January 23, 2017Honorable Mayor Allison Silberberg and Members of City CouncilCity Hall301 King StreetAlexandria, VA 22314 Re: Green Building Policy and the Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Interdepartmental Long Range Planning Work ProgramDear Mayor Silberberg and Members of Council:The Environmental Policy Commission (EPC) respectfully disagrees with and offers an alternative to City Staff’s recent recommendation in their proposed FY 2018 Interdepartmental Long Range Planning Work Program (LRPWP) to delay indefinitely the update of the Green Building Policy. Their proposal to Planning Commission dated January 4, 2017 would delay the update until an unspecified time after the City completes its update of the Environmental Action Plan (EAP) and no sooner than 2020, 11 years after the original policy was approved by Council. Further, Staff would stop the Green Building preparatory work in mid-stream that was agreed to by Council, Staff, and the EPC in June 2015 and started in January 2016.1 The EPC makes recommendations below that would more efficiently deploy limited staff resources to update both the EAP and the Green Building Policy in less time than is currently proposed to update the EAP.According to the U.S. Department of Energy, buildings account for 38% of carbon dioxide emissions nationally making buildings one of the largest contributors to Alexandria’s own carbon footprint. They also contribute significantly to our current stormwater pollution problem. Green buildings are proven to use less energy, have lower carbon footprints and reduce stormwater runoff and should therefore be a cornerstone of our mitigation policies in these areas. In addition, a September 2015 study2 on the economic impact of green buildings shows that green building creates jobs and are measurably more valuable than non-green buildings. Given all of the pending development in Potomac Yard, Old Town North, Eisenhower West, Landmark, and other areas, it is particularly pressing to update the Green Building Policy soon to ensure that this new development, which will last for decades, is built to up-to-date green standards. Green building will also lower stormwater fees and utility bills for citizens and businesses. While the City’s Green Building Policy demonstrated regional leadership when Council approved it in 2009, the EPC does not agree with Staff’s assertion that it is “among one of the most environmentally advanced in the region”. In fact, as we documented in our December 2014 letter to Council3, Alexandria has actually fallen behind other neighboring jurisdictions, including Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery County, and the District of Columbia, Arlington County,

1The EPC has a long record of working with staff and Council on our Green Building policy. See appendix A for the full list of EPC, staff, and Council actions on Green Building. 2 https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56438d353dab34e8a1000061/green-building-economic-impact-study.pdf?kui=ntZxSELuij0YNSwkwEO_Kw 3 See Appendix B.

for example, opened an elementary school that is both LEED certified and net-zero energy (NZE) last year. Arlington is currently in the planning process for a second NZE school.The EPC recognizes that the City budget is constrained and that Staff needs to make trade offs when allocating scarce planning resources. However, the EPC believes that a more efficient planning approach is possible. Staff’s proposal suggests that the update of the EAP would occur over a 26-month period starting in January 2017 and culminating in a public hearing in March 2019. The proposed process is unjustifiably long. The Eco-City Charter directs the EPC to update the EAP “at least every five years.” This does not mean that it needs to be fundamentally rewritten as the proposed timeline suggests, especially considering that another update would be due just three years after this one is completed. Rather, EPC suggests that the City update the plan to incorporate new developments in science and technology, and to set specific policy and implementation priorities around integrated strategies for key issues, such as urban forestry,4 which should be implemented in the next five years. The EPC believes that this update can and should be completed in 12 months or less. Further, since many of the same stakeholders will be involved in updating both the EAP and the Green Building Policy, the updates should happen either concurrently or in immediate succession. In fact, in 2009 Council approved the Green Building Policy and the EAP within months of one another. Work on both occurred at the same time with one informing the other.New Proposed Process, Shorter and More ProductiveThe EPC therefore recommends that Council and Staff agree to revise the process:

1. January 2017 - January 2018: Continue the Green Building staff preparatory work in FY17 and FY18 as envisioned by the last two approved LRPWPs.

2. September 2018 - May 2018: Set May 2018 as the deadline for a public hearing to consider the proposed revisions to the EAP, thus shortening the process by 9 months.

3. May 2018 - December 2018: Reconstitute a Green Building Working Group similar to the one that was established to draft the current Green Building Policy to begin developing recommendations for a revised policy no later than May 2018 and earlier if staff resources allow. Set December 2018 as the deadline for a public hearing to consider proposed revisions to the Green Building policy as proposed by the Working Group.

Such a revised process would deploy staff resources more efficiently to achieve multiple goals - the update of the EAP and Green Building Policy in less time than staff currently proposes to complete the EAP update alone. Finally, the EPC would be remiss if we did not recognize that Council approved the creation of a Sustainability Coordinator position in the FY 2017 budget expressly to expand staff capacity to more effectively meet our sustainability planning and programming needs. We applaud Council for their support of this position. However, we are concerned that while the position is

4Appendix C - April 18, 2016 letter from Planning, Park and Recreation, Alexandria Beautification and Environmental Policy Commissions to Mayor and City Council

budgeted, Staff has yet to publish a job notice. The new Sustainability Coordinator will play an instrumental role in the effort to update these plans, and their hiring should be a Staff priority.Thank you for your continued leadership and steadfast commitment to building a sustainable Alexandria.Sincerely,

Jim KapsisChairAlexandria Environmental Policy Commission

AppendixAEPCGreenBuildingHistory

1. December2007.WhitepaperonGreenBuildinginAlexandriapublishedthatkickedoffefforttoestablishtheCity’sfirstGreenBuildingPolicy.

2. April2009.GreenBuildingPolicyapprovedbyCityCouncil3. Summer2014.EPCmakesupdatingtheGreenBuildingPolicyapriorityatits

summerplanningretreatandconductsaresearchprojectonGreenBuildingbestpractices.

4. December2014.EPCsendsamemotoCityCouncilrecommendingaprocesstoupdatetheGreenBuildingPolicyinthe1Hof2015,proposesascopeofwork,andincludesresearchonpoliciesinotherjurisdictions.

5. January2015.TheCity’sproposedLongRangeWorkProgram(LWRP)proposespushingtheGreenBuildingPolicyupdatetoFY2018.

6. June2015.AfterextensivediscussionwithKarlMoritzandmembersofCouncil,theStaff,Council,andtheEPCagreetodopreparatoryworkstartinginFY16onGreenBuildingpolicyresearchandtomakepilotingnewGreenBuildingpoliciesapriorityfortheupcomingOldTownNorthSAP.

7. December2015.EPCsendsalettertoCouncilontheproposedFY2017budgetandrecommendsmovingtheGreenBuildingPolicyupdatetoFY2017fromtheproposedFY2018.

8. January2016.CityStaffisscheduledtobeginresearchprojectexaminingdifferentgreenbuildingcertificationapproachestoinformfuturediscussionsonwhatcertificationstheCitydeemstobeequivalent.

9. June2016.FinalLRWPincludesGBpolicyworkthroughFY17andtheupdatingoftheGBpolicytobegininFY18.

10. December2016.EPCurgesCouncilinannualbudgetlettertokeepGreenBuildingupdateonscheduleintheFY2018LRWP.

11. January2016.CitystaffproposesindefinitelydelayingtheupdateoftheGreenBuildingpolicyuntilafterthecompletionoftheEAPupdate.

12. January2017.Cityisscheduledtocompletetheresearchprojectonequivalency,andcommenceaprojectexamininghowtheCitymightcodifyasetofGreenBuildingprioritiestorequiredeveloperstomeetastheypursuecompliancewiththeCity’sGreenBuildingPolicy.

12/14/14, 8:14 PMArlington Updates Green Building Incentive Program | Arlington County Newsroom

Page 1 of 2http://news.arlingtonva.us/releases/arlington-updates-green-building-incentive-program

Arlington County Homepage

Arlington Virginia Newsroom

Search Search Newsroom County Site

Arlington Updates Green Building Incentive ProgramNovember 15, 2014

Providing incentives to site plan developmentsAsking for more energy efficiency, less environmental impactRequiring office buildings to earn energy performance certification to participateReflecting goals of County’s Community Energy Plan

The Arlington County Board voted today to update its Green Building Incentive Program. The update emphasizes energy performance and reducedoverall environmental impact for site plan developments that voluntarily seek incentives under the program. The Green Building Incentive Programis designed to encourage the construction of buildings that are more energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable than buildings built to code.

“Building codes are being updated to require more energy efficient buildings,” said Arlington County Board Chair Jay Fisette. “Our Green BuildingIncentive Program offers project developers the option of reaching beyond code requirements to achieve greater energy efficiency in return forincreased density. This update ensures that we are making a fair trade of density for energy efficiency and overall environmental performance.”

The Board voted 4-1 to approve the updates.

LEED revisions led to County program’s updateThe Green Building Incentive Program update was driven by revisions to the LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) green buildingrating system, advances in green building technology, and the County’s own aggressive energy targets, as laid out in the Community Energy Plan.

Developers, members of the County’s Planning Commission and Environment and Energy Conservation Commission, architects, energy engineers,commercial leasing brokers and County planners helped shape the update to focus on improved energy efficiency in design and construction, andenergy performance once the building is occupied. The update includes:

Use of the new LEED Version 4 green building rating system, which accounts for changes in technology and building code updates andincludes a separate rating system for multi-family buildings.More density available for office and multi-family site plan projects that address Arlington’s environmental priorities, including: greaterenergy efficiency, site ecology, stormwater management and building reuse.Incorporation of Energy Star certification as an energy performance component after the building is occupied.Incorporation of the Earthcraft rating system for projects seeking VHDA (Virginia Housing Development Authority) tax credits for affordablehousing projectsIncentive for Net Zero Energy development (Net Zero buildings generate as much clean energy onsite as they use over the course of a year)

The updated program is effective immediately, with an 11-month grandfathering period ending September 15, 2015. To read the staff report on thisitem, visit the County website. Scroll down to Item #29 on the November 15, 2014 Regular County Board Meeting Agenda.

About Arlington’s Green Building Incentive ProgramArlington launched its Green Building Incentive Program in 2000 and has updated it four times since then to ensure that the program incentsdevelopers to build exemplary projects that meet stringent environmental standards. Since 2000, 56 site plan projects have agreed to achieve LEEDcertification. Nineteen of these buildings have been built, achieved their LEED commitments, and complied with the green building site plan

12/14/14, 8:14 PMArlington Updates Green Building Incentive Program | Arlington County Newsroom

Page 2 of 2http://news.arlingtonva.us/releases/arlington-updates-green-building-incentive-program

conditions, and another 20 are under construction.

Arlington, Va., is a world-class residential, business and tourist location that was originally part of the "10 miles square" parcel of land surveyed in1791 to be the Nation's Capital. Slightly smaller than 26 square miles, it is the geographically smallest self-governing county in the United States,and one of only a handful with the prized Aaa/AAA/AAA bond rating. Arlington maintains a rich variety of stable neighborhoods and qualityschools, and has received numerous awards for Smart Growth and transit-oriented development. Home to some of the most influential organizationsin the world -- including the Pentagon -- Arlington stands out as one of America's preeminent places to live, visit and do business.

Categories: News Releases, County Board, Real Estate, Community Energy Plan, Planning, Projects & Planning

Newsroom HomeCounty NewsNews ReleasesPolice NewsContactsNoticias en EspañolAwardsExecutive BiosPublications

Images

HD Video Library

Arlington TV

Blogs

Local Media

Guidelines for the Media During Elections

Local Media List

RSSSubscribePrint

TwitterFacebookYouTube

FlickrCalendarConnect with us

Media Contacts

Joan Kelsch703-228-3599Email

Contact Us • Site Map • Terms and Conditions • Comments Policy

2100 Clarendon Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201 Tel: 703-228-3000 TTY: 703-228-4611

12/14/14, 8:15 PMFairfax County Strengthens Its Green Building Policy - Fairfax County, Virginia

Page 1 of 2http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2014/fairfax-strengthens-green-building-policy.htm

Search Site: Go Advanced SearchHome Living Here Doing Business Visiting Departments & Agencies

News HighlightsThe updated policy strengthens and improves the county's existing green building policy that was first adopted as part of theComprehensive Plan in 2007.

The policy applies to private developments that require county zoning approvals, including residential, retail, office and other projects.

In addition to this policy for private developments, the county also has committed to build its own facilities to meet green standards—with16 certified green building to date.

Fairfax County strengthened its green building policy in its land use plan,encouraging higher standards for residential and commercial development.

The county first adopted a green building policy as part of itsComprehensive Plan in 2007, and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors’action today improves and refines this existing policy. The policy applies toresidential, retail, office and other projects for which approval is beingsought through the county’s zoning process. The policy does not mandatedevelopers to meet green standards, but it provides guidance on the county’srecommendations for new or renovated buildings that require zoning approvals.

“Fairfax County’s Green Building Policy is a major component of our Board’sEnvironmental Agenda and my own efforts toward making Fairfax County aleader in energy efficiency,” said Fairfax County Chairman Sharon Bulova.“Business leaders understand the value of this policy not only for itsenvironmental benefits, but also the savings they achieve and the competitiveadvantage of low energy costs.”

The amended policy offers incremental improvements rather thanwholesale changes:

It updates the policy to reflect advances in available green building ratingsystems.

It continues to support LEED® certification or equivalent, particularly forcertain proposals within higher density areas of the county, and extends thissupport to industrial areas.

For residential proposals, it expands from a previous focus on ENERGYSTAR® Qualified Homes to support green building rating systems thatincorporate additional green building concepts.

It adds support for higher levels of green building performance whenproposed developments have relatively high levels of intensity or density.

It adds green building guidance for development in public-privatepartnerships.

It adds support for infrastructure needed to install electric vehiclecharging stations.

It encourages collecting data on the water and energy use forindividual green buildings. This data would be anonymous andaggregated in order to help buildings owners, developers and the countyevaluate the costs and benefits for green building.

In the six years since the policy’s adoption, the county has received well over100 commitments from developers for the design and construction ofgreen buildings.

In addition to this policy for private development, the county committed to buildits own facilities to meet green standards.

Since 2008, Fairfax County has built 16 certified green buildings. Exceptfor two buildings, all were certified through the U.S. Green Building Council’sLeadership in Energy & Environmental Design rating system or LEED for short.The majority of these buildings received LEED Gold certification, the secondhighest certification. This rating also exceeds the county’s policy, which calls forLEED Silver certification.

Safari Power SaverClick to Start Flash Plug-in

Safari Power SaverClick to Start Flash Plug-in

PrinterFriendly

TextSize

TextOnlyIndex

Contacts/DirectionsNewsWire

Emergency Information

Social Media

703-FAIRFAXMedia Relations

Online Services

Our Government

News and Events

Maps, Facts & Stats

State & Federal

homepage > news releases > newswire:

Fairfax County Strengthens Its Green Building Policy

July 1, 2014

12/14/14, 8:15 PMFairfax County Strengthens Its Green Building Policy - Fairfax County, Virginia

Page 2 of 2http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2014/fairfax-strengthens-green-building-policy.htm

Green buildings reduce water and energy consumption, thereby reducingemissions of greenhouse gases. Based on the county’s greenhouse gasinventory released last year, 63 percent of these gases in 2010 were producedby energy consumption from residential, commercial, industrial and governmentbuildings. However, the energy used by county government buildings, includingschools, only generated 2.42 percent of emissions.

Fairfax updated its green policy at the direction of the board. When it adoptedthe policy in 2007, the board requested the Fairfax County PlanningCommission to update the policy at a future date.

To amend the policy, the commission and county staff worked with developers,environmental organizations, community groups and others.

###

Contact Fairfax County: Phone, Email or Twitter | Main Address: 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, VA 22035Technical Questions: Web Administrator

ADA Accessibility | Website Accessibility Awards | FOIA | Mobile | Using this Site | Web Disclaimer & Privacy Policy | Get Adobe Reader

Official site of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, © Copyright 2013

Website Feedback Language Translations

Facilitating Clean and A

ffordable R

esidential Natural G

as in Alexandria

1

Melissa E. A

dams,

Division H

ead, Sales &

Economic D

evelopment

Novem

ber 3, 2014

Energy Productivity – Room

for Im

provement

2

The$loss$of$usable$energy$associated$with$electricity$equals$about$half$of$the$total$

energy$consumed$in$the$residen7al$and$com

mercial$sectors.$$

Direct C

onsumption of N

atural Gas

• Three%&mes%as%m

uch%energy;%%33%%less%CO

2 %at%delivery%%

3

Natural G

as Utility B

usiness Models

Promote Energy Efficiency

4

Washington G

as is Unbundled

Gas distribution and gas supply charges are separate

Gas distribution charges are regulated by P

UC

s C

ustomers m

ay choose a competitive gas supplier

Utility receives no profit on gas com

modity

Washington G

as is Decoupled

Distribution rates support energy efficiency

Revenue is not based on volum

etric rates B

enefits customers and the environm

ent

… and Energy Literacy and C

ustomer

Outreach

5

CO2 Pounds/Year

+ 23,386 + 7,144

1 Based on a 3-person, 2300 square foot S

F home in the D

C M

etro region

… w

ith Rebates &

Incentives to Encourage Wise

Energy Use and Efficient A

ppliance Installation

6

Electric Fuel Source C

oal remains the dom

inant fuel source for electricity generation in our area

Source: http://oaspub.epa.gov/pow

pro/ept_pack.charts

Extensive infrastructure in Alexandria m

akes natural gas readily available to developers…

8

…Yet natural gas is largely unavailable in new

m

ulti-family developm

ents

9

Gas$Availability

ProjectsUnits

Unit$Share

Individually*metered

00

0.00%Group*M

etered*(serving*units)1

43417.96%

Gas*on*Premises*(e.g..,*lobby*heat*only)

3667

27.60%No*gas*on*prem

ises4

1,31654.45%

TOTAL

82,417

Barriers to N

atural Gas A

doption

10

• Single Fam

ily / Townhouse

• Internal piping and venting costs • A

ppliance Costs

• Service line installation to the property

• Lack of consumer aw

areness of benefits

Residents

• Multi-Fam

ily • S

pace for individual meters

• Investment cost for internal piping and venting for the building

• Principal agency problem

where tenants benefit from

initial builder investm

ent

Builders

Despite the environm

ental benefits and operating cost advantages of natural gas, the initial investm

ent costs of installing pipe and procuring new appliances

can be a challenge for many builders and custom

ers.

Creating R

esidential Natural G

as Availability

11

What can A

lexandria do? – R

equire inclusion of individually metered units in m

ulti-family

– Focus efforts on clean affordable housing – R

eward developers for individual m

etering (e.g., density bonus) – R

equire transparent reporting and comparisons of building carbon footprint

– Partner w

ith financial institution(s) to offer favorable loan terms to residents and

builders installing natural gas – D

evelop VA PAC

E program

to provide funding to builders that is later recovered through increm

ental property taxes

What can W

ashington Gas do?

– Seek support/approval of beneficial program

s from state regulators

• Provide rebates to builders to help cover the increm

ental cost of internal gas piping • S

ubmetering (?)

• Partner w

ith manufacturers to offer rebate incentives to builders

* S

ee NJN

G S

aveGreen program

: http://ww

w.savegreenproject.com

/featured-pages/o-apr-on-bill-repaym

ent-program#residential

Fuel Com

parisons: Gas vs Electric

12

Annual&Fuel&Comparisons&in&Alexandria

By&CategoryMMBtu

Therms

Avg&CostLbs/CO

2kW

hAvg&Cost

Lbs/CO2

Space H

eating36.3

363

424$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

4,246$$$$$$$$$$$$$

10,639

1,183$$$$$$$$$$$

12,091$$$$$$$$$$

Water H

eating14.9

148.72

174$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

1,740$$$$$$$$$$$$$

4,359

484$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

4,954$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Other

38.0

379.711,128

A

nnual Total (Typical HH

)89

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&891

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&598

$&&&&&&&&&&&&&&10,428

&&&&&&&&&&26,126

&&&&&&&&&&1,667

$&&&&&&&&&&17,045

&&&&&&&&&&

MMBtu2kW

h$conversion$factor293.08

$$$$$$$$$$$$$Weighted$Avg$Cost/Th$(NG)

1.17$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Weighted$Avg$Cost/kW

h$(Elec)0.111

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Lbs$CO

2$per$1000$kWh$(zip$$22302)

1,137$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Lbs$CO2$per$M

MBtu$N

G116.98

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Sources:&Energy&Information&Adm

inistration&(EIA),&EPA&(Power&Profiler),&W

ashington&Gas&&

&Dom

inion&tariffs

Links:

http://www.eia.gov/consum

ption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view

=characteristics

http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm

?page=about_energy_conversion_calculator2basics

http://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts

Natural&G

asElectric

Converting a furnace and w

ater heater from electric to natural gas can save a typical

homeow

ner over $1,000 per year and reduce CO

2 emissions by nearly 40%

Links:$h"p://w

ww.eia.gov/consum

p3on/residen3al/data/2009/index.cfm?view

=characteris3cs?h"p://w

ww.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm

?page=about_energy_conversion_calculatorDbasics?h"p://oaspub.epa.gov/pow

pro/ept_pack.charts?

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Natural G

as E

lectric

Gas vs E

lectric Average Annual C

ost

Space H

eating

Water H

eating

By#CategoryMMBtu

Therms

Avg#CostLbs/CO

2kW

hAvg#Cost

Lbs/CO2

Space H

eating36.3

363

424

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4,246

$$$$$$$$$$$$$10,639

1,183

$$$$$$$$$$$12,091

$$$$$$$$$$W

ater Heating

14.9

149

174$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

1,740$$$$$$$$$$$$$

4,359

484$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

4,954$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Other

38.0

380

11,128

Annual Total (Typical H

H)

89####################

891################

598$##############

10,428##########

26,126##########

1,667$##########

17,045##########

Natural#G

asElectric

Page%1%of%6%%

DATE: April 18, 2016

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: THE PLANNING COMMISSION

THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION

THE ALEXANDRIA BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION

THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COMMISSION

SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN AND THE URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN

We are writing to request your support for the implementation of goals contained in two documents that you adopted in 2009: the Environmental Action Plan (EAP) and the Urban Forestry Master Plan (UFMP). The UFMP and EAP are excellent resources that reflect extensive research, expertise, and thoughtful input from the Alexandria citizenry and City staff. We seek to increase the implementation of the goals that they contain, particularly those that address:

• Sustaining and enhancing the City’s tree canopy coverage and • Promoting the use of vegetation that provides the greatest benefits to our environment.

Specifically, we are requesting that City Council establish a work group consisting of members from multiple commissions and an inter-departmental staff team to review, update and recommend steps for implementing a key set of goals, policies, and strategies included in the EAP and UFMP. This work group would provide essential input to, among other things, initiatives on the City’s proposed Long Range Work Plan for FY17 and FY18, including “Open Space in New Development” and “Landscape Guidelines Update Implementing Urban Forestry Master Plan.” We fully support the City’s plans to take up those initiatives, but believe it necessary to first revisit the goals in the UFMP and EAP and to provide alignment with the City’s current organizational, budgetary, and environmental needs and conditions.

The Environmental Policy Commission would also use the results of this work group’s efforts as input to the update of the EAP, which it expects to be completed in FY17.

Page%2%of%6%%

BACKGROUND

The state of the City’s trees and other plants in its urban forest is of great importance to the citizens of Alexandria. These unsung heroes often are taken for granted, yet they offer innumerable, cross-cutting benefits:

• Their leaves, bark, and blossoms bring beauty to our streets, parks and public places. • They provide homes and food for our birds, squirrels, bees, butterflies, and other wildlife. • Their canopies and roots absorb enormous quantities of rainwater – preventing the

creation of stormwater runoff that we would otherwise have to manage. • Their shade protects us from the sun and reduces the energy required to cool buildings. • They sequester carbon and remove pollutants from the air and from stormwater. • They are essential to our lives and our ecosystems, and contribute mightily to our bottom

line: our UFMP calculated their value at over $4 million annually.

Since adoption of the EAP and UFMP, the City’s Recreation, Parks and Cultural Activities Department (RPCA) has initiated many efforts that improve the extent and health of our trees. Examples include shifting toward a pro-active approach to tree maintenance; initiating an inventory of all trees along City streets and at public facilities; expanding the invasive plant control program; and, thanks to City Council, investing in additional tree care and plantings through a capital improvement program.

Nevertheless, if the City is to achieve the goals in the EAP and UFMP, it will need to address some challenges and obstacles to implementing those two plans. For example:

! A recent three-year baseline study of the City’s tree canopy by RPCA’s Urban Forestry Section and Planning and Zoning’s GIS Division measured Alexandria’s tree canopy at 34% (which means that Alexandria falls short of the UFMP goal of 40% by 21,000 oak trees or 104,000 crape myrtles).1

! Growth and re-development place extreme pressure on both the health of our trees and the percent of canopy cover.

! The City’s Landscape Guidelines are important in the review processes for applicants

seeking approval of site plans and special use permits. They were last updated in 2007, and do not reflect the recommendations contained in the EAP and UFMP, which were published two years later. Areas in need of revision include deletion of any plants that are known to be environmentally harmful (“invasive”) in our area, addition of requirements for care and maintenance during a two- or three-year establishment period for all new plants, an increased emphasis on the use of plants that are native to this area, and a reevaluation of the crown coverage allowances (CCA).2

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%1 Estimates of tree quantities are based on tree canopy coverage allowances provided in the City’s Landscape Guidelines (see next footnote). 2 Trees and shrubs are assigned to a CCA group based on the typical canopy size of the particular species at maturity in an urban environment. Planning and Zoning uses these allowances to determine the projected canopy cover of a landscape plan submitted for review. However, as City staff has noted, the

Page%3%of%6%%

! Their implementation is dependent upon cooperation from a wide array of City

departments. (Although measurement of our canopy is the responsibility of RPCA, many other departments throughout the City – from Planning and Zoning to General Services to Alexandria City Public Schools -- have roles with major implications for our canopy.)

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. City Council establish a nine (9) member work group to review, update, and recommend steps to implement goals and policies of the EAP and UFMP related to the City’s tree canopy and plant selection. The proposed charge of this work group is to provide the City Manager with recommendations that would include, but not be limited to:

• Adjustments to the goals in the EAP and UFMP to reflect City organizational changes and new information made available since 2009.3

• Revisions to make to the City’s Landscape Guidelines to align it with the EAP and UFMP goals.

• Policies, programs, public-private partnerships and future capital and operating budget needs to help implement the EAP and UFMP goals.

Pursuant to City Code Section 2.4.8, the initial term of this temporary work group will be for one year from the date of its initial meeting. If necessary, City Council can extend the term for up to two additional years. It is recommended that the work group be directed to begin its efforts in late spring of calendar year 2016 and complete its recommendations to the City Manager by the end of FY 2017.

2. City Council authorize the City Manager to appoint the nine members of the work group based on the following categories:

• Two members representing the Environmental Policy Commission • One member representing the Park and Recreation Commission

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%CCAs are overly optimistic; they over-project the square footage of canopy cover that a tree ultimately will provide. This is particularly problematic in view of the City’s desire to achieve a 40% canopy cover: 90% of Alexandria’s urban forest is located on private property or property not under direct control of the City (See UFMP), where we continually experience the greatest loss of canopy. Given that we require that site plans under review demonstrate a projected canopy coverage of only 25%, it is very important that we not overestimate the canopy that young trees will ultimately provide. 3 See Attachment A for a list of the UFMP and EAP components that we recommend be the focus of this effort. %%

Page%4%of%6%%

• One member representing the Alexandria Beautification Commission • One member representing the Planning Commission • One staff member representing Transportation & Environmental Services • Two staff member representing RPCA Park Planning and Park Operations • One staff member representing Planning and Zoning

We thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have questions, please contact Susan Gitlin, Vice Chair, Environmental Policy Commission, at 703-819-8410 or smcg611@gmail.com.

Sincerely,

Jim Kapsis Chair, Environmental Policy Commission and on behalf of Jennifer Atkins Chair, Park and Recreation Commission Mary Lyman Chair, Planning Commission Denise Tennant Chair, Alexandria Beautification Commission

Page%5%of%6%%

ATTACHMENT A: RECOMMENDED FOCAL AREAS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PLAN AND THE URBAN FORESTRY MASTER PLAN From the EAP, all in Principle 7: Land Use & Open Space, beginning on p.41: Targets:

1) By 2015, ensure that all plantings on City property are non-invasive and incorporate native plants.

2) By 2020, achieve 40% tree canopy coverage.

Goal 3 actions (beginning on p. 44): 1) The City will lead by example by utilizing low impact landscape practices where

possible, such as perennial and native plant species, rain gardens, reduced fertilizer and pesticide usage, and encouraging the removal of invasive species.

2) Set minimum standards for open space and green space in Small Area Plans and other City plans that can be met in part through green roofs, green decks over underground parking, or green surface lots.

3) Seek authority to require all new developments, including single family homes, to provide 40% crown coverage on site. Require no less than 40% crown cover when sites are developed or redeveloped, within these parameters:

• When trees are cleared from a site, increase replacement requirement for removal of large caliper trees.

• Change crown coverage assumptions in City requirements to reduce the credit allocated for younger, smaller trees.

• Set a minimum amount of the total crown coverage to be achieved through on-site trees and require payment to Living Landscape Fund for failure to achieve full requirement.

4) By 2015, ensure that all plantings by Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities Department (RPCA) are non-invasive, flood- and drought-tolerant, 80% perennial plants, and that native plants are used wherever possible.

From the UFMP: Goal: Increase Alexandria’s Tree Canopy, and its supporting recommendations, particularly: Recommendation 1: Adopt American Forests’ recommended tree canopy coverage goal of 40% and develop a citywide strategy to meet this goal. Recommendation 5: Actively seek ways to increase Alexandria’s tree canopy on private property. Recommendation 9: Achieve and maintain a species diversity where no single genus comprises 15% and no single species comprises 5% of the total population. Goal: Improve stream corridors and other natural areas through urban forest management, and its supporting recommendations, particularly:

Page%6%of%6%%

Recommendation 28. Encourage the establishment and healthy growth of native tree species through planting and maintenance. Recommendation 29. Control invasive plant species. Goal: Strengthen Alexandria’s ability to protect and increase its tree canopy as permitted by State and local regulation, and its supporting recommendations: Recommendation 37. Evaluate, update, and enforce the City’s existing rules and regulations. Recommendation 38. Increase and maximize the amount of tree canopy coverage required for Development Special Use Permits.