduced uptake of water and nutrients, with weakened support of the upper portion of the tree. Infected trees are susceptible to windthrow, and there may be trees in a group in various stages of decay and dying. Live trees with LRR display symptoms of shortened terminal growth, sparse foliage, smaller needles, chlorosis (yellowing) and stress cone crops. Trees can fall over before developing obvious symptoms, or die standing. The disease is very difficult to manage in an urban setting (USFS, 2017). ŠArmillaria Root Rot (ARR) affects the roots of numerous tree species, notably Douglas-fir and other Firs and Pines, as well as many hardwood species. Armillaria ostoyae is the primary fungal pathogen in the Pacific Northwest, although A. mellea can also be involved in tree decline and mortality. ARR disease is usually associated with stress conditions, particularly drought. The fungus survives for many years in infected stumps, roots and organic matter in the soil. Honey-colored mushrooms are typically produced at the base of infected trees in the fall. Typical symptoms include chlorotic foliage, distress cone crops, significant resin flow, decline and death. The fungus typically produces black shoestring-like structures called rhizomorphs on the bark at the base of the tree or in the soil (OSU, 2018). ŠVerticillium Wilt (VW) is a serious disease of many tree hosts, but is especially problematic on Maple species. Verticillium dahliae is a soil-borne fungus that persists in the soil for decades. The fungus infects roots and grows into the xylem where it colonizes the vascular elements. Its presence (mycelia and spores) plus defense compounds produced by the host clogs the xylem elements, preventing the flow of water and nutrients in the tree. Wilting results, and is exacerbated during periods of drought. Leaves on one side of the tree affected by VW or on one branch suddenly wilt and die. Subsequently, other branches will wilt as the disease progresses. Excised branches will have vascular discoloration which is diagnostic of the disease. Infected trees may survive for years or die within weeks. Once infected, a tree will not likely recover and will require removal. Tree injections of fungicides are not usually effective (OSU, 2018). ŠSwiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of the foliage disease of Douglas-fir caused by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii. SNC is known as a “cast” disease because it causes the premature shedding of needles (or casting) from the tree, resulting in sparse tree crowns and reduced growth. Although it is 7.A.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 36What Do We Have? called “Swiss” needle cast, the fungus is native to the Western United States throughout the range of Douglas-fir. SNC disease symptoms include chlorotic needles and decreased needle retention, resulting in sparse crowns and reduced diameter and height growth (OSU, 2017). Mortality from the disease is considered rare, but tree care and maintenance of this disease can be expensive and necessary in an urban setting. ŠLeaf Blight (LB) is a serious disease affecting Pacific Madrone caused by the fungal pathogen Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis. At least a dozen fungi can cause leaf spots and dead areas on leaves; this is probably the most significant cause of damage to the host. Older, lower leaves are infected by spores disseminated by wind or rain during wet weather in the fall. Trees located in creek bottoms, valleys and the forest understory are most susceptible to LB. If wet weather persists, infection may be severe and result in significant defoliation. Under these conditions, the fungus can also infect green shoots. Pruning dead branches to provide better air circulation and raking and destroying fallen leaves will help to reduce fungal inoculum and subsequent infection (OSU, 2008). ŠAnthracnose (A) affects a wide variety of shade trees, especially Maple, Oak and Sycamore. The closely related fungi Discula (Maple, Sycamore) and Apiognomonia (Oak) are the causal agents of the disease. The disease is favored by warm, wet springs and several rounds of infection can occur, each defoliating the tree, resulting in a tree much more prone to subsequent drought stress. Lesions on the leaves are typically associated and limited by the veins, resulting in discrete necrotic areas. In particularly susceptible trees under ideal environmental conditions, twig cankers can also develop. It is important to rake up and destroy fallen leaves, prune out twig cankers and water trees during dry periods (OSU, 2018). ŠSudden Oak Death was discovered in California in the mid 1990’s, has spread into southern Oregon (2001) and was found (and has subsequently been contained or eliminated) in a small area in Kitsap County two years ago. The causal fungus Phytophthora ramorum primarily infects species of Oaks, but can also infect a wide range of other hosts, including Camellia, Rhododendron, Blueberry and other landscape plants. The fungus is waterborne and can be spread in streams or other forms of moving water. Symptoms on Oaks include bleeding cankers on the trunk, dieback of the foliage and mortality. Symptoms on other plants can vary from leafspots to leaf blight to twig dieback, but do not usually result in death of the host. Quarantines are in place to prevent further spread of SOD, largely from nurseries (COMTF, 2019). Insects ŠAsian Long-Horned Beetle (ALB), is an invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety of trees in the United States, eventually killing them. The beetle is native to China and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start to show about three to four (3–4) years after infestation, with tree death occurring in ten to fifteen (10–15) years depending on the tree’s overall health and site conditions. Infested trees do not recover, nor do they regenerate. There are a broad number of tree species this insect will feed in and most common deciduous trees in Edmonds are at risk. ŠTent Caterpillar (TC) is a serious defoliator of broadleaf trees and shrubs in most areas of the western U.S. Tree hosts include Red Alder, Cottonwood, Willow, Ash, Pacific Madrone, and many fruit trees. White silky tents appear soon after bud break. As the larvae grow in size, the tents also increase in size. Individual branches near these tents are totally defoliated. Entire trees may be defoliated by TC. After feeding has been concluded, the larvae will turn into moths within a cocoon. Eggs are laid on the twigs and branches where they overwinter in protected masses. Individual tents can be physically removed, preferably in the early morning hours when the larvae are contained in the tent (USFS, 2008). 7.A.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 37 What Do We Have? ŠCooley Spruce Gall Adelgid (CSGA) is a serious pest of Spruce and Douglas-fir trees. It swarms in the spring when the new needles emerge. Crawler nymphs form galls at the branch tips. These galls are initially green, becoming red and eventually dry out. These affected branches cease their growth, and if enough branches are affected, the tree may be killed. White cottony specks will also cover the entire branch. Trees with fewer galls may be unsightly and foliage can be discolored and distorted. Most outbreaks of CSGA do not warrant control measures (NRC, 2015). ŠPine Bark Adelgid (PBA) feeds on the bark of pines and spruce. They form cottony or wooly masses on the twigs, branches or trunk. Heavy infestations will turn the entire area white. Small trees will be severely affected, resulting in chlorotic needles and stunting or premature death. Small egg clusters are laid in the early spring by the adults. Crawlers move to other areas of the tree or to other trees nearby. PBA can be removed by hand, preferably done when the infestation has just begun (OSU, 2018). ŠBronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging pest in western Washington that has migrated from eastern Washington in recent years. Periods of extended summer drought have weakened birch trees and made them more susceptible to this pest which can severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic leaves and sparse upper branches are the first symptoms that homeowners usually notice from BBB attack. Close examination will reveal lumpy bark and half-moon- shaped beetle exit holes (WSU, 2008). ŠDouglas-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. ŠEmerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed hundreds of millions of ash trees in North America. The EAB is a destructive, non-native, wood-boring pest that exclusively kills both stressed and healthy ash trees 2-3 years after infestation (NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native to Northwestern Asia. EAB larvae feed on the vascular tissue of trees and populations grow exponentially. This pest has been identified as moving slowly into the Western U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest for ash tree populations. ŠOther Diseases and Pests. Information on specific diseases and insects that damage trees in our region have been identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Current online information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/ ForestHealth. A. Asian Long-Horned Beetle B. Bronze Birch Borer C. Douglas-fir Tussock Moth D. Emerald Ash Borer Symptoms of BBB Include Dying Top A. C. B. D. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 38What Do We Have? 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: ŠAuthorize the power of government to manage the urban forest ŠDefine street trees and, as appropriate, municipal responsibilities for their care ŠEnumerate tree related fees and penalties ŠCreate regulations associated with tree clearing on private land ŠRequire tree protection during construction ŠClassify 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: ŠChapter 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. ŠChapter 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. ŠChapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree Board, 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: ŠChapter 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. ŠChapter 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: ŠChapter 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 39 What Do We Have? ŠChapter 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. Challenges One of the more frequent complaints related to tree removal in the city is when properties are developed or subdivided. While a goal of the City’s code is that “trees should be retained to the maximum extent feasible,” other applicable development regulations help determine what is feasible. There are regulations that prescribe how wide driveways and roads must be, how far the development must be from the edges of a property, location of utilities (water, sewer, gas, and power) that must be installed underground, and stormwater requirements that require the installation of stormwater facilities. As a result, when one of the larger properties in the City that contains a grove of trees is developed to meet the many regulations and needs, sometimes only a few trees are located outside of the development footprint. Trees that were once stable in their grove, are susceptible to wind throw and become hazardous when isolated on their own. Where a tree was once the right tree in the right location (one tree protected in a larger grove), it may no longer be the right tree in the right location (an exposed tree on the perimeter of a lot) following development. As the City considers updates to the development code, updates should provide more ways to encourage greater tree retention when properties are developed. An example may be to provide options for reduced interior setbacks that would allow houses to be clustered and thus provide an opportunity to avoid trees where otherwise development would be placed under the regulations in effect as of early 2019. Another example of an update to consider may include evaluating the required width of access easements. 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. ŠChapter 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. ŠChapter 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 40What Do We Have? Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations Tree Removal Scenario Review? Permits?Notes Private PropertyDeveloped single-family property, no critical areas present No review, no permit required No notification required, but suggested to avoid unnecessary Code Enforcement Response Developed single-family property, critical areas present Yes, review and permit required if tree in critical area or critical area buffer Tree cutting permit Type II decision (staff decision with notice) Removal of hazard trees in critical area Review required, but no permit Documentation of hazard tree by certified arborist, or clear documentation of dead tree. Replanting required at 2:1 ratio Prune or trim trees No review, no permit Topping considered same as tree cutting or removal unless retopping of a previously approved topping Multi-family property and Planned Residential Developments with approved landscape plan Yes, review and permit required Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision, no notice) Commercial Property Yes, review and permit required Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision no notice) Tree removal with development Yes, review included with land use or development permit. Tree protection measures required for trees to remain Public PropertyTrees in right-of-way Yes, review and permit required A right-of-way construction permit is required for any party other than the City of Edmonds to perform any removal or trimming of trees located within the City rights-of-way Street trees Yes, review and permit required Design review against landscaping requirements. Type I decision (staff decision, no notice) Prune or removal of park trees No permit The City’s Parks Department maintains trees within the City’s parks. While no permit is required, tree removal and replacement must be consistent with the City’s critical area regulations 7.A.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Edmonds’ community volunteers helping to remove ivy and improve forest health. 41 What Do We Have? 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. 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) A deodar cedar provides shade for parked cars. 42What Do We Have? 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: ŠCity-wide forested park and natural area assessment ŠStrategic and restoration planning ŠVolunteer program development and guidance ŠEducation and training for volunteers ŠRestoration tracking systems ŠGreen City outreach and community engagement ŠOn- the-ground stewardship projects and event support The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core goals: ŠImprove the quality of life, connections to nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities by restoring our forested parks and natural areas ŠGalvanize an informed and active community ŠEnsure long-term sustainable funding and community support These unique public/private partnerships bring together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders to create a sustainable network of healthy forested parks and natural areas throughout the region. Municipal Research and Services Center The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local information from parks and recreation departments, land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations to promote and manage urban forestry resources. Example resources include local urban forestry programs in Washington State, legal references, and related articles. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 43 What Do We Have? 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. 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. Wetland stream flowing through Edmonds. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 44What Do We Have? 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- 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. Forested park canopy in Edmonds. Forested park canopy in Edmonds. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 45 What Do We Have? Urban Forestry Practices: Case Studies In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that there are urban forestry practices emerging from other municipalities that could eventually add value if developed within the City. Through stakeholder interviews and discussions with City Staff, three urban forestry practices were selected as important for further consideration in implementation of this UFMP: Tree Banks (or fee 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: Š“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: Š“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: ŠRMC 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. i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base fee times the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements 7.A.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 46What Do We Have? 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. Šhttp://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond- wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid=005.009&fil e=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: ŠRMC 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/Renton0404/ Renton0404130.html Community volunteers pulling weeds and improving forest health in Edmonds. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 47 What Do We Have? 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): ŠPAMC 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?nodeId=TIT11STSI_ CH11.13STTR_11.13.050STTRENRE 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: ŠIncreasing public awareness of trees and the urban forest ŠDrawing attention to and protecting unique and significant trees ŠReinforcing how trees are a key component of a city’s character and sense of place ŠEngaging citizens with the purpose and activities of a city’s urban forestry program ŠEncouraging public participation in the identification and perpetuation of heritage trees throughout the City 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: ŠSpecimen: A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity. ŠHistoric: 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. ŠLandmark: Trees that are landmarks of a community. ŠCollection: 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 similar to 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). 7.A.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 48What Do We Have? 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 ŠHerrington, 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&catID=547). City of Lincoln ŠLincoln, 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://lincoln.ne.gov/ city/parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm City of Denver ŠDenver, CO – Denver has two classes for their “Tree Service License.” This is a distinct feature of their licensing process. Licenses 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/ Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-license- info-packet.pdf City of Spokane ŠSpokane, WA – Spokane has a commercial tree license that businesses must secure if they are doing work on public property trees (e.g.,street trees and park trees). https://my.spokanecity. org/urbanforestry/permits/ Community engagement on urban forestry is important to encourage tree retention on private properties. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 49 What Do We Have? Incentives – Encouraging Tree Retention on Private Properties From the urban tree canopy assessment, it was determined that the majority of tree canopy in the city is privately owned and managed. For cities to manage their urban forests, collaboration and voluntary commitments on the part of private property owners can be a beneficial strategy that encourages desirable tree care and retention practices. (Note: In some “incentive programs,” cities have first established by code minimum tree density requirements for private properties and then used incentives to allow property owners some flexibility in retaining the minimum tree density). The following are example methods that cities, counties, and states have used to incentivize desirable tree stewardship on private property: City of Portland ŠPortland, OR – The City of Portland has a “Treebate” program which provides a one-time credit on individual utility bills for planting a tree in a residential yard. The amount of credit depends on the size of the tree. (Certain types of trees are excluded from the program.) https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/ article/314187 Brevard County ŠBrevard County, FL – In Brevard County, incentives were created to encourage tree preservation as they relate to landscaping requirements during development. This code language incentivizes by providing credits for exceeding tree canopy density, preserving native trees of significant size, or vegetation of special concern. These credits reduce the tree re-planting requirements otherwise associated with development projects. (Code Sec 62-4344). http://brevardcounty.elaws.us/code/coor_ptii_ appid32777_ch62_artxiii_div2_sec62-4344 City of Rocklin ŠRocklin, CA – In an effort to preserve its native oak population, the City of Rocklin established incentives in their code. Projects that save 25% or more of the surveyed oak trees receive expedited processing by the Community Development department. In addition, development projects can have traffic mitigation and capital facility fees deferred from 3 months up to 12 months depending on the trees being saved. http://www.rocklin.ca.us/ sites/main/files/file-attachments/oak_tree_ preservation_guidelines.pdf State of Hawaii ŠState of Hawaii – In an effort to encourage the care and maintenance of trees determined as “exceptional”, residents can deduct up to $3000 per tax year for their costs associated with tree care. The code language has an additional limitation that this tax deduction can only be allowed once every three years. (HRS 235-19). http://files.hawaii.gov/tax/legal/hrs/hrs_235.pdf When the City of Edmonds updates its development regulations, incentives for tree retention and tree planting should be considered. These may include: Tree bank ŠTree bank funded by development. Developer pays X dollar for each significant tree removed during development into a tree bank. This “incentivizes” tree retention because the developer may find ways to maintain trees rather than pay into the tree bank. ŠTree bank could be used to supply property owners with certificates to purchase trees to plant on their property. ŠTree bank funds could be used towards purchase of forested properties when they become available. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 50What Do We Have? Development flexibility to maintain trees. ŠAllowing reduced interior setbacks may allow more flexibility in home placement and provide opportunities for tree retention. ŠAllow for deviations from access and road width requirements to allow more flexibility in design and home placements. ŠEncourage low impact development techniques which promote tree retention. Heritage Tree Program ŠDevelop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program to recognize unique or special trees as a way to recognize stewardship of the urban forest by local property owners. Further consideration of the above—and any additional—ideas should be explored in more detail as part of the code update process in the near future. Summary Considerations for Urban Forest Practices 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 approximately 13% of the City’s entire tree canopy in public ownership, other methods to encourage or require tree planting/protection will be needed for the community to have influence over tree care in the remaining 87% 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, and incentive programs. The City’s policies with regard to the acquisition of open space (including the potential purchase of forested properties) are contained with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Land acquisition is included in the capital project budget and the PROS plan notes that “expansions of the parks system will target the gaps identified in this plan and take advantage of opportunities as they emerge. Due to the constrained nature of Edmonds, this approach will require vigilance and proactive pursuit of potential land acquisition opportunities for both parks and open spaces. The City’s inclusion of this item in the capital projects list recognizes the importance of swift action when rare property acquisition opportunities become available.” A specific policy addressing the purchase of forested properties could be considered for adding to the PROS plan to recognize the potential of maintaining the City’s tree cover through the selective purchase of forest properties as opportunities arise. Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued and 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 51 What Do We Want? Stakeholder and 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. 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. What Do We Want? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 52What Do We Want? Tree board meetings in Edmonds provide pathways for community engagement. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 53 What Do We Want? Online Community Survey As part of the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey was developed with the intention of understanding and benchmarking Edmonds’ community values and views on the urban forest. It was not conducted as a statistically valid study but as one to guage community values and get public feedback. 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% of the 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 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 4). 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Improved Air Quality Wildlife Habitat Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff Carbon Storage Energy Savings Other Environmental Benefits Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit Edmonds’ fountain and traffic circle trees. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 54What Do We Want? On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees as the most important intangible benefit, followed by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails Attractive to Residents Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles Improve retail areas and neighborhoods Increased Property Values Passive recreation Shaded Parking Intangible Benefits Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic benefit (Figure 5). View of street trees at 5th Avenue South and Main Street. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Take care of hazardous trees.Holistic Plant Health Care(Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree) Best possible care (all treesshould look good)Clearance only (keep thesidewalks and streets clear)None-Keep them natural Maintenance Expectations 55 What Do We Want? 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 6). 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 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 Street tree along Main Street. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 56What Do We Want? Summary Considerations for Public Outreach 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.Street trees along 5th Avenue. Private property trees have canopy that can shade public streets. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 57 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 another ten (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 five (5) long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan will guide actions and activities that address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program: ŠUrban Forest Asset Actions, 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 this, most activities will 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. ŠMunicipal Resource Actions, which are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments. The common activities for accomplishing these goals center around developing policies that promote routine tree inspection and formalized tree management strategies for City-owned trees. The results will encourage the City to improve its awareness and mitigation of tree hazards and eliminate barriers to effective urban forest management. ŠCommunity Resource Actions, which are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The activities 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. Each action contains time designations which estimate the anticipated timeframe for completion of the action/activity once it is started. How Do We Get There? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 58How Do We Get There? Scenic views of the Puget Sound from Edmonds. Trees can obstruct the view, but can also be the view. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 59 How Do We Get There? Goal 1 - Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success with this objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees and a deeper understanding of the population of trees on private property. The following actions will support this objective: A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS plan. C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas D. Develop a voluntary heritage tree program E. Enforce city regulations on tree cutting i. Reach out periodically to tree maintenance and landscaping firms to make sure they know Edmonds’ requirements for pruning or removing trees F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests and disease that threaten trees H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist I. Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage J. Periodically review and, if needed, update Urban Forest Management Plan (generally, every 5-10 years) Goal 1 Time On-going 1 Year On-going 3-5 Years On-going 3-5 Years On-going On-going 10 Years, On-going 5-10 Years, On-going Urban Forest Management Plan Goals 7.A.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 60How Do We Get There? Goal 2 - Manage public trees proactively The city has identified opportunities within this plan to improve its risk management associated with trees and create better pathways for community engagement. The following actions will support this objective: A. Use best available science in caring for the urban forest on City properties and ROW B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, or other) to monitor the health of public trees and make decisions on their care C. Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places (for example, along certain City streets or trails) to document tree condition and risk D. Update the Street Tree Plan periodically E. Support removal of invasive plants, such as ivy, where they threaten the health of public trees F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues and identify lead City staff person to guide approach and activities G. Develop and implement a tree planting plan on City property and ROW to help ensure: i. Age and species diversity; ii. And suitability of species to location H. Implement a program of regular maintenance and pruning for City trees, consistent with best management practices I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property and rights-of way J. As part of City-sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate trees in rights-of-way and on City properties K. Provide an annual report to the City Council on tree planting/management for City properties and right-of-way (ROW) Goal 2 Time On-going On-going On-going 5-10 Years, On-going On-going On-going 3-5 Years, On-going 3-5 Years, On-going 1 Year, On-going On-going On-going Urban Forest Management Plan Goals 7.A.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 61 How Do We Get There? Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective. A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of: i. A property tax “rebate” applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting and protection. C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees Goal 3 Time 3-5 Years, On-going 3-5 Years, On-going 1 Year, On-going Urban Forest Management Plan Goals 7.A.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 62How Do We Get There? Goal 4 - Provide resources to the community to educate/inform on tree planting and care The city recognizes the importance of the privately managed tree population in the city and recognizes the opportunity to support community stewardship. The following actions will support this objective: A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees B. Provide for Tree Board, especially to: i. Develop community education materials; ii. Participate in or initiate tree planting and tree care activities, including outreach to citizen volunteers iii. Report annually to the City Council on Tree Board activities C. Develop and disseminate information for the public on the value of trees and to provide guidance on tree selection and management Goal 4 Time 1 Year 1 Year, On-going 1 Year, On-going Urban Forest Management Plan Goals 7.A.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 63 How Do We Get There? Goal 5 - Promote “Right tree, right place” Ultimately, the urban forest will be sustainable when a balanced combination of long-lived native trees and nursery grown street trees are growing in suitable spaces to maintain views, support wildlife (pollinators, birds, mammals, etc) and provide optimum environmental services. The following actions will support this objective: A. Make readily available lists of compatible trees for planting in various kinds of local settings i. Indentify: large native tree species that can spread out in large spaces; low-growing trees in view corridors, trees with appropriate root systems near sidewalks and underground pipes. ii. Provide lists of suitable trees to support pollinators and backyard wildlife habitat. B. Identify key areas to increase canopy and: i. For any such private properties, encourage appropriate tree planting or other techniques; and ii. for any such public properties, consider and take action to appropriately plant trees or otherwise increase canopy. C. Identify and plan for the care of unsuitable trees and, as necessary, for pruning or removal when they are potentially damaging to people, buildings or infrastructure D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees and vegetation to be planted in critical areas, especially near streams and other wildlife habitat areas E. In updating the Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should be planted to be compatible with the street environment Goal 5 Time 1 Year 1-3 Years On-going On-going 1-2 Years Urban Forest Management Plan Goals 7.A.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 64How 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. 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. How Are We Doing? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 65 Appendices Appendix A: References Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and Buildings 25:139–148. American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org Bennett, M. and Shaw, D. 2008. Diseases and Insect Pests of Pacific Madrone. Forest Health Fact Sheet EC 1619-E. California Oak Mortality Task Force, 2019. https://suddenoakdeath.org. Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017. http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/ CensusScope, 2012, “CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data.” www.censusscope.org Ciesla, WW.M. and Ragenovich, I.R. 2008. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 119. Western Tent Caterpillar. USFS. City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens’ Tree Board. City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington. City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services, Edmonds, Washington. City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/ Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997. Colorado State University Extension, 2003, Bronze Birch Borer, Image, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/3/3d/Agrilus_anxius_1326203.jpg Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 2015. Natural Resources Canada. 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. Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/ Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington State Department of Commerce. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_forestry_programming.pdf 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. Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 66Appendices Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflets, 2017 - Laminated Root Rot. USDA Forest Service https://apps.fs.usda.gov/views/laminatedrootrot 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. Hollingsworth, C.S., editor. 2019. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect (accessed 31 March 2019). 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. Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, 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/lwcf/ Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/ Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Cooley Spruce Gall Adelgid. 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.html 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 PNW Plant Disease Handbook PNW Insect Handbook 7.A.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 67 Appendices Pscheidt, J.W., and Ocamb, C.M., senior editors. 2019. Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease (accessed 31 March 2019). 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-pollution.html 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 air quality 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 | Residential | Snohomish County PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219. The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP). https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/ 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.html Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externalreviewdraft_june152009.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/ Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use Element1). Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing, http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1380e/eb1380e.pdf 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 7.A.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 68Appendices Appendix B: Table of Figures Figures Figure 1: Land Cover Classes Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation Figure 4: Tree Canopy by Park Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations Tables Table 1: Benchmark Values Table 2: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks Table 3: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Table 4: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation Table 5: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds Table 6: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures Table 7: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels Table 8: Summary of Current City of Edmonds Tree Cutting Regulations . 5, 23 24 25 27 53 54 55 . 3 27 28 29 31 32 32 40 7.A.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Improved Air Quality 36.57%64 24.00%42 21.14%37 14.29%25 4.00%7 175 4.75 Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71%24 26.86%47 49.71%87 175 2.88 Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71%38 36.57%64 25.71%45 10.29%18 5.71%10 175 4.58 Carbon Storage 8.57%15 8.57%15 17.14%30 36.00%63 29.71%52 175 3.3 Wildlife Habitat 28.57%50 25.71%45 22.29%39 12.57%22 10.86%19 175 4.49 Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0 175 0Skipped Answered Total14532 69 Appendices 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: ŠHow do you value trees? ŠYour opinion about public trees. (City managed trees on streets and in parks) ŠYour opinion about private trees. (privately managed trees) ŠWho are you? (Simple Demographics) While providing valuable information, the results of this survey should not be interpreted to be a statistically significant survey representing all of Edmonds. 175 individuals responded to the survey (0.4 percent of the Edmonds population) and the geographic distribution of respondents was not a control factor, as a result the survey responses may include an over representation of view properties. However, these responses do represent views of many citizens who are particularly interested in the management of the City’s urban forest. 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): 7.A.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Strongly Agree 74.86%131 Agree 21.71%38 Disagree 2.29%4 Strongly Disagree 0.57%1 Not sure 0.00%0 Not Sure 0.57%1 Other (please specify)0.00%0 Answered 175 Skipped 0 Responses Improved Air Quality 36.57%64 24.00%42 21.14%37 14.29%25 4.00%7 175 4.75 Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71%24 26.86%47 49.71%87 175 2.88 Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71%38 36.57%64 25.71%45 10.29%18 5.71%10 175 4.58 Carbon Storage 8.57%15 8.57%15 17.14%30 36.00%63 29.71%52 175 3.3 Wildlife Habitat 28.57%50 25.71%45 22.29%39 12.57%22 10.86%19 175 4.49 Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0 175 0Skipped Answered Total14532 70Appendices Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds. Question 2 (Extended) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Total Score Attractive to Residents 14.86%26 21.71%38 16.00%28 13.14%23 15.43%27 9.71%17 6.86%12 2.29%4 175 5.39 Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29%60 21.14%37 14.86%26 14.29%25 7.43%13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29 Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 21.71%38 17.14%30 24.00%42 11.43%20 9.71%17 9.71%17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74 Shaded Parking 2.86%5 3.43%6 8.57%15 9.71%17 8.57%15 17.71%31 19.43%34 29.71%52 175 3.03 Improve retail areas and neighborhoods 5.14%9 10.29%18 12.57%22 13.71%24 19.43%34 18.29%32 14.29%25 6.29%11 175 4.25 Increased Property Values 4.00%7 5.14%9 5.14%9 9.71%17 10.29%18 13.71%24 22.86%40 29.14%51 175 3.05 Passive recreation 4.00%7 5.14%9 6.86%12 12.00%21 15.43%27 14.86%26 20.00%35 21.71%38 175 3.37 Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14%23 16.00%28 12.00%21 16.00%28 13.71%24 13.14%23 9.71%17 6.29%11 175 4.89 175 0 Answered Skipped 6 7 812345 Additional Comments Answered 60 Skipped 115 Answer Choices I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69%62 I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67%40 I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07%88 I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79%25 Other (please specify)12.43%21 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses 71 Appendices Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8) the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 8 = least valuable): Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds’ public trees. Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City’s urban forest program? Please check all that apply. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Total Score Attractive to Residents14.86%2621.71%3816.00%2813.14%23 15.43%27 9.71%17 6.86%12 2.29%4 175 5.39 Beauty/Aesthetics34.29%6021.14%3714.86%2614.29%25 7.43%13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29 Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails21.71%3817.14%3024.00%4211.43%20 9.71%17 9.71%17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74 Shaded Parking2.86%53.43%68.57%159.71%17 8.57%15 17.71%31 19.43%34 29.71%52 175 3.03 Improve retail areas and neighborhoods5.14%910.29%1812.57%2213.71%24 19.43%34 18.29%32 14.29%25 6.29%11 175 4.25 Increased Property Values4.00%75.14%95.14%99.71%17 10.29%18 13.71%24 22.86%40 29.14%51 175 3.05 Passive recreation4.00%75.14%96.86%1212.00%21 15.43%27 14.86%26 20.00%35 21.71%38 175 3.37 Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles13.14%2316.00%2812.00%2116.00%28 13.71%24 13.14%23 9.71%17 6.29%11 175 4.89 175 0 Answered Skipped 6 7 812345 Answer Choices I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69%62 I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67%40 I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07%88 I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79%25 Other (please specify)12.43%21 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses 72Appendices Question 5 (Extended) Question 3 (Extended) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Daily 13.02%22 Weekly 11.83%20 Monthly 10.65%18 Several Times A Year 34.32%58 Never 30.18%51 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses Answer Choices Daily 5.33%9 Weekly 4.14%7 Monthly 2.96%5 Several Times A Year 41.42%70 Never 46.15%78 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses Answer Choices Daily 5.33%9 Weekly 2.96%5 Monthly 5.92%10 Several Times A Year 43.20%73 Never 42.60%72 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses 73 Appendices 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. 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? 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? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Strongly agree 10.65%18 Agree 59.17%100 Disagree 11.83%20 Strongly Disagree 8.88%15 Not Sure 9.47%16 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses 74Appendices Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds’ public trees. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Total Score None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88%15 10.06%17 25.44%43 45.56%77 6.51%11 169 1.92 Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38%26 9.47%16 21.89%37 26.04%44 23.08%39 4.14%7 169 2.67 Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51%11 24.26%41 27.81%47 26.04%44 10.65%18 4.73%8 169 2.89 Take care of hazardous trees.52.07%88 26.04%44 14.20%24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22 Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89%37 30.18%51 23.08%39 12.43%21 8.28%14 4.14%7 169 3.47 169 6Skipped Not Sure12345 Answered Answer Choices Strongly Agree 37.87%64 Agree 28.99%49 Disagree 17.16%29 Strongly disagree 5.33%9 not sure 10.65%18 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses Answer Choices Parks 59.17%100 Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36%102 Streetscapes 59.17%100 Golf Courses 11.24%19 Downtown 42.60%72 Trails and bike paths 45.56%77 Edmonds has enough public trees 20.12%34 Other (please specify)17.75%30 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses 75 Appendices Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees. 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) Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Total Score None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88%15 10.06%17 25.44%43 45.56%77 6.51%11 169 1.92 Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38%26 9.47%16 21.89%37 26.04%44 23.08%39 4.14%7 169 2.67 Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51%11 24.26%41 27.81%47 26.04%44 10.65%18 4.73%8 169 2.89 Take care of hazardous trees.52.07%88 26.04%44 14.20%24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22 Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89%37 30.18%51 23.08%39 12.43%21 8.28%14 4.14%7 169 3.47 169 6Skipped Not Sure12345 Answered 76Appendices Question 10 (Extended) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Seminars and workshops 44.38%75 Interpretive trails and displays 59.76%101 Website resources 62.72%106 Online videos (e.g. YouTube)24.26%41 Guided nature/tree walks 55.03%93 Informational brochures 43.20%73 Other (please specify)11.83%20 Answered 169 Skipped 6 Responses Additional Comments Answered 40 Skipped 135 Answer Choices Trees blocking my view 24.70%41 Trees shading my yard 9.04%15 Tree debris in my yard 12.65%21 Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67%114 Canopy loss 57.83%96 Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29%120 Other Concerns(please specify)18.67%31 Answered 166 Skipped 9 Responses 77 Appendices 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. Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public trees. Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98%20 Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37%29 Trees near my property block views 29.34%49 Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66%113 Trees near my property are healthy 59.28%99 I want more trees near my property 25.15%42 I have no trees near my property 0.60%1 I don't agree with any of these statements.2.40%4 Answered 167 Skipped 8 Responses Answer Choices Yes. The City should require property owners to preserve trees on private parcels where reasonably possible.53.89%90 No. This City of Edmonds should not concern itself with trees on private property.17.96%30 Not sure. This issue is more complicated.28.14%47 Answered 167 Skipped 8 Responses 78Appendices Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select any from this list any statements you agree with. 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? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Education and outreach 79.04%132 Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34%49 Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74%48 Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09%92 Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33%59 Other (please specify)22.75%38 Answered 167 Skipped 8 Responses Additional Comments Answered 44 Skipped 131 Answer Choices Male 28.66%47 Female 59.76%98 Gender Diverse 1.83%3 Prefer not to answer 9.76%16 Answered 164 Skipped 11 Responses 79 Appendices 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. Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private property. Question 20: Which gender do you identify with? 7.A.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices Under 18 0.00%0 18 to 25 1.22%2 26 to 35 4.27%7 36 to 45 11.59%19 46 to 55 21.34%35 56+61.59%101 Answered 164 Skipped 11 Responses Answer Choices Downtown/The Bowl 40.85%67 Westgate 7.32%12 Five Corners 8.54%14 Perrinville 4.88%8 Meadowdale 4.27%7 Seaview 15.24%25 Lake Ballinger 1.22%2 HWY 99 3.05%5 Other (please specify)14.63%24 Answered 164 Skipped 11 Responses 80Appendices Question 21: What age group are you representing? Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Answer Choices I am a resident of Edmonds 95.12%156 I am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98%18 I own a business in Edmonds 6.71%11 I appreciate public trees 72.56%119 I have planted public trees as a volunteer 18.90%31 I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98%18 I have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees 15.85%26 None of the above 0.61%1 Other (please specify)4.27%7 Answered 164 Skipped 11 Responses 81 Appendices Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds’ urban forest. (Choose all that apply) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Additional Comments Answered 33 Skipped 142 82Appendices Question 24: Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) 7.A.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 83 Appendices 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: Šhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ EdmondsUFMP Local media provided public announcements of the open house leading up to the event: Šhttp://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/ reminder-open-house-managing-citys-tree- cover-set-june-22/ Šhttps://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/ open-house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city- s-tree-cover/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines My Edmonds News covered the open house and provided a news story and video of the presentation to the public: Šhttp://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public- asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban- forest/ Šhttp://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now- video-open-house-plan-manage-edmonds- urban-forests/ 7.A.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate? Idea # Green Dots # Yellow Dots # Red Dots A. Improved Air Quality 11 0 1 B. Energy Savings 4 0 0 C. Water Quality/ Reduced Stormwater Runoff 14 0 0 D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0 E. Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0 F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0 G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails 4 0 3 H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4 I. Increased property values 7 2 3 J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0 K. Additional Ideas Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade- calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi-class (untreed neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- “the projects” don’t get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams; coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland desertification 0 0 0 City revenue increase with more views 0 0 0 Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1 84Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are preferred/valued? Idea # Green Dots # Yellow Dots # Red Dots A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)2 0 0 i. Species selection 4 0 0 ii. Tree planting 1 0 0 iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0 iv. Interactive tree selector 1 1 0 v. Irrigation 1 0 0 vi. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0 B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)3 0 0 i. Species selection 3 1 0 ii. Tree planting 1 0 0 iii. Tree pruning 3 1 0 iv. Irrigation 0 0 0 C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars)2 0 0 i. Tree planting 2 0 0 ii. Tree pruning 5 0 0 iii. Irrigation 0 0 0 iv. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0 D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0 Neighborhood meetings for education and outreach 0 0 0 Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0 Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property- amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online circulation] 0 0 0 New name needed 0 0 0 85 Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees in Edmonds? Idea # Green Dots # Yellow Dots # Red Dots A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9 B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7 C. Tree debris in my yard 1 1 5 D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3 E. Canopy loss 11 0 3 F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3 G. Additional Concerns Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows developers to completely clear treed lots for development (residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban 1 0 0 Someone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties 1 0 0 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 is removed for development 0 0 0 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 2 0 0 I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated additional concern. ***Note: for this opinion board: Green dots = concerned Red dots = not concerned 86Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Idea # Green Dots # Yellow Dots # Red Dots A. None (keep them natural)1 4 2 B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)7 1 3 C. Clearance only (keep sidewalks and streets clear)7 1 1 D. Take care of hazardous trees 10 2 0 E. Holistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)8 3 0 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. 0 0 0 Utilize/ plant and replace trees that “heave” the sidewalks. ie- avoid trees that interfere with built environment. 2 0 0 Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash trees. 0 0 0 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. 0 1 0 There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote “Agree” directly on the note itself. 87 Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees planted? Idea # Green Dots # Yellow Dots # Red Dots A. Parks 10 0 0 B. Open Spaces 10 0 1 C. Commercial properties 9 2 0 D. Streets and medians 7 3 2 E. Parking lots 10 0 0 F. Private properties 8 1 1 G. Additional Ideas Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool 1 0 0 Less trees in view areas 1 1 1 88Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on private property? Idea # Green Dots # Yellow Dots # Red Dots A. Free (or low-cost) trees 10 0 0 B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 3 0 0 C. Education and Outreach 16 0 0 D. Tree planting events 5 0 0 E. 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 Education- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for “views” we can cut out our lungs. 0 0 0 Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order to keep both trees and preserve view.3 0 0 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 meetings for general public) 0 0 0 89 Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 90Appendices 7.A.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 91 Appendices Additional anonymous comments: ŠChange name “Urban Forest”- bad impression, oxymoron. Suggestion- Best plant/tree for Best location ŠWondering what is/can be done to encourage people to maintain views for neighbors around them? ŠLet’s separate view areas from non-view areas. Right tree for right location. ŠI 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: ŠQuestion 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. ŠQuestion 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. ŠCommenter asked for clarification on defining “what is a tree”- a 30ft lilac…is that a tree? A big rhododendron- is that a tree? ŠCommenter 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? ŠCommenter 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. ŠQuestion 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? ŠQuestion 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. 7.A.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) 92Appendices Attendance City of Edmonds: ŠDave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council ŠShane Hope, Development Services Director ŠCarrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director ŠPhil Williams, Public Works and Utilities Director ŠKernen Lien, Senior Planner ŠRich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager ŠJeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager ŠBrad Shipley, Planner ŠDebora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff Project Team Members: ŠIan Scott, Davey Resources Group ŠIan Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group ŠKeeley O’Connell, Nature InSight Consulting Members of the public: ŠApproximately 50 7.A.a Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Att. 1: Edmonds UFMP July 2019 (Update on Urban Forest Management Plan) Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/28/2019 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 extended agenda will be reviewed at the meeting. Attachments: 08-28-2019 PB Extended Agenda 9.A Packet Pg. 133 Items and Dates are subject to change Extended Agenda August 28, 2019 Meeting Item AUGUST, 2019 August 28 1. UFMP Update 2. RoadMap Project (update on Ruckelshaus Center Report) SEPTEMBER, 2019 September 11 1. Joint Meeting with ADB: Design Review discussion 2. Update on Urban Forest Management Plan September 24 PB/Council Joint Meeting September 25 1. Continued deliberations on proposed Street Vacation Code Update Chapter 20.70 ECDC OCTOBER, 2019 October 9 1. Housing Commission Update 2. VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update (next steps in PSRC process) October 23 1. NOVEMBER, 2019 November 13 1. November 27 1. 9.A.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 08-28-2019 PB Extended Agenda (Review Planning Board Extended Agenda) Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 2019 1. Community Development Code Re-Organization 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:  Potential for “urban center” or transit-oriented design/development strategies  Parking standards 3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring Topics 1. Election of Officers (1st meeting in December) 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 9.A.a Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 08-28-2019 PB Extended Agenda (Review Planning Board Extended Agenda)