Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
City of Tacoma Environmental Services Department
Memorandum
TO: Shannon Brenner City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Department FROM: Michael Carey City of Tacoma Environmental Services Department SUBJECT: Responses to Public Comments regarding the Schuster Slope Landscape
Management Plan Public Comment Period DATE: September 3, 2015 The City of Tacoma’s Environmental Services Department appreciates the community’s efforts to review and improve the Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan (Management Plan). The following memorandum contains clarification with regard to these comments from the community, to include proposed changes to the final Landscape Management Plan where appropriate. All statements and guidance within the final Management Plan take into consideration the opinions of the greater public, however, when there is a discrepancy between the best available science, regulatory restrictions and the opinions of the public, the regulatory restrictions and best available science prevails. Landau Associates, the consultant hired to provide consulting analysis and expertise in developing the vegetation management prescriptions contained in this Management Plan, has provided a letter of support that will be added to the final Management Plan. Agency Comments Received Under this Proposal:
1. City of Tacoma, Public Works, Engineering – provided no comment 2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources – provided no comment 3. City of Tacoma, Planning and Development Services Department (PDS), Development
Services Division – provided no comment 4. City of Tacoma, Environmental Services Department, Site Development – provided no
comment 5. Tacoma Fire Department – provided no comment 6. Tacoma Water – provided no comment 7. City of Tacoma, PDS, Critical Areas Review – comments received and included 8. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife – comments received and included; see
Appendix A
Public Comments Received Under this Proposal: 9. Sara Clair (August 13, 2015) – comments received and included; See Appendix B 10. Puget Creek Restoration Society (Aug. 13, 2015) – comments received and included;
See Appendix C 11. Jim Lake (August 5, 2015) – comments received and included
1 | P a g e
12. Schuster Slope Citizens Advisory Committee (August 13, 2015; Sept. 4 2015) – comments received and included; See Appendices D and E
13. Valerie Floyd (August 13, 2015) – comments received and included 14. Phill Tebb (August 9, 2015) – comments received and included
2 | P a g e
General Comments: The majority of public comments received are specific to the concept of, and desire for, view enhancement. Other general comments include discussion about plant selection as proposed for the Schuster Slope. The following points of clarification are offered in efforts to provide context and a general understanding of the requirements and restrictions with regard to views and plant selection as determined by governing laws and policies under which this property is required to comply. Growth Management Act/ City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan The Growth Management Act (“GMA”) establishes a general framework and guidance under which local governments are required to plan in accordance with certain guidelines. For example, under the GMA, the City of Tacoma is required to adopt a comprehensive plan.1 The intent of a comprehensive plan is a general policy to guide the later adoption of official controls (code) and is subordinate to those regulations.2 Therefore, neither the GMA nor the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to the GMA directly regulate land use activities and do not serve as development regulations.3 Instead, it is local development regulations, such as the Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC) and the Critical Areas Preservation Code, which act as a constraint on individual landowners.4 Currently, City guidance states that although views should be considered, a balance must be sought between public views and restoration objectives. Shoreline Management Act/ Shoreline Management Plan As identified in the Applicability Section of the Shoreline Management Act, public access provisions apply to all shorelines of the state.5 These provisions apply to those shorelines of the state and those lands which extend landward two hundred feet as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).6 The Schuster Slope Project Area is therefore not subject to the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act or Tacoma’s Shoreline Management Plan as the Project Area is located outside of this two hundred foot buffer. Tacoma Municipal Code- Critical Areas Preservation (TMC 13.11) TMC 13.11 establishes a regulatory scheme for the protection and preservation of critical areas and specifically regulates the removal, alteration, pruning, destruction or planting of vegetation.7 Although City staff can and should take into consideration the policies in the comprehensive plan regarding preservation of public views, this policy does not supersede or take precedence over the mandate in the Critical Areas Preservation Code to protect critical areas, particularly steep slopes. Washington State Law The law in Washington is clear that property owners have no common law right to a view across a neighboring property, be it privately or publicly owned.8 Mechanisms do exist for “view rights” to be created through legally binding agreements or other regulations on land use and development activities, to include restrictive covenants (restrictions recorded on a plat/short
1 RCW 36.70A.040. 2 Carlson v. Beaux Arts Village, 41 Wash.App. 402, 408, 704 P.2d 663 (1985); Barrie v. Kitsap Cy., 93 Wash.2d 843, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980); Wildner v. Winslow, 35 Wash.App. 77, 664 P.2d 1316 (1983); West Hill Citizens for Controlled Dev. Density v. King Cy. Council, 29 Wash.App. 168, 627 P.2d 1002 (1981). 3 Timberlake Christian Fellowship v. King County, 114 Wn. App. 174, 182-83, 61 P.3d 332 (2002) (citing Ass'n of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 141 Wn.2d 185, 188, 4 P.3d 115 (2000); Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873-74, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997)). 4 RCW 36.70A.030(7); Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988). 5 WAC 173-26-221 6 WAC 173-22-040 7 TMC 13.11.110, 130 & 140. 8 Asche v Bloomquist, 132 Wn. App 784, 797 (2006).
3 | P a g e
plat), easements for the purpose of view preservation (restrictions recorded on title of a singular property), or creation of statute or municipal regulations (local development regulations adopted by a municipality). The Schuster Slope Project Area (Project Area) is not currently regulated under any of these restrictions. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) priority habitat (Biodiversity Corridors) The Schuster Slope project area is identified as a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Habitat area due to its listing as a priority habitat (Biodiversity Corridor) by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).9 Pursuant to the Critical Areas Preservation Code, any restoration or enhancement project in a critical area must meet the requirements of TMC 13.11 which serves to protect ecological functions. The goals, objectives and standards of a restoration plan (Management Plan) shall include establishment of native plant species that historically occurred in the ecosystem type. Please reference the general comments section above when reading the following responses: City of Tacoma, PDS, Critical Areas Review:
1. Permits will be required for substantial tree removal/clearing activities consistent with Tacoma Municipal Code section 2.19.
Response: Noted
2. 4.2.1.1. The “soil-binding effective tree root zone” is not a term I am intimate with. You explained this term for me in the context of removing trees and the standard would require a certain number of trees to be planted to replace the root system loss from the removal of the tree. The area of the root zone lost would be estimated as one-foot radius of lateral root extent for every one-inch of DBH and the number of trees to be planted would be based on the required density for the calculated area. However, as a standard to be measured when monitoring the site, I am still unsure how the standard for a 100 percent soil-binding effective tree root zone will be evaluated to show the standard has been met. Will this be based on number of plants per area? And if so, will there be plots established to estimate the density of trees? Response: All standards proposed in this Management Plan are required to be met prior to any vegetation removal actions being approved. The 100 percent soil-binding root zone is specific to existing mature trees, while the target tree density of 436 trees per acre is inclusive of existing mature trees as well as newly planted trees. The method for measuring the 100% soil-binding root mass is through surveying the location of the existing trees to include measuring their diameters at breast height (DBH), (see below example). The 100% soil-binding root mass measurement would then be projected on the ground, outward from the trunks of the trees to determine where there is overlap, indicating coverage beyond the
9 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.
4 | P a g e
required minimum. This 100% soil-binding root mass is shown in the example below as the dashed orange line. In the example below, the blue tree could be considered to be pruned for views as the 100% soil binding root mass measurements would still cover the ground even without the tree.
In addition to the requirement for a 100 percent soil-binding root mass, trees are required to be maintained at a density of 436 trees per acre, and 2/3 of those trees are required to be evergreen. There are also requirements for shrubs and groundcovers to be planted. In the example above, all of the existing trees are deciduous (vs. evergreen) and do not meet the density requirements of 436 trees per acre, therefore additional planting would be required before the blue tree could be managed for views, even though it currently meets the 100 percent soil-binding root mass requirement. After the planting has become established with the new density and 2/3 evergreen requirement, the blue tree could then potentially be managed for views.
3. 4.2.2.1 I am also wondering how the minimum tree density of 436 trees per acre will be measured and the 80 percent survival for shrub species. Will plots also be established to measure this standard? I only see the line intercept method proposed to measure percent coverage.
Response: Thank you for asking this question for clarification. Currently, per the specifications of this Management Plan (Appendix D, section 4.2 Monitoring) monitoring includes:
5 | P a g e
• Establishment of at least one 50 foot monitoring transect per quarter acre of planting area to monitor survival of plantings, percent cover of plantings, composition of the plant community, and noxious/invasive weed species coverage.
• Percent survivability will be monitored using randomly selected but permanent sample plots located along the established permanent transect (2 sample plots per 50 foot transect). Sample plots will consist of a 9 foot radius circle from a stationary point along transect.
• Photographs will be collected from each transect end and each sample plot point to compare vegetation density and compositions from year to year.
• Observations of the project area for excessive erosion, slope instability, vandalism, disease, plant stress, human activity and debris, as well as general observations of the entire planting area and/or areas directly adjacent.
It is intended that the 80 percent survivability of shrubs planted as well as the 436 trees per acre will be measured by a combination of the transect and the permanent sample plots (see bullet 2 above). Two sample plots per 50 foot transect are required, at an area of 254.5 square feet each (9’ radius circles). We believe that this total of 509 square feet of sample plots per 1/4 acre should be enough to extrapolate plant survivability across the site.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; See Appendix A Sara Clair (August 13, 2015); See Appendix B
4. We are concerned that the choices of trees listed in Appendix D [of the Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan] will exceed the heights listed in the “Mature Height” column as well as the height of the Schuster Slope and the existing buildings along Stadium Way.
We ask that you review the height measurements listed in Appendix D very carefully as well as mark on the permit maps to plant the tallest trees along the property lines of the upslope homes, condominiums, apartments and offices. Response: As stated throughout the Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan, the primary focus is to establish the target ecosystem that would have naturally evolved on the Schuster Slope. Our consultant team of experts determined that the project area would have historically been comprised of the North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest (WDNR 2011). This target ecosystem is an integral component to slope stability, as the multi-layered plant matrix provides varying depths of root mass, binds soil and guards against skin slides and debris flows. In order to ensure maximum slope stability through vegetation management activities, it is not appropriate to only locate large trees only along the property lines. All varying heights of vegetation need to be intermixed in order to provide the greatest coverage of rooting depths to bind the soil.
6 | P a g e
The preapproved plant species listed in Appendix D are consistent with this target ecosystem. The accompanying tree height measurements contained in the appendix were provided by our consultant team of experts to reflect the typical mature height of this vegetation when grown in less than ideal conditions (such as the Schuster Slope Project Area). The typical mature height is average, actual heights may vary. It is important to note, that there is a separate species list for plantings located at the top of the slope, where the upslope homes, condominiums, apartments and offices are located. It was the professional recommendation by our consultants to plant shorter growing tree species at the top of the slope, due to the variable soil conditions. Per the Management Plan, larger tree species will be located beyond the top of the slope, on the slope face and toe.
Puget Creek Restoration Society (August 13, 2015); See Appendix C
5. Section 4.2.1.1 Objective 4—Monitoring is needed longer because of pour site conditions, invasive expansion, and transient impacts. Response: Although we agree that a longer monitoring period would be preferred, the minimum monitoring period (5 years) is consistent with other monitoring protocols for restoration work with similar conditions. The City will continue to monitor (at some level of effort) the Schuster Slope in its entirety for a minimum period of the life of the permit (20 years) and it is anticipated that the City will continue to restore and monitor the site beyond that period as well, as resources allow.
6. Section 4.2.1.2 Objective 1—Incorporate buried logs, root wads and surface laying of logs as natural means to erosion control. Add moss species as they are real good as soil binders and mats tied to logs etc. as growing and interwinding in the logs. Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The City has relied heavily on our geotechnical consultants to provide recommendations for feasible erosion control options. We understand that using existing downed wood and root wads would be preferred for habitat value under normal restoration circumstances (primarily riparian restoration); however, due to the sites steep slopes it may not be feasible to leave large woody debris in many locations throughout the site. Further, our geotechnical experts have recommended that we minimize excavations and soil dislocation for the same reason.
7. Section 4.2.2.1 Objective 2—More diversity in species of native plants is needed for soil stability, forest health and wildlife needs. Response: Please see the response to comment number 4 above. Although we would like to see additional plant diversity on the project site, the proposed plantings are the species which have the greatest chance of survival given the existing poor site conditions.
7 | P a g e
8. Section 4.2.2.1 Objective 3—Because of pour site conditions 80% survival rate
by year 5 and again at year 10. Response: Again, thank you for your suggestion. The survival rate as provided by our consultant team of experts of 80 percent survival at year 3 and 60 percent survival at year 5 was recommended based on the specifics of the site and consistency with industry standards.
9. Section 4.2.2.2 second paragraph where it mentions seeding –use only native grasses and wild flowers in the seeding mix. Response: Please refer to Section 5.0, Erosion Control of the Specifications. Seeding for erosion control purposes shall conform to the City’s Stormwater Management Manual. Additionally, seeding within wetlands or wetland buffers are required to use only native seeds, as provided in Table 2 of these specifications.
10. Section 4.2.2.2 Objective—Use 0% of invasives otherwise the invasives will take over after your proposed 5-yr. plan. Response: Per the Landscape Management Plan, no invasive species will be allowed to be planted. This section 4.2.2.2 is referring to allowable tolerances (less than 10%) for remaining invasive species, as total eradication is not practical in one year’s time. Especially on steep slopes, the removal of invasive species may need to be phased over a period of time in order to lessen the likelihood of mass wasting (erosion). In urban areas, especially those with an historical population of invasive vegetation, 0% invasive coverage was not viewed as an achievable or sustainable goal.
11. Section 4.2.2.2 Objective 1—Should have monitoring for 10 years due to severe conditions on site. Response: Please see response to comment number 5 above.
12. Section 4.2.4.1 Objective—No private view clearing at all. Response: Thank you for your recommendation.
13. Section 4.2.4.1 Objective 4—View enhancement needs to wait 5 years due to pour site conditions and needing for plants to establish once again it is preferred that no view clearing of vegetation is allowed. Response: Thank you for your recommendation. Three years is a typical industry standard “establishment period”. Please note that in order to take any
8 | P a g e
successive actions beyond the third year, a project proponent will need to prove that the vegetation is still in compliance with the requirements of this plan.
14. Section 4.2.4.2 Objective—No Tree removal or topping at all. No clearing of vegetation of any kind for private views. Response: Thank you for your recommendation. Per Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC 13.11) and as reiterated throughout other sections of this management plan, it is prohibited to top trees in critical areas. We will take the opportunity to repeat this prohibition of tree topping in this section. Change to Management Plan: Section 4.2.4, paragraph 1, supplemented with “The topping of trees is prohibited.” Section 4.2.4.1, Standard 3, supplemented with “No tree topping will be allowed under any circumstance.” Section 4.2.4.2, Standard 3, supplement with “No tree topping will be allowed under any circumstance.”
15. Section 5.2.2—Needs increased variety of native plant species in use in this project. Response: Please refer to responses number 7 and 4 above.
16. Section 5.3.1.1—Use of only native flower and grasses species in any proposed hydroseeding activity. Response: Please refer to response number 9 above.
17. Invasive species list needs to include Herb Robert and English Laurel as well. Response: Thank you for your recommendations. Though English laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) is not a noxious weed it is a common invasive plant that is present on the Schuster Slopes. Although the City will be working to remove all weeds and those species that threaten the success of vegetation establishment from the site, the list in this section is specific to noxious weeds. Change to Management Plan: Section 3.2.2, noxious weed list supplemented with “Herb Robert (Geranium lucidum).”
Jim Lake (August 05, 2015)
18. There is only one thing of particular interest to me in this plan. That is whether and where you plan to plant large trees that will destroy the view from my home. I live at [removed for privacy]. Please direct me to the page and section that shows me specifically where large trees are planned. I see pages and pages of wetland
9 | P a g e
maps, but nothing that addresses the only issue of importance to me and my neighbors. The drafters this plan are well aware of the concerns of the people the live here. We have told you many times. Now, we need to know, with specificity, how the plan affects us in order to calculate the monetary impact to the value of our homes. Response:
a. First and foremost, it is the professional recommendation of our consultant team of experts based on the existing site soils that large trees should not be planted at the top of the slope. Section 5.2.4, Top of Slope states:
Planting areas which have the potential to impact views within the project area include the top of slope and the slope face. The top of slope typically contains glacial till and ice contact soil which limits the rooting depth of large trees. Therefore, the planting focus at the top of slope should consist of a well-developed cover of small evergreen trees, shrubs, and understory in order to retain top soil and prevent surface stormwater runoff from eroding the top of slope. This planting strategy can also support views, as there are many low growing, well rooted native species which can provide this function.
The use of smaller growing trees, shrubs and groundcovers is further explored in the “preapproved” planting pallets contained section 2.1.1 of the Specifications (Appendix D), which lists only small trees as appropriate for the top of the slope.
b. Section 6.1 of the Management Plan, contains the City’s prioritization and projected work plan areas (shown as maps in Figures 5A through 5J). The address that you provided, [removed for privacy], is on the northern-most section of the Schuster Slopes. According to the prioritization methods that the City used, this particular management unit is number 7 on this list, which means that there are 6 other management units that will be restored by the City prior to the City conducting any planting work in this unit. As this is a 20-year management plan, it is anticipated that it will be many years before the City is able to allocate the resources to do any planting in this area through the efforts of this management plan.
19. I do not dispute that we were given the opportunity to express our concerns. You didn't pay the slightest attention to what we said, but we did get to talk and wave our arms. Now, we need to be able to calculate damages. To do that, we need to know exactly how our views, the most valuable element of our properties, are affected by this plan. Hence, we need to know where the large firs and hemlocks are planned. I believe that the plan should include coordinates for the locations of
10 | P a g e
specific trees and the type of tree planned for that spot. Anything less than that makes it completely impossible for us to determine view lines, making the plan vague and ambiguous. It also makes it possible for the City to change the location and number of large trees in the future, which is unacceptable. This is no different than what you would be required to do if you were planning tall structures. Response: Please be assured that the City understands your concerns, and consider that currently it is prohibited to remove or prune trees for views in critical areas (i.e. steep slopes, wetlands) on public or private property. As a direct result of the comments and concerns received from the public, this plan allows for the public to have a mechanism to prune trees on public property for private views, which would otherwise not have been an objective in the management plan. The target tree density is 436 trees per acre (about 1 tree per 100 square feet), which includes both existing and planted trees. Two-thirds of these trees are required to be evergreen. If you imagine a grid of trees at this density and configuration, you will get an idea of the potential impacts to your views. Further, it is important to note that the management plan provides many options to prune trees to accommodate views (section 9.0 of the Specifications).
Schuster Slope Citizens Advisory Committee (August 13, 2015); See Appendices D and E
20. Our citizen's advisory committee has worked very hard over the last year and a half to represent what the citizens of Tacoma have said they wanted from the Schuster Slope Management Plan and that was to improve the public views from Stadium Way to Commencement Bay and Mt. Rainier. Despite the numerous public policies that support this exact goal, and the hundreds of citizens stating they want this outcome through numerous public meetings and outreach done by both the City of Tacoma and Metro Parks Tacoma, the City and Metro Parks Tacoma, in this management plan, have decided on public view clearance only from the two "tip-out" bench areas along Stadium Way. This is approximately 75 feet all total which is less than 2% of the entire length of Stadium Way. We believe this falls woefully short of the stated intent of the public policies in place, (see exhibit A of Schuster Slope Citizen’s Advisory Committee proposal), regarding the promotion, creation and protection of public views, specifically from Stadium Way. Response: The City has addressed this misconception previously with the Steering Committee. This information is incorrect. Nowhere in this Management Plan does it mention that the City will only be considering public view clearance from the two “tip out” benches along Stadium Way. Further, the efforts of the City will be to perform restoration work along the entirety of the 31 acres, which will provide for the opportunity to accommodate for views across those same 31 acres.
11 | P a g e
21. Also, the section below was in the original plan and was removed from the final management plan. We have been promised by Environmental Services that it will be put back into the final plan, but as of this writing this has not happened: Landau Jan 11, 4.2.1, Storm water Management, Plant selection, “Big leaf maple and red alder are currently the dominant species throughout the project area, additional installation is not recommended; however, proper management such as pruning and selective thinning over time should be applied to the existing trees, specifically big leaf maple undergoing coppice rejuvenation.” Jessica Stone, Senior Scientist with Landau, also recommended this action again at the public meeting of 4/30/2015. As this trimming was under the storm water management section we would like this to be included in the plan under City lead actions and for this trimming/thinning be allowed to start when the City starts work on the slope this Fall. This action is the City’s responsibility. Response: The section that this comment refers to is from the first draft of the Management Plan, dated January 11th, 2015. As discussed throughout the development of this Management Plan, this section specifically refers to planting new desired tree species (longer lived trees representing the “target ecosystem”) and phasing out less desirable trees through “thinning” over time and as the appropriate conditions are met. The final draft Management Plan (May 15, 2015) submitted for permitting addresses coppiced maples in several locations, but those of specific interest to this topic are as follows: MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.2.3.3 Disease – Improper pruning, such as topping and repeated coppice sprout removal, is a form of repeated injury which creates the opportunity for fungal disease to infect trees. Fungal diseases enter through cut wounds, decay the trunks, and can spread into the rooting system. Due to the historic improper pruning techniques (used principally on bigleaf maple trees adjacent to the slope crest) a number of trees along the slope crest are exhibiting advanced signs of decay which can present a slope stability and safety risk. 4.2.4 Views from Adjacent Areas – View obstruction is prevalent where the mismanagement of bigleaf maples has created a dense layer of coppice sprouts adjacent to the slope crest. This repeated method of topping or cutting off trees at the base causes damage to the trees leading to their decay and loss of root mass (Section 3.2.3), reduces stormwater benefit through the loss of vegetative surface area (Section 3.2), and creates crown openings that allow establishment of invasive species (Section 3.2.2). The negative effect of vegetation mismanagement to maintain views is typically not immediately apparent, however, over time, slope destabilization can result due to compromised forest
12 | P a g e
health (Menashe 1993). Eventually, this type of destabilization can threaten infrastructure along the slope crest and at the slope toe. All proposals for vegetation removal must be conducted in a phased approach to allow native evergreen vegetation to become established to support slope stability, forest health/habitat, and stormwater benefit, prior to thinning or pruning for views. 5.7.1 Selective Pruning and Removal – Proper pruning can be a tool in creating and improving views. Selective pruning should follow the guidelines presented in the Open Space Management Plan for Stadium Way – Schuster Parkway (Van Pelt 2002, “Chapter IV Vegetation Management; Section C Recommended Tasks for View Enhancement”). For conifer species, selective pruning includes methods such as windowing (removing select branches), inter-limbing (removing select branch whorls), and skirting up (removing lower branches; Menashe 1993). The pruning of broad leaf trees is usually more complicated and includes the select removal of branches and thinning of the crown. When completed correctly by a trained arborist, the tree’s health is maintained; however, incorrect pruning can cause severe damage to the tree and can increase the likelihood of failure. Practices such as topping, of both conifers and broad leaf species, leave multiple areas for disease entry and trigger superfluous growth known as “coppice sprouting” which creates dense clumps of multiple stems with weak attachments. Additionally, excess removal of crown vegetation leaves large openings in the canopy, which can encourage invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry and allow for increase erosion due to lack of vegetative cover. SPECIFICATIONS 9.3 Tree Removal - Tree removal should only occur to maintain public safety and infrastructure protection as outlined in Section 7.0 and conducted in a manner that selectively removes trees to increase the vigor of the native surrounding vegetation and still maintains appropriate shrub and ground cover and soil binding tree root mass. Tree root systems shall not be removed unless the species is a listed as noxious weed (Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board) and the root removal is necessary for control or the root system has the potential to impact public safety and infrastructure protection (Section 7.0). Trees shall be retained in a manner to provide 100 percent soil-binding root mass for the project area, which is calculated as one-foot radius of lateral root extent for every inch of diameter of the tree’s trunk at breast height. For previously coppiced trees, each sprout diameter shall be counted and added up to determine the total DBH. Also, when pruning coppiced sprouts, the 25% industry standard for removal must be distributed throughout the clump and crown (i.e. not all removals located on one side). Mature trees (those with a diameter greater than 6 inches) should not be removed as part of pruning or vegetation thinning activities to enhance views. Edge trees and trees which are identified to provide critical slope stabilization on slopes 40 percent and greater shall not be removed.
13 | P a g e
The language in the final Management Plan addresses the management of coppiced maples in a more clearly defined manner than the draft plan from January. The City’s work along the Schuster Slopes will address the selective thinning of bigleaf maple coppiced sprouts as encountered during prioritized work within the management units, consistent with the permitted activities of this Management Plan.
22. Exhibit A of Schuster Slope Citizen’s Advisory Committee proposal (Appendix E) Response: Please refer to the General Comments section of this memo. In the General Comments it is most important to note the relationship between the City’s Comprehensive Plan (general framework and guidance) and Tacoma Municipal Code (regulation) as regulatory requirements supersede policy/guidance. Further, if the City’s Comprehensive Plan were to be read in entirety and in context it is clear that the City prioritizes the conservation and protection of its open spaces and vegetation therein for many purposes. View management is only one interest in these comprehensive plan policies.
Pursue retention of existing trees and vegetation that help stabilize steep slope areas in order to increase public safety, maintain slope stability, decrease soil erosion, and retain environmental function and natural character.10
The intent of the applicable portions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to provide guidance regarding how to achieve balance between public protection of scenic views and conservation of the City’s topography and green spaces and the protection of steep slopes, vegetation and other critical areas.
. . . City management decisions should strike a balance between enhancing public views and other objectives, including maintaining urban forest health, slope stability, critical areas health, natural character and other issues, while also taking into account any policies or objectives that may apply specifically to the area. . .11
Additionally, the following comment applies specifically to the applicability of Tacoma Municipal Code 9.19.030 Types of Trees Prohibited, as identified in this Exhibit A provided by the Schuster Slope Citizen’s Advisory Committee (Appendix E of this memo):
It shall be unlawful to plant in any parking strip or public place in any residential area of the City of Tacoma any of the following trees: Poplar,
10 Comprehensive plan, UF-PR-7 Protect Steep Slopes 11 Comprehensive plan, Urban Forest Policy Element, Scenic Corridors, Page UF-17.
14 | P a g e
Willow, Cottonwood, Fruit Trees (except ornamental types), Nut Trees, Mountain Ash, Oregon or Big Leaf Maple or any other type or species of tree having any growth characteristic similar to those set forth above. (Ord. 16610 § 1; passed Jul. 12, 1960).12
The above TMC applies specifically to planting in parking strips and public spaces in residential areas of which Schuster Slope is neither. Further, as discussed throughout the management plan, these bigleaf maples and cottonwood are native pioneer tree species and established here naturally following the clearcutting of the historic forest ecosystem. They were not planted through human intervention. No tree species on this list will be planted on the Schuster Slopes, regardless of this portion of the codes inapplicability to this project.
Valerie Floyd (August 13, 2015)
23. Our Citizen's Advisory Committee has worked very hard over the past year and a half to represent what the citizens of Tacoma have said they wanted from this plan and that was to improve views from Stadium Way to Commencement Bay. I have attended several public meetings and left confident that the City of Tacoma and Metro Parks would work together to follow the plan they presented. Now I understand that only the two tip-out bench areas are going to receive management of the overgrowth of non-native trees, ivy, blackberry bushes and other invasive species. We spent over $13 million dollars to improve Stadium Way for the thousands of cars that travel this road every day. I observe many walkers, joggers and bikers every day as I live along Stadium Way. This is a gateway to our city and we are preventing those that enter to enjoy the beauty of Commencement Bay and all it has to offer. All they see are overgrown trees and weeds. Improved views from this busy thoroughfare will benefit all of Tacoma. Response: Please refer to response number 20 above.
24. Additionally, I also observe the transient population that lives on the hillside. Some of the walkers (including myself) are often frightened by some stranger climbing out of the bushes and over the fence to the sidewalk. The vegetation management that the citizens have asked for will help eliminate the hiding places for the homeless. Response: Homelessness and associated encampments is a long-standing societal issue in this area. Vegetation management is just one component of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles for increasing public safety in public areas. All uses and functions of the area and
12 TMC 9.19.030 15 | P a g e
ecosystem must be taken into account and balanced when considering actions for the slope. Removing trees and clear cutting the hill is not an option along Schuster Slope. Discouraging the homeless from camping on or otherwise using the slope requires more than just analysis and modification to the vegetation. Many other efforts should be considered, for example: activation of the slope by positive users, cleanup response, community involvement and monitoring, vegetation as a deterrent, police surveillance, etc. In addition, the City’s prioritization criteria for the Management Plan’s management units heavily weighted those areas with homeless encampment activities in hopes to provide some relief to this issue. As the City makes the investments to restore these areas, CPTED implementation and monitoring strategies will be used to insure project success. See Section 6.0 of the Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan for complete details on the City’s prioritized approach.
Phill Tebb (August 9, 2015) 25. Put the agreed upon trimming of the maples back into the agreement as agreed
upon. Response: Please refer to response number 21 above.
16 | P a g e
APPENDIX A Responses to Public Comments
Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091, (360) 902-2200, TDD (360) 902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia WA
August 13, 2015
City of Tacoma - Planning and Development Services
Shannon Brenner
747 Market Street
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Dear Ms. Brenner:
SUBJECT: CAPO AND SEPA PERMIT SCHUSTER SLOPE
On July 31, 2015, I received information for the project described above. It is my understanding
that the City used guidance from WDFW’s Landscape Planning For Washington’s Wildlife:
Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas in developing the management strategy for the
Schuster Slope area. According to the provided plans, the area is designated as an “open space
area” with the intent of maintaining it as a vegetated corridor and improving forest health.
WDFW supports this action for the reasons described below.
According to WDFW’s Landscape Planning For Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for
Biodiversity in Developing Areas, the guidance should be used to provide information for
planners and others to use in minimizing the impacts of development to terrestrial wildlife, and
to conserve biodiversity that supports healthy, native wildlife populations. Specifically, that two
ways wildlife is best served in urban areas by planning for open space to incorporate high-value
habitat corridors for animal movement and by encouraging the maintenance of native vegetation
zones.
As proposed, the City’s plan for Schuster Slope states, “The management plan provided in this
report was designed to address landscape and vegetative challenges identified for Schuster Slope
and to provide strategies for slowing slope erosion, improving forest health and stormwater
benefit, ensuring public safety, and allowing for improvements to views from adjacent areas.” By
using (and maintaining) native vegetation to slow slope erosion and improve forest health and
water quality, and additionally maintaining open space, the City of Tacoma is demonstrating, in
application, the guidance provided by WDFW.
As stated in the above WDFW publication, “Biodiversity has aesthetic, cultural, educational, and
economic value to people. The retention and restoration of wildlife habitat in the developing
landscape provides ecological services important to humans and communities. These ecological
services include improved water quality, improved water storage and availability, buffering and
control of storm water and floods, pollination, food production, soil fertility, pest control and the
reduction of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change).” Retaining the
August 13, 2015
Page 2
ecological services provided by wildlife habitat and species through lessening adverse impacts to
biodiversity as land uses change and in developing areas is an extremely important and laudable
goal. WDFW supports the Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan proposed in the provided
documents.
If you have any questions, please call me at 360-902-2578.
Sincerely,
Matt Curtis
Habitat Biologist
APPENDIX B Responses to Public Comments
Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan
Re: Application No. CAP2015-‐40000250552, SEP2015-‐40000251760 Clair comments on Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan Specifications August 13, 2015
Page 1 of 2
Memo to: City of Tacoma: Council Member Robert Thoms, Mike Slevin, Director, Environmental Services Mike Carey, Environmental Services Joe Brady, Metro Parks Denny Faker, Stadium Business District From: Sara Clair, member Citizens Steering Committee Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the permit application CAP2015-‐40000250552, SEP2015-‐40000251760 covering the 31 acres of Stadium Schuster slope in Tacoma from 4th Street/Interstate 705 to McCarver Street. This master permit to manage storm water and hillside stability through pruning and replanting represents a major undertaking and potentially will deliver massive improvements for the citizens of the State of Washington, Commencement Bay and the ecosystem of the steep Schuster slope. Funding to take control of, and manage, this open space will come from increased stormwater run off fees now being assessed Tacoma households. The documents of this permit application represent almost 2 years of public and committee meetings and it was a privilege to represent our community on the Citizen Steering Committee. Thank you for providing a permit methodology for citizens and community groups to take stewardship of the city hillside adjacent to their properties and neighborhoods. The Privately Initiated Vegetation Modification Requests delineated on page 45 (4.2.4.2), pages 117 and 119 (Appendix C flow chart) allow citizens to work with a professionals to create a planting and maintenance program which includes pruning up to 25% of the coppiced big leaf maples and other branches each year prior to installing a variety of shorter native, evergreen plants. This will allow a method for increased quality of life and natural habitat. Much discussion at both the large public meetings held at The Landmark Convention Center as well as during the Advisory Committee meetings at Metro Parks headquarters, focused on thinning the coppiced/resprouting big Leaf Maples, removing noxious and invasive clematis, ivy and blackberries (and more) and replanting the slope with evergreen and deciduous foliage to provide year-‐round cover for the soil. Citizens repeatedly requested that the replacement trees listed in the permit application would be selected and planted so as to not grow to a mature height that exceeds the natural height of the slope.
Re: Application No. CAP2015-‐40000250552, SEP2015-‐40000251760 Clair comments on Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan Specifications August 13, 2015
Page 2 of 2
The City of Tacoma has neglected this Schuster hillside for many years and prevented the community traveling along Stadium Way from visually accessing the water year-‐round. Reclaiming this hillside, not just in front of the park bench push outs, but along all of the management areas, can return the slope to a healthy and functioning ecosystem while concurrently opening up the beautiful views of Tacoma’s Commencement Bay. We are concerned that the choices of trees listed in Appendix D will exceed the heights listed in the “Mature Height” column as well as the height of the Schuster Slope and the existing buildings along Stadium Way. We ask that you review the height measurements listed in Appendix D very carefully as well as mark on the permit maps to plant the tallest trees along the property lines of the upslope homes, condominiums, apartments and offices. Tacoma has a very unique geology and extraordinary waterfront that should be enjoyed by pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, visitors, students and citizens from across our fine community and state. Thank you for your work to make a great city.
APPENDIX C Responses to Public Comments
Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan
702 Broadway, Suite 101,
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Phone: (253) 779-8890
Fax: (253) 593-8890
www.pugetcreek.org
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Steven Beckstead
President
Scott M. Hansen
Vice President
Twylia Westling
Secretary
Phil Schneider
Treasurer
HONORARY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
North End
Neighborhood Council
ADVISORY BOARD
Edward S. Winskill
Dr. Sherry Graham
Susan Penhale
Mike Webb
Michael A. Corsini
A tax-exempt
nonprofit organization with
501(c)(3) status
August 13, 2015
Shannon Brenner-Environmental Specialist
Planning and Development Services
City of Tacoma
747 Market Street
Tacoma, WA. 98402-3769
Hello Shannon:
The Puget Creek Restoration Society (PCRS) protects, enhances and restores
the Puget Creek Watershed and similar streams, wetlands and green spaces.
We serve the South Puget Sound communities and invite their participation
through hands-on restoration, research, education, advocacy, and by promoting
a sense of stewardship.
Our organization represents over 3,000 members and volunteers locat-
ed in the City of Tacoma/Pierce County and who are deeply concerned with
wetland, stream, green space and nearshore issues in the City.
Thank you for allowing us to provide input into this project. This is in
regards to the proposed Schuster Slope project. We request the following con-
ditions be incorporated into the project and response to our questions be devel-
oped:
1. Section 4.2.1.1 Objective 4—Monitoring is needed longer because of pour
site conditions, invasive expansion, and transient impacts.
2. Section 4.2.1.2 Objective 1—Incorporate buried logs, root wads and sur-
face laying of logs as natural means to erosion control. Add moss species
as they are real good as soil binders and mats tied to logs etc. as growing
and interwinding in the logs.
3. Section 4.2.2.1 Objective 2—More diversity in species of native plants is
needed for soil stability, forest health and wildlife needs.
4. Section 4.2.2.1 Objective 3—Because of pour site conditions 80% survival
rate by year 5 and again at year 10.
5. Section 4.2.2.2 second paragraph where it mentions seeding –use only na-
tive grasses and wild flowers in the seeding mix.
6. Section 4.2.2.2 Objective—Use 0% of invasives otherwise the invasives
will take over after your proposed 5-yr. plan.
7. Section 4.2.2.2 Objective 1—Should have monitoring for 10 years due to
severe conditions on site.
8. Section 4.2.4.1 Objective—No private view clearing at all.
9. Section 4.2.4.1 Objective 4—View enhancement needs to wait 5 years due
to pour site conditions and needing for plants to establish once again it is
preferred that no view clearing of vegetation is allowed.
10. Section 4.2.4.2 Objective—No Tree removal or topping at all. No clearing of vegetation of any kind for
private views.
11. Section 5.2.2—Needs increased variety of native plant species in use in this project.
12. Section 5.3.1.1—Use of only native flower and grasses species in any proposed hydroseeding activity.
13. Invasive species list needs to include Herb Robert and English Laurel as well.
Without further clarification of the impact that the project has on the natural systems, the Puget Creek Res-
toration Society cannot support this project; however, if the plan were to incorporate our comments, ques-
tions and concerns on this site we would reconsider our position. We would like a response to these com-
ments.
I write as Vice President of the Board of Directors of Puget Creek Restoration Society, which has
evaluated the proposed project. We will appreciate your office’s full consideration of our position, and we
look forward to working with you in making Tacoma a better place for everyone.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. You can reach us at (253) 779-8890 if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Hansen-B.S., M.A., M. S., (Ph.D.-student)
Ecologist/Vice President Board of Directors/Acting Executive Director
APPENDIX D Responses to Public Comments
Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan
8/13/2015
Dear City of Tacoma,
Our citizen's advisory committee has worked very hard over the last year and a half to represent what the citizens of Tacoma have said they wanted from the Schuster Slope Management Plan and that was to improve the public views from Stadium Way to Commencement Bay and Mt. Rainier. Despite the numerous public policies that support this exact goal, and the hundreds of citizens stating they want this outcome through numerous public meetings and outreach done by both the City of Tacoma and Metro Parks Tacoma, the City and Metro Parks Tacoma, in this management plan, have decided on public view clearance only from the two "tip-out" bench areas along Stadium Way. This is approximately 75 feet all total which is less than 2% of the entire length of Stadium Way. We believe this falls woefully short of the stated intent of the public policies in place, (see exhibit A of Schuster Slope Citizen’s Advisory Committee proposal), regarding the promotion, creation and protection of public views, specifically from Stadium Way.
Also, the section below was in the original plan and was removed from the final management plan. We have been promised by Environmental Services that it will be put back into the final plan, but as of this writing this has not happened:
Landau Jan 11, 4.2.1, Storm water Management, Plant selection, “Big leaf maple and red alder are currently the dominant species throughout the project area, additional installation is not recommended; however, proper management such as pruning and selective thinning over time should be applied to the existing trees, specifically big leaf maple undergoing coppice rejuvenation.” Jessica Stone, Senior Scientist with Landau, also recommended this action again at the public meeting of 4/30/2015.
As this trimming was under the storm water management section we would like this to be included in the plan under City lead actions and for this trimming/thinning be allowed to start when the City starts work on the slope this Fall. This action is the City’s responsibility.
Sincerely,
Schuster Slope Citizens Advisory Committee; Denny Faker, Sara Clair, Debby Herbert, Michael Kagan
APPENDIX E Responses to Public Comments
Schuster Slope Landscape Management Plan
Exhibit A
Tacoma’s Shoreline Master Program ( to comply with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, adopted by the public in 1972 )
3.11.1 View and Aesthetics Goals
To assure that the public’s ability and opportunity to enjoy shoreline views and aesthetics is protected.
3.11.2 View and Aesthetics Objectives
8. Design and locate new shoreline uses to take full advantage of the waterfront views and location.
The Master Program for Shoreline Development;
“In the master program, priority is also to be given to planning for pubic visual and physical access to the water in the urban environment.”
Tacoma’s Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Policy Element
E-SA-4 Promote Steep Slope Views Recognize, protect and promote the visual qualities and the view potential offered by steep slope areas.
Urban Forestry Policy Element
UF-SA-1 Public Views Established
The following scenic views over public property and rights-of-way are recognized as publicly beneficial to Tacoma. Other public views which can be demonstrated to have a similar value to the public may also be considered Public Views:
• Views from Stadium Way of Commencement Bay, Browns Point and Mt. Rainier
Urban Forestry Policy Element
UF-SA-5 Enhance Underutilized Visual Resources
“Enhance Tacoma’s underutilized visual resources, including the waterfront…”
TMC ( Tacoma Municipal Code )
9.19.030 Types of trees prohibited
It shall be unlawful to plant in any parking strip or public place in any residential area of the City of Tacoma any of the following trees: Poplar, Willow, Cottonwood, Fruit Trees (except ornamental types), Nut Trees, Mountain Ash, Oregon or Big Leaf Maple or any other type or species of tree having any growth characteristic similar to those set forth above. (Ord. 16610 § 1; passed Jul. 12, 1960)
Urban Forestry Policy Element
Removal of Trees within the Right-of-way and on Public Property
Trees can be removed for various reasons, some of which may include threats to public safety, right-of-way improvements or maintenance, or consistency with a management plan.
Environmental Policy Element
E-SA-2 Tree Trimming Permit
The trimming or removal of trees or vegetation from natural open space areas only if it can be accomplished in accordance with the Critical Areas Preservation Ordinance or established regulations for view preservation or if it can be proven that the trees or vegetation are a detriment to the ecology or aesthetic appearance of the area or that they present an unsafe condition.
Open Space Habitat and Recreation Element
Waterfront Open Spaces and Shoreline Access
OS-SH-1 Prioritize Tacoma’s Shorelines and Waters “Recognize the strong community connection to Tacoma’s shorelines and waters as cultural, historic, recreational, educational, economic, natural and aesthetic assets of tremendous value. Work with partners to undertake a broad range of activities that enhance Tacoma’s identity as a waterfront community…”
OS-LF-13 Scenic Views – Public Benefit
Preserve and enhance existing public scenic views, vistas and landscape panoramas. A public survey, or other suitable public involvement techniques such as comprehensive, shoreline, or neighborhood planning, should be used to identify and nominate additional public natural and/or scenic views. Seek mechanisms to protect significant public views when planning and reviewing public and private development proposals.
