1. Mason Gulch landscape Management plan WORKSHOP
May 25, 2016
PRR – Brett Intro/welcome – logistics (bathroom)
Ask how many people were here last time.
Lorna
In the interest of time, I’m not going to start at the beginning and the ES role. Instead we are going to start at the end of our last public meeting…
At our last meeting we committed to a more in depth study session to dig into code, the plan and clearly identify topics that you as neighbors can influence. This is that meeting.
We plan to cover a lot of material and to provide you with the details necessary to fully understand the purpose of the plan. We have assembled a panel of “Subject Matter experts”. They will be presenting and answering questions on the requirements and science that govern this plan. Then we will brainstorm and talk about the elements that the requirements don’t address. These are the topics that can provide some flexibility and allow for neighborhood preference.

2. Tonight's Agenda Introduction Tax assessment/Re-evaluation
Review TMC Critical Areas Preservation
Review Draft Management Plan
Characterization
Objectives/Procedures
City Actions
Private Actions
Discuss Opportunities for Preference

3. Tonight’s Panel PIERCE COUNTY
Mike Lonergan/Jim Hall – Pierce County Assessor
CONSULTANTS
Curtis LaPierre – Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
Jeff Wale - Robinson Noble
CITY STAFF
Lorna Mauren – Environmental Services
Desiree Pooley – Environmental Services, Project Manager
Shannon Brenner/Craig Kuntz – Planning Development Services
Mike Carey – Office of Sustainability, Urban Forester

4. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Assessment Workload
Six Year Inspection Cycle (re-appraisal)
New Construction
Appeals
Segregations
Administrative Appraisals
Trend Properties not Reappraised
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

5. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Pierce County Statistics
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

6. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Review and Update Property Characteristics
Views
Subjective
Can be Ever Changing
Pierce County has Nine View Quality Ratings
Primarily impacts land value
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

7. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

8. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

9. Tax assessment re-evaluation Area 16 View Multipliers
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

10. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

11. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

12. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Appeals
Start by Reviewing Your Characteristics on the Assessor-Treasurers’ Website
Questions?
Call our Office
May Need to File a Protective Appeal
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

13. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Appeals
When to File
Within 60 Days of Receiving Your Value Change Notice
Where to File
Board of Equalization
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

14. Tax assessment re-evaluation
Appeals – Cont.
What to expect
“The board considers matters of equalization and determines whether or not assessed valuations exceed 100% of the property's fair market value. In their deliberations, the board cannot consider matters such as personal hardship, tax levy rates, overall tax amounts or other matters unrelated to the valuation of the property.”
You will be asked to show why your property is over-assessed.
The assessor will be asked to support their value.
Jim Hall
Mike Lonergan

15. TMC 13.11 - Critical Areas preservation – Shannon Brenner
– Allowed Activities
– Wetlands
– Streams and Riparian Habitats
– Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
– Flood Hazard Areas
– Geologically Hazardous Areas
– Aquifer Recharge Areas
Shannon
Permit process is required and driven by code.
Municipalities have code because it is required by state law to govern activities.
See TMC Handout
Bolded are the ones that apply to Mason Gulch.
Classification/Definitions/Buffers/Standards/Mitigation Requirements
TMC - Lays out the rules and parameters that will protect these areas from development and actions
As we have seen in previous meetings – all of Mason Gulch is a critical area based on these definitions

16. TMC 13.11.200 – Allowed Activities
Allowed activities with staff review (limited)
Maintenance of structures, facilities, roads
Invasive species removal under 1,000sf
Debris removal
– Application Types (3 types)
Minor Development Permit
Shannon
Because ES wants to do more than 1000 sf of invasive removal we must get a permit.
We chose to get the development permit because we wanted to get a 20 year cumulative work permit
Because we want to do work in a critical area – requires permit and the permit requires the management plan.

17. TMC 13.11.230 - Application submittal requirements
JARPA
SEPA
Site Plan
Wetland Delineation
Mitigation
Monitoring plan, etc.
B5 – Programmatic Development Permit
Requires Management Plan
Shannon
These are the items that are required.
Explain briefly each one and how these items help feed the management plan

18. Tmc 13.11.700 - Geologically hazardous areas
TMC Classification
Erosion Hazard Areas
Landslide Hazard Areas
TMC – General Development Standards
A.1.d. & i. and B.1.d. & m. “Clearing” and “Trimming and limbing of vegetation….”’
NEED GeoTech report and guidance
Craig?
Slopes above 40% are considered steep slopes by TMC definition
They are also identified by DOE as erosion and landslide hazard areas for “unstable” soils.
The City uses standards to evaluate the actions on the slope.
A management plan tells us what actions are proposed – we require assurance and evaluation by a licensed geotechnical engineer.
Environmental Services hired ESA to compile the data from other consultants and prepare the management plan for permitting.
ESA – Curtis LaPierre

19. Draft mason Gulch Landscape management plan
Curtis LaPierre – ESA
Jeff Wale - Robinson Noble
Management plan satisfies code requirements allowing work to be permitted in critical areas

20. 3.0 Existing Conditions 3.1 Geology (Critical Area) 3.2 Vegetation
3.3 Surface water (Critical Area)
Wetlands/Wetland buffers
Streams/Seeps
3.4 Public Use
N. End Treatment Plant
ESA
We need a management plan to submit and comply with the code
Audience will have Management Plan handout.
Sections 1 and 2 of the Management Plan are the intro and site history
Section 3.0 of the Management Plan lays out the existing conditions – data collected
3.1 Geology
Slopes at XX% on average;
Angle of repose
Soils – sandy/clay at bottom
Factor of Safety
Explain definition, On slopes near Mason and Stevens
Active movement noted – recent tree falling
3.2 Vegetation
Describe existing vegetation briefly
ACMA dominated, invasives around edge, past mismanagement
3.3 Surface Water
Large stream and wetland complex
Hydrology has been modified by collection system
3.4 Public Use
No trails
North End Treatment Plant – not moving
All critical areas

21. 4.0 Goals, objectives and standards
Overall goal is to improve stormwater benefit
4.1 Target Ecosystem
Mesic Wet Doug Fir Western Hemlock
Phased approach
1/3 deciduous trees/acre
2/3 conifer trees/acre
ESA
Section 4 –
OVERALL GOAL: is to benefit stormwater quality and quantity
Existing conditions it is stuck in succession – goal is healthy target ecosystem
Mesic Wet Doug Fir Western Hemlock
Phased approach over many years – 20 years per permit but it will probably take longer than that.
Phase out some deciduous (goal 1/3 of trees/acre), plant evergreen conifers (goal 2/3 of trees/acre)

22. 4.2 Management Considerations
Slope Stability
Forest Health
Public Safety
Views from Adjacent Areas
Voluntary Stewardship
ESA
4.2 Balance of all of the issues/desires/wants/needs
Slope Stability – soil binding root mass. Need vegetation with roots to hold soils in place with differing size and depth. Also vegetation absorbs and intercepts rainfall/water.
Forest Health – Reduce invasives. Increase native plants - to diversify species, age, increase sustainability over time
Public Safety – Protect public infrastructure above (road) and below (WWTP)
Views from Adjacent Areas – will be on next slide
Voluntary Stewardship – Provide opportunities for the public to be involved and educational opportunities

23. 4.2.4 Views from adjacent areas
Public views
Follow ANSI Standards for Pruning
All other plan goals must be reached prior and any mitigation planting must reach establishment (3 years min.)
Private views
Privately initiated process
Same as Public view goals
ESA
Public Views
ANSI standards:
Only 25% of a trees crown may be reduced in any given year
no topping
completed only in dormant season (October - March)
The City will look at if and/or where 100% soil binding root mass exists – needs tree inventory – measured 1’ radius for every 1” in DBH
Private view process we will discuss at an end slide

24. Definition - Slope TERMS
ESA
Explain slope terms

25. Definition – slope gradient

26. 5.0 Landscape Management procedures
5.1 Total Project Size
5.2 Plant Selection
5.3 Plant Installation
5.4 Erosion Control
5.5 Invasive Species Control
5.6 Public Safety
ESA
Parameters/Standards/Protocol for how things get done.
Manageable chunks – 2 acres is the estimated level of effort based on current resources
Talk about “Sunny swaths” concept
5.2 – Plant selection – native plants are necessary within the wetlands and wetland buffers otherwise it is 50% native but negotiable (Habitat Corridors language).
Invasive plants not acceptable.
Recommended plants for the slope - must exhibit slope stabilization properties.
Plant installation – techniques for best success and/or recommend soil amendments – Example: live staking
5.4 – Erosion Control – it is not our intent to use hard engineered solutions – like anchored matting but if we had an emergency situation we may need to
5.5 – Invasive species control – bamboo, knotweed, Himalayan blackberry, Scott’s broom, English Holly, and more! Public Safety – sight distance clearance, unauthorized trail decommissioning,

27. 5.7 Views from adjacent areas (PLAN)
Identifies proper pruning methods:
Windowing Inter-limbing Skirting-up
ESA
Topping not allowed, not sustainable or healthy for the tree
Must be performed to ANSI standards
No more than 25% of crown can be removed in one year

28. 6.0 landscape management plan implementation
6.1 City Actions
Management Units

29. “sunny patches” - concept

30. 6.2 Privately initiated Actions
Vegetation Modification Request
An applicant benefits from City gathered data and permit
Anticipate additional efforts depending upon the specific area and scope
Anticipate cost as public dollars cannot pay for private benefit
Mike C
The management plan may have its limits – Schuster slope permit was limited – areas that were over 67% slope need additional geotech
What if work doesn’t happen where I want it to? And/or
I am not willing to go through this process or pay for an enhanced view? And/or
I feel I cannot have the view that I desire nor the one that is represented on the tax assessor’s report?

31. Find out More