The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 02-25-2008 ORIGINAL City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers February 25, 2008 6:00 p.m. MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 4, 2008 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 2008 Asphalt Overlay Program - Bid Award Action 5 min/Mulkey B. Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance & Service Contract - Bid Award C. SWM Callout Truck Bed Bid Award Action 5 minlBucich Action 5 minlBucich D. Clearing and Grading and Tree Preservation Overview Information 20 min/Shull 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members Linda Kachmar, Chair Jim Ferrell Dini Duclos City Staff Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager/Emergency Manager Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II 253-835-2701 G:1LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summllries 2008\2.J5-08 LUTe Agellr/a.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee February 4, 2008 6:00 pm City Hall City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Linda Kochmar, Council Member Jim Femell, Committee Member Dini Duclos, Assistant City Manager/Chief Operations Officer/Emergency Manager Cary Roe, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, City Staff Attorney Monica Buck, Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich, 'City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Street Systems Project Engineer John Mulkey, Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, Acting Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Sallourn, Surface Water Engineer Jeff Wolf and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Kochmar called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.rn. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The January 14,2008 LUTC meeting minutes were approved. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Kochmar Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There was one public comment. Jerry Galland - Inquired on the previous annexation process. What/who was the source of the last proposed annexation on the east side of Federal Way? If an area goes before the voters in the future, where will the proposal for the annexation originate? Committee Chair Kochmar and ACM Roe both expressed that the City has no plans to annex any areas at this time; however, the topic may surface again in the future. City Council, King County or the State could ask the City to consider future annexation areas. ACM Roe will keep Mr. Galland informed of any future plans to annex unincorporated areas. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Ming Court Clearing Request Deb Barker provided background information on this item. At Committee Member Duclos' request, Ms. Barker gave the history of this project, terms that had originally been agreed to by the City and the developer and why the need to change these plans. Committee Member Duclos asked if the developer agrees to begin construction within 90 days of final plat, what guarantee does the City have? Ms. Barker said that there are currently no code enforcement conditions in place for the City to act upon if a written commitment to build was not honored by the developer. Mr. Fewins later supported Ms. Barker's comment stating that staff will try to get as much commitment from the developer as possible; however, this is not a guarantee, only a good faith written commitment to make every effort to begin building homes within the allotted time period. Committee Member Duclos also asked if there has been final approval on an erosion control plan. Ms. Barker explained that the developer submitted an erosion control plan prior to the request for modification. A revised plan will need to be submitted, incorporating the mass clearing modification King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements and City code requirements into updated erosion control plan. Committee Chair Kochmar asked about replacement tree size requirements. Ms. Barker explained that the current zone code requires the following significant tree replacements: three-inch caliper for a deciduous tree and ten-feet in height for an evergreen tree. Staff currently doesn't know which type of tree the developer will use; however it is worthy to note that at present, the developer proposed to replace more significant trees than it has to under current City Code. G:\LUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2008102-04-08 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 Februmr 4,2008 The following public comment was heard: Jodey Odegard, Norris Homes - Ms. Odegard presented a letter from John Norris, President of Norris Homes, stating that he has every intention to build on these lots as soon as possible. Secondly, in regards to the trees left standing, the developer will do their best to save the remaining trees, again with no guarantee. Linda Holmly and Krista Baker, Federal Way residents - Ms. Baker's property borders the proposed Ming Court Plat. Ms. Holmly requests that the Committee not allow any more clearing of trees until after final plat approval and the conditions are met. The plat is currently a mess. Ms. Baker showed Committee members pictures of her property, showing how much this plat has negatively impacted their home and neighborhood. Promises the developer has made to Ms. Baker have not been followed through. Committee Member Ferrell asked when the plat is anticipated to be recorded. Mr. Fewins answered that final plat is still two to three months out. And unless the Council approves allowing the developer to modify their plat, the developer may not remove any further trees until Council approves the final plat. Committee Member Duclos reiterated her opinion that she is uncomfortable with the developer intending to begin home construction within 90 days of fmal plat. The City has no guarantee or way to hold the developer to that at this point. At Committee Member Ferrell's request, Ms. Barker went through the plat process, summarizing the steps taken by the developer and City staff that ultimately end in fmal plat approval at the City Council level, followed by recording of the plat at the County the day following. Committee Member Ferrell also expressed concern that if the conditions of the plat were modified, it is possible that the plat would be cleared for as much as six months prior to construction commencing. Committee Member Ferrell recommended Option 2. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Committee revised staff's recommendation and PASSED Option 2 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. B. Joint Construction Agreement with Owest for the Construction of S 348th Street HOV Lanes Proiect John Mulkey provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. C. S 348th Street HOV Lanes Proiect - Bid Award John Mulkey provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously; 2-0 Committee Chair Kochmar recused. Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. D. 10th Ave S Stormwater Trunk Replacement Proiect - 85% Design Status Reoort Paul Bucich provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19,2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. E. 26th Ave SW Stormwater Modification Proiect: Project Acceptance Paul Bucich provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2008\02-04-08 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 February 4,2008 F. Lake Jeane/Lake Lorene Outlet Improvements Proiect; 100% Design Status Report / Authorization to Bid Paul Bucich provided background information on the item. Committee Chair Kochmar asked if either lake had experienced any flooding in the recent past. Mr. Bucich responded that neither lake has experienced any flooding in the past couple of years. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. G. Application of Department of Ecology NPDES Grant Paul Bucich provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. . Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19,2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. H. Evidence Building Generator - Bid Award Ken Miller provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. I. Historical Street Name Signs Rick Perez provided background information on the item. There was no discussion. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Committee PASSED Option 1 to the February 19, 2008, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. J. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Issac Conlen provided background information on the item. There were six citizen-initiated requests for amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map put forth for consideration to determine if they should move forward through the public process as part of the 2007/2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Updates. There were two public comments: William Wright, 410 Broadway Ave E, #404, Seattle, WA 98102 - Mr. Wright is representing the Koszarek proposal (#4). Mr. Wright encourages the Committee to consider his client's site specific request. As another option, he also asks the Committee to approve forwarding a revision of the request, to single-family high density RS 9.6. Diana Noble-Gulliford, Federal Way Historical Society, Federal Way Resident - Ms. Gulliford doesn't think that site specific request #6 (Velasco) makes sense and encourages the Committee not to forward this request. Ms. Gulliford also commented on erosion control issues that have been present for many years near site specific request #4 (Koszarek) and wants the Committee to consider this when forwarding the request for further consideration. After some brief discussion on staff s recommendations to each site specific request, the Committee voted to follow staffs recommendations on all requests. Request #4 (Koszarek) was amended to request further consideration for RS 9.6 (single family high density). Text Request #1 (PSE) Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Site Specific Request #1 (Shin) Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Duclos Passed: Unanimously; 3-0 Site Specific Request #2 (Federal Way Village) Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Kochmar Duclos recused. Passed: Unanimously; 2-0 G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Surrunaries 2008102-04-08 Minutes.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4,2008 ITEM #:_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: February 25, 2008 CATEGORY: IZI Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other ~!~~L~!:'~~!~x.:..!?~.MlJ.:!!':~Y~.~:~:~_~!!.:~~!..~Y~!~.1.P.~!>'!.~j~.~!.g.1.?:gi.1.?:~~!._ DE~_='~lJ.:)?l!~. Works Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated February 25, 2008. Qp!!~~.._~.~!!.~!~~~~~:'.____.___m..__.____._____..._........_.._..._____..._......_m..._._______...._....._....----...-.---....--....---.-...--.--- 1. Award all Schedules of the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project to Tucci and Sons, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $2,064,786.50 and approve a 10% contingency of $206,478.65, for a total of$2,271,265.15, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. 2. Reject all bids for the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project and direct staff to rebid the project and return to Committee for further action. 3. Do not award the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the March 4, 2008 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to award all Schedules of the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project to Tucci and Sons, Inc. lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $2,064,786.50 and approve a 10% contingency of $206,478.65, for a total of $2,271,265.15, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: February 25, 2008 Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager John Mulkey, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer--1'~t"" Jeff Huynh, Street Systems Engineer 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project Bid Award BACKGROUND: Five bids were received and opened on February 13, 2008 for the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project; please see attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Tucci and Sons, Inc. with a total bid of $2,064,786.50. AVAILABLE FUNDING: The budget for the 2008 Asphalt Overlay Project is $2,544, ll7 and is comprised of the following: 2008 Overlay Budget 2008 Structures Budget 2007 Carry Forward TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE: $2,024,000.00 146,267.00 373,850.00 $2,544,117.00 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: The following is a breakdown ofthe estimated total project construction costs based on the low bid: SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION A 1 st Avenue South B S 330th Street (1 st Ave S to 7th CT SW) C Westway D Alderdale E Crown Pointe F Alderbrook 1 G Alderbrook 2 H 21stWaySW I Twin Lakes J 25th Avenue SW ESTIMATED SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS: 10% Construction Contingency Pavement Management System In-house Design Construction Administration City's Administrative Fee Printing and Advertising ESTIMATED TOTAL PROGRAM COST: AMOUNT $ 263,820.35 265,348.65 225,376.00 465,354.50 162,099.70 173,322.80 227,707.65 91,435.60 l21,083.85 69,237.40 $2,064,786.50 $ 206,478.65 30,000.00 63,000.00 103,000.00 72,000.00 3,500.00 $2.542.765.15 BALANCE $ 1,351.85 cc: Project File k:\lutc\2008\02-25-08 2008 asphalt overlay project- bid award.doc :!l t; ~ !!l .. o >- it ~ ~ ~~ D::: .!tID ~ ~~ o ~,~ ~ ll!~ % "'CO ~ ~ .. II. g 0 .. 9 "' ~ ~ I! . . ~ ~ III ggggg~g~g~ggg~ggggggg~~g~ ~ggg~~g~~~~gg~ggg~g~~~~g~~~~8~ ~:~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I- ~~~~~~~ ~-~-~- ~~~~~ -~ ~ MW ~~~ ~ ~ ~gaaa~g~g~gggggggggggg~g~g~~ggg ~~a~8~~~g~~~~~gg~~~~gggg~~~~g~~ ~ N~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~;;~~~~ ~ ~~ ~:. ~ 409.... 8 .~< i ~:t I- "'''']1 I~~ ~i I" ~ ;: II. agggg8gggggggggggggggggg~ggggggl a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ~~~~:. ~~a~~~~~~a~ma~~~~~~~~~~~~i .. .. aaaaa~aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa~aa~aaa a5!~ga!~a~i~i~8~g~~~~~a~~~~~:.~~ ~ ~ ~ ;a~"""~" ~ ~ ~ ti ~ t [0( I- E;t ....Sca !!""e "'€~ r~ ;t II. 8gggg~ggggggggggggg8gggggggg~gg~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~a~~~ O~~N. ~".~~.~."M~~N.~~ ~~~~NW"..... ~;~"~ ~ ~;~~w; W~W"~ ~" ~ w~ aggggogg8ggggggggggggg~g~gg~~gg ~~a~~g!;aa~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~g~~a~~ i ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ! .. 0 ~~ I- i~ ..z~ 18~ 8 " II. ag~~agggggg8gggggggggggg~g~g~gg~ ~~~~&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&~~~~~~~~~~i ~~~N~~.~ri~~~.N~N~~~~ ~ ~~~~N~~_~ ~_~~~~~ ~_~_~_ ~~~~~ _~ ~ W~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~N .. g88ggggg88888~g8888gg8gg~g~~~gg ~aa~~;~g~a~~~Ug8gggggg=g;~a~agg ~ . ~ ~ ~w~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~ 8ggg8~*~8~gggg88g8gg~8g8~8~8~gg~ ~~~~&;~a~~~&~~~S~~g8~~~~~~2~~~~; O~_N~ _ ~.~NriN~ri~~N~~~ ~~~~N~~N. ~-~~~ ~ ~-~-~- ~~~~~ -~ ~ ~ ..~ ~~..,. ~ ~ =: 8gggg08~g~ggg~ggggg8gggg~8~~~g8 ~aa~~g~g~u~i~~~~~ia~&~=~;~a~~a~ i ~ ~a~ ~.. ~ .. .. ~ ::> c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :J: J _~~~_~~~~~~~~!N-M~~~~=~~~N~~~~~ .c ~ '" ;t "5 " % " ~ 1i o '" .. .= .. ^ I ^ ~ I E ' "I :::i o ~ ]1,8 ~~ .9 ~ ~i~ e~e 0'" 0(1)< !Iiljj ~EE888 ~ ~ ~88ooo ~ ~_N~~~ ~ ~ ~~~EEE I~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ 5 ~~ ~ ~EE~~~ c~ g~~~ m~ ~ ~~~~~ m~w <~~~ 1 -I. II~~~ ~'8~~~~m ~I ~m' ~~~~~ ~~~~!se~ u~ _~woo~~~~~_~~~mo~ ~~ ~,.~~~~~IJ~~~~~~I I! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i _NM~~~~~~O_NM~~~~~~O-NM~~~~~~O- __________NNNNNNNNNNMM ~gggg~g~ggggg~gggggggggggg~g~gggggq ~gggg~~~~~~~g~~ggg~~~~~~~ggg~~g~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~:~:~~~~,;~~~~w~~~~~~~~~N~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~o_~.. ~~~_~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ fAofAo ..104 Z;; ~ 104 ~gggg~g~g~gggggggggggggg~ggg~~gggg ~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~gg~~~~~~ggg~~~~~~~ ~~~fAo~ ~ ~ ~M" ~~~~~~;z;; ~~~ w wN- V\. ~ ...... ~ g8ggg~ggggggg~gggggggggggggg8ggg8g~ ogggg~o~~~g~g~gcigggggg~ggg~g~~gggg= g~~o ..~~_~M~~N~g~-ON-~~O-~~O~~~N~-O g~;g ~~gN~~~g ~~~~~~;w~~~~;w ~~ = ....~ 104Z;;~ fAo .... " 88gg ciaiai~ g~~~ g .. oggggggg~ggggggg8gggg~gg~gggg g~~~~g~g~ggggggg~gg~ggg~~~~~og ~ .. fAo-fAo ~~M~O-~-N~~~ - ~- ~ ~fAo~a~~~~~~""" ggggg~g~8ggggggggggggggggggggg8g8g~ ggggo~~~g~Mgcigciggog~gg~g~g~g~g~g~g~ q~~q~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - g~Z;;~~ ~ .~~~~~~ ~~~~~;w ~ ~w ..~ ~ w_.. .. .. gggggog~gggggggggggggggg~g~g8~~ggg cia)a)~oci~~ci~~d~Mcidciod~~~g~=cicid~Nd~~ci ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~!a;~a~~....a"!~: ~~Uag ~ .. fAo~ ~~aaaaa~a~aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa~~~a~a~a~ g~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gg~~~a~~~!~~g~~1 g~;a ~a""~~g~~~"~~~~~~"~~ ~;~ ~~~~-N ..,.~ ~~~ f;IIt gggggggggggggggg8g8ggggggg~g~~~gg8 oa)a)~d~~gdM~ggMgOgdddogdg~dd~MNM~dg ~~~~........~ ~""~w~""~!~~~~~w~~~&~~~~~.!- Ii :;!:;! aaaaa~a~~~aaaaaaaaaaaa~aaa~a~aaaaa; ~~~~aa~a~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~a~~~!aa31~ ~~w~ ~ U~8~~~ ;~~~~;w w ~w ..,.~ ~~~ ~ gggggog~g~gggggggggggggggg~g~~ggg ~~~~ggggg~~g~a~~g~~g~~~g~gg~a~g~~ ~....~~ .~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~;;f;IIt~ ~ ~ ~~ ::l ..~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ % 0 -~~~~~~m~~~~~~_~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~:-: .i " ;: ~ :J: " ~ 1i ti. .. 'i .... III III '" In % i ~ j!gg8g8gg ~~~~~~gr;; ~N~col~N~~ ~-~~"""~ """ ~.. ~ggg~g~g ~~~g~~;~ N",,"~O ~ ~ N ri ot .. gg8g~8gg gaiddMciciui og:!lg;;;:il~!:< r!~;a ~~~ ..~ gg8goggg ~a!~grisi~ ~ ri ... ~ .. gg8g~g8g ~~~~a~~~ g~;~- ~~t:i .... ggggog~g ~!a~a!;;a o ri ::l ~ ggg8g8g8 ~~~~~~~i o:iN':ri~N~~ M_~~~~ ~ .... gggg8ggg ~!~~;aga ~ ~ ~ .. '6 gg8gltggg UU~Uim oiN":cti ~ """ M_~~ .... . il II. !I~~~~~~~ -~~-~:s~~ "5 " % ~ ~ ~ !! " = 'li ~ w ~ggggggggggg~~g~ "':.n.nocicicici<<i,...:ltici.ocO"":. :g~g:gM~g~tn:g~~;;~M~ ggti~~Wa~~~""~~""~~ ....~............ N ~ggggggggg~gg~~ Mll'.iuj"":Nlricici"":cic:icicicDM ....:;;~~....!a~m!~&f04........ gggggggggggg~gg. Q ~cill'.icigg~cicic:icici~~ci~ o .....5n~g.....oiO~~~~~~~~~ ~<~:~~~~a~~""""g~"" a ~~ ....;;;f09.... .... "'Iii]! h~ ~ig8gggggggggg~g~ i<<~g~g~~g~~g~gg~~ fi ;;;~; ....~......~....~ ;: .. ggggggggg~gg~ggm u ~~ggggg~~~~g~~ci= S MN~~""'~~_~~""~ON~~ ~ g~~a~""a~g ~~........~ ~ ...._............ N c.< .. e;: "'[3cu :e~E ml8oooooggggoooogo m~qqqq .. ..q~q~ .~ ~~~~~~~ga~~a~a~N '8 w;... ~~ ....~ .~ ;: gggggggggggg~gg, ~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~ o ~gti~g;~a~" ~........ ~ -1< ....-.. .... N .;: .. ~ i~!gggglilggggggg~~ m~ ~~~i~~g~~g:~g~ ."......tI'). 10"=1' 410')>(1') ..... .. ..t.It .... ~ggggggggggg~gg~ ~~~~~~~~~~:~~~ii ~ ~SQMO"M~~"" N.... ~ ~~ .;....; ........ ....c; ;:2~ m" !~~aaa~~aaaaaa~~~ 5U~~i~u~~;~~:~a~N ...... w.... ~~~~~N;:~~:~M~fc't~ .~ ~ ~ggggggg~gggggggg~8gggg~g~~g~ ~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~!~~~i ~~~~~~~m~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~m ~~ ~N~ ~ ~~~ ~ .. ~ggg~g~g~ggg~gggg~ggggggg~~g ~~~g;~~~~~~~~~gg~~~8~~ggg~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ co ~ ~~ .. gggg~ggg~gggggggg8ggggggggggS g~og~~~~~~ggMgggg~gggOg.ggg~~g~ o~~o~~~~~co~N~~O_Ocoo_co OM_~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~a!~~~~~~~~~~~ i .... .. ggggoggg~ggggggggggggggggggg g~~gg~~~~~g~~ggg~~gg~~g~g~~~ q~~q ~ ~ ~~w ~M~ .~~~~~~~~~ ! ~ ~~~ gggg~gggogggggggggggggg~g~gg~ ci~gg~8~~~~ggMciggci~g~gg~~M~g~~ g~~O~M~_~~COco~~~M~~com~N~-~~N~Z ~~~~ ~~~~~aa~~~~~m~~~m~~ ~MMI .... .. ggggog~gggggggggggggggggg~gg ~~a~g!;ags~s~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~ g ~ ~ ~~~a ~~ W~ .. ggg8gggggggggggggggggggggg~g! ~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~! g~~~~~w~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~WW ~~~.~ ~~ ~N~ M ~~~ .. 8ggggggggggggg8ggggggggggg~g ~~a~;aga~5~i~~~~~~a~~~a~~a~ci o ~ M ~MNN ~~ ~ M W~ .. 88gg~ggg~ggggggggggggggggg~gt ~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~1 N~~~ ~ ~~~=~~~~~N~~o~ri~W M~~~. ~~~M W ~~~~~;~;~~~ ~~~ ~ .. 8gggo8~g~8g8ggggg8ggggggg8~g g~~gggggu~g~~~o~~ggg~gggga~g ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~;M~~~ co ~ W~ .. 00 ~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :I::I: _mo_~~~~!m~O~MOMMNO-OOCO~~~~~ ~~ ~~~-~~N~M ~__~~CO~CO ciO~ N ~ggg~g~8~88g~g8gg~a~a~~a~a~~ ~~~g~g~~~g~g~8ggg~~~~~2~~~'= ~~mO~~N~cocoNO~~~~N~~~~~~~~~N~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~; ! ~8gg~g~8~gggg8gg8~g~8~~~~~~ ~~~g~~;~~~~~~~g~g~;8~~~5~~~ :~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~M~ ~~~ ~ N ~ ~~ .. g8gg~gggg8gggggggg'8gaa~~aa~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~z ~~~~ ~~~~~g~~~~~~~~g~~~~ww =.. W ~~~ ~tB ~g8 cOcOo ~~~ 0";": ....... 8gg cO~cti -...... ...... ci ... .. ggg ~~~ od~ ...... .. ggg ci~cti g...... .... g ggg OcOo g!<llll o~~ ~.... ggg octi~ g~::I ci ggg si.;g o!<l.. ":oi~ ....... .. ggg g'",,,, ...... .... .,: ::I ... li N " If .. ggggogggggggggggggggggg~g~g g~~cig~~~~ggg~ggg2~gg~~~g~~~ ~~~& W ~ ~~; ~~~q~~;;;~~~ a ~ ~~ g8gg~g~g~gggg8ggg8~8~~aa~a~~ ci~~g~g~~~8~g~oggg~~~~~8~~~~~ g~mo ON~~N~co~~~NM~-~co-M_~~~~ ~~M~ ~~;~~~~~ m~a~~:a; 5 ggggog~gggggggggg8g8g8~a~~~ cim~gci~~oM~ci~MogoocO~~~~g~:a &~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:;aMMa g ~ ~~ .. ggggggggggggggggggggggggglilg; g~~o~g~~~regcimgggg~g2g~~~~~~= o~mgco~_~~~N~~~~co~M~O~~~~~U~~ a~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~;W = gggggg~ggggg~ggggggggg~gg~~ g~~~;gg~~~~g~gggg:liia!~:~~ ~~wi ~ ~ ~;~ m~aa ~ .. gggg~g~gSggg~gggggggggggglilg ~~~~ag~g~~~~~~~~~~~i~~!!a~~; - -.. - ;h :ll - - - - -;h - - - - - - -.. lil ~~ ~ ~!~~: ~~~~;:~ ggggogSg:3ggg~ggggggggg~gg~~ ~~~ggggg~~g~~~g~~gg~~1i~:a~ ~MW~ M - WW~ ~~aa~~;; ~ .. o ~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~ ~~~_~~~~~~~~~_~N~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ co ~ N~ M N~. - ggg ocOO g!<lill 2";": ;;;.... ~~~ :: 1:; 2 w .. (3 ;: II: ~ ~ ei D:: .11I !:! ~Ie o ~I!! ~U % "co .. z ~ ffi . .. g 0 N g m ]i :I: -e... ~ a~ ~ ~Cl~'5~ g~iei 8c3~c(~ ~H~Un > oeEE~888: _N ;88oooo~ lUlU O_N~~-;~g ....1- .~~ ilUlU~Ei~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~I-I-~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ !~~~~~~~~ ii~~ ~ ~~~i,~!!!!8 ~~;~ ~ Mm~~~~~~mmc mm~s w _~owou~~~~~=~~_oo i o 1;;1;;Il'jjo~go.!!Jlanllii~ 0 ~~I??==~~lii~ioll~~.~ :I::I:..~~;:;:~~~~~~~~:I:..Jl~ ~ o ]i :I: i i w e : c '60 c w g~ggg~8gggggggggg8~gg~ g~oci~~ci~cici~ocici~.ciciN~ci~ ~~!~5~S:~;!~;~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~N~~ 0 .,.~ "'" N ooooo~ooooooooooooooo q_q~o~ooomOOOOOOOO~~O 8;~~~~~~~~~gg~~~~gg~~ ~ ~ ~ w~~ ~~~~~~~~~ .. .. .. g~8gggggggggggggggggg= S ~~~~~~~~~S~g~~~~~~~~g~ t<~ ~~~~~~~~~m~~;~~~ww = :.~ fRfR fR4R' N ;~~ Gf~gog8g~ggg~ggggggggggg i~~g~~~~ggg~gggggg~g~~ci ~ ~ fR fR fR~fR ~~a~~~~~fR ~~8~ggg8ggggggggggggg= 8;~i~5~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~' N ~ ~~~~~CfROmM;NWW fRfR~ ~ fR _~fRfRfR _fRNfRW ~ tltfR fR W ""'. ~ ~ :l.< e;= "'8m :s!trOE m€~goggg~g8ggg8ggg8gg~gg l~gci~~ciM~ci~Mcicigd~~~ci~~~ qtlt:fR~W~;~W~a~~~W;~fRfR~ ~ C')M ;= .... ~8g~gggg8gggggggggg~8~ 8~g~~~~~g~gggggci~g~ggd O_~WM~~~~~~~N~~~~-WMN~ ~MtIt "~m~~: ~~~MMMM ~I W" M M - h 16" "~~888g888888888888888~8 IQ~2~~ciciMci~ciMcigcicicigcici~Mci q"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ g~888~g88~88gggg88g~g~ l~~.~~~~~~_~~~I~~~~SS~' I N ~ ~MOMM~~~~N~~~~ I ~~~ ;~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~Ec ~i. 8~8~8~888~888888888~ ~8~g~g~~~g~~~g~~g~~g~~ N ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~W;~ .. .. .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _~~~~I~~~~_reM~~~~M~~ .. .. .. .. fd ::: ~ i 5 ;~ u: ~ID ~ ~~ o ~~ ~ ~~ :I: .." ~ ~ .. IL .. 0 ~ g II "5 " J: 'ti .5 Sggg~8~g~88g~gggg~gggggg~ ~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~a ~~~~~~~g~~g~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ N Sggg~g~g~ggg~gggg~gggg~g s~~g;~~~~~~~~~gg~~~~~ag~ ~~~i ~ ~ ~;~ ~~ga ~;~ ~~ .. ~~~~~~~~~~~aaa~aaaaaaaaa~ 8~~8~E~5~~g~~~~~g~8~~g~~~ ~~~~ g~~a~~~a~~a~~;~~;~~~ ggggoggg~ggg8ggggggggggg g~~8g~~~~ggg~gogo~gg~ga~ q~~q ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~;;~~ ~ ~ ~~ .. gggg~g~g~gggggggggggg8~g~ ~~~~~~~~g~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~a ~~;~ a~~~~~g~~~~~;~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ g8ggog~g~gggggggggg8gg~g ~aa~g~;aa&~~~~~~~~~~~~=~ o ~ M ~~MM ~~ M ~ ~~ .. gggggggggggggggggggggggg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~!~i ~~~~MM~~~~O~N~m~c~MM~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~;~;M~ ~;w~ ~~ ~A gg8gggiggggg~ggggg8ggggg ~aa~;~g~~i~i~~~~~~~~a~~o, ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ g8gg~8~gggggggggg8888gg8~ g~~g:~~g~~go~8gg~~g~~g~gl oo~o ~~CCN~~~~~Nm~~~~N~~~ .~;~ ~ ~~5~~; ~~a~~!~~ M~ 88g808~8~8888888ggg8888 g~~~g~gg~~g~~~g~~gg~~g~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~w~ ~ M ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~-~~~~~~gg~~~~~~~~~.~ -e " ~~ ~<5...:iS Q)OC!CUftl g-e~e 88~c( ... Gl Gl CP !I~I~~~ '::ee,ll888 lQ88'O'Ooo O~NC:C:CC lQ)Q)~~~E ~888g888~g88gggg8g8~a~J ~a~~_i~~,_ai~~i~~~~a~~~~ ~~~~~~M~~~~~~~M~~ ~~~ i l'l8888 ~iU~ ~~;~. .. ~888~8g8~8g8~g8~8~ggg~ ti~~g~~~~a~~~~~g~~~ggg~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ; - .. .. 00000 NOOO~ "':oioic::i"': ~~~gtlt ~ ti g8gg~g8g~8ggggggg8g~a~; ~a~~~~g~ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~tIt~~g~~~;~~~ g~- J "'" ~"'" - 8888~ cisiciciti 8..:88 ~~;ti ggggc8g8~g8ggggg88g~~ g~~gg~~~~ggg~gg~g~ga8 o~~o ~ M _N_ oo~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ .. 88gg~ggggggggg8g~g8$~~. 2g~2~~~~~~~g~gg~3~g~~~~ ~~m~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~ : ~~ _ ~ ~~~_~~ ~ U ~ g8ggcg~g~ggggg8gg~g~~ ~~~~g!~~~~g~~g~:~:~g: o -~ tit ""'~- ~_ ~ ~ l;l 8888~ o~~gg g~_o o N N .. .. 888888g888888888888~~~ 2g~g~~g~~~~g~c::ig~8~g~~~ OC~OC~tIt~~~M~C~~N~tIt~~~ ~~M~_~ ~aaa~~ ~ ~ ; 88888 ~si~g~ r.f~;~~ 888888g888888888888~~~t ~aa~;!g!~~~!a~~~~:~aEM ~ ~ tit ~~ ~ ~ ... "'6 '" .. 2' IL gggg~ggg~888gggg88g~~~ 2g~c::i~g~g~~~g~~c::i~8~g~~M q~~~ ~_~~~~~~~a~tIt~~~~ ~~ ~ ~!~~~ ~ ; 8888~ ~~Uti ~:;f4 .. ~~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ g!!8a~a;~~!&~~~;~:~a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ " 8888~ ~i!~a M N N .. .. o ~~~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J: cna:U:CLL -':I::l:LL-' _g~_~~~~E~~~~_~~~NM~~ -~~~~ ~ J: ~ .~ .. " ;= f i il. .. c ._ c .. .. N .. " .... I ~ ! ell ~ ~ ~ ~ ... .. ~ a; ~ 8gg~8gg~8gg~88gg~g= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! I ~~~~!:~~~~!~~~~~ ~e i w E g~g~g8g~gg8~gggg~g ! ~~~M~~~Ncicio~~~~cio~ a ~~~~~;~~g8~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ggggggggggggggg~gggg~gg ~ ~~~~a~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! ~ ~M~N ~ ~~O~~~~~N~~~~ ~ ~ ;~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :;: ~ggg~g~g~ggg~ggg~gggg~g ~aa~;a~i~5~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ .... ggggggg~gggggggggg~ 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g5~i f ;~~~O~~~M~O~N~;~ ~~ ~* ~_~~~~~~N~_ ~ 0 3: ~4A- ~ ~ N lL ;ir~ iiiJ:e figg8gggg~gggggggggg i~<<~~~~ggg~ggg~gg~g~~ * ~ _N_ ~~O~___N~ ~~. . M "<t- ~1A-.toI) ;:: ........ gggg~gggggggggggg&ggggg~ ~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! NM;N IA-IA-~NO~~~~~N;~~N~4A- ~ MtoI)toI)~ _~~toI)~~ ~..~.. ~ ....IA- ~ ggggoggg~ggg~ggg8gggggg ~aa~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~ N N" ~ ~..~ ,,4A-. ~~.... :;; .... gggg~ggg~ggggggggggggggt ci~gggS~S~~gggcicig~~~~g~~~ ~~~q ~~~~a~ri~i~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~"IA-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gggggggg8ggggggg~g2 u ~sg~~gg~gggg~8gg~~~ ~ ~_~_M~~~_N~~M~O_~~ ~ ;-~t~~~~~~~~~~" ~ ~~ .... 4o'Jo ~ "'" E;:: :8e iii€~~~~~~~~~a~aa~a~a~a i~~;g~~g~~~gg~~~~~a~ 8 .. - 6It_6It M_M ~--~ . ~MM ...~ ........ ;:: ggggog~g~gggg8ggggggg~g cimmgci~~ci~~ci~Mcicici~~~~ci~~ ~~~~~:~~..~~~..~~~~~~~~..~ - .... .... gggggggggggggggggg: ~ci~~~~g~gcicicig~gg~ci~ g~~_~=~~~~g~~N~_....:2~ ~ ~i~~~~~~~~4A-~"~! a~~a~a~a~a~~a~aa~~~~~~~~ g~~g51a~~Sg~~~~~~~~~~~gi ~a~~ ~~g~~~;~~~~~~ 0 .... .... i~ ~m ~~18~888g8~g8gggggggg 18~Md~M~~gNggg~~~cici~ci ~..~~~;~..~~~~~~~~ ~ ........ ggg88gggg8gg~ggggggggg8 ~~~~~~g!~~~g~_gg.~ggg~gTI ~~..~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ < .... 88gg~8~gggg88gg8g8ggggg~ ~~~~g~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~g! ~M~N ~~~M~~~N~~~N ~ _..~~ ~N~~~" ~.. ~ .... .... gg8~8gg~ggggggg8ggl ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! ~ - "ONN~~~~~~O~~" ~ ~~ ;~~.._~;;.. ~ ""c :!!.5 IDa> l~g~g:2ggg~gggggggggg jB~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~a ~~M ~vt ........ gg8gog~g~gggg8ggggggggg ~!!~g~g~~~i~~~~~~a~~a~g ~ N ~..~ ~~ - .... .... _~~_~~~~!~~~~N_~~~~~_~ g .. .. .. :il .. o .. II: ~ S ~~ ffi :19 i) i~ ~ f~ :I: ...., lL iI: ~ ~ :I lL .. 0 .. 0 ii '3 .. :I: ~ .. ~ ! .t:. .. .. ~ :i i .. ~ o ! ~~~~ ~~~~ i! .. i! 1 e:t H,,~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ OOOMMO 000__0 :gOIriN"';\ri ;l~~:t;;; ~a " l':I ~! ~ 8 S I, ~ l ".e Ii"" Ii .0:>.... 218 tl iillS.::! Jj!"c Jj! I.l '0 Jj!!Ii '0 u];l ~ fDJW<lI-COCI-<ciDCS ;l;;l;g lti~~ qq" !! ~~ ~ '0 ~ a> II lL COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4,2008 ITEM #:_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: I:8J Consent o City Council Business MEETING DATE: February 25,2008 o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other ~!~~~~2~!.~~:J:l.~~!~~.~~~~?:I.>.:~~-,~~~a.:<::.~.YY.!'1.!l:l!M~~.g~!. .... . ...I:!~~!:... Pt.lblic W ork~...._.........._...._.._._...___...._. Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee rnemo dated February 25th, 2008. QP.!i.~.!!~..~.~I!~i.~~_I.:~~-=-..._...._...._......... ... ............................_...... ............... .............-.-..-..--.---.-.--. 1. Award the bid for the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service to Everson's Econo-Vac for $140,190.00 as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. The contract will be developed in accordance with the approved annual budget of $133,606.00. 2. Reject all bids for the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service and direct staff to rebid the service's and return to Committee for further action. 3. Do not award the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Services bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: I/H+1.. Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the March 04, 2008 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move awarding the bid for the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Services to Everson's Econo-Vac as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Expenditures for this call out services contract shall not exceed the $133,606.00 budget allotment. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: February 25,2008 Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P .E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager c/- /" ""'--..." Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager a ~~) Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance a~~ervice Contract Bid Award BACKGROUND: Three bids were received and opened on February 5, 2008 for the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service Contract RFB 08-101; please see attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Everson's Econo-Vac with a total bid of $140,190.00. Since this is an on-call services contract, the quantities established in the bid documents were identified as the averages for the past three years and that the actual quantities used throughout the year would vary. As such, no warranties were expressed as to the actual quantities to be used throughout the year. Everson's Econo-Vac has been providing this service to the City since 2003 and has proven to be reliable and proficient in surface water infrastructure maintenance. As a result, City staffbelieves Everson's Econo-Vac can successfully execute this contract to the City's satisfaction. AVAILABLE FUNDING: The budget for the Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service Contract is $133,606.00. Since this contract is on a call-out basis only, the $133,606.00 budget will be used as the basis for the contract amount. cc: Project File k:\lutc\2008\02-25-08 Surface Water Infrastructure Maintenance and Service- bid award.doc ~ S ....J <( a::: W o ill LL LL o ~ () Q) - co E +:; CJ) W - CJ) o () CJ) e o +:; CO :J .0 CO I- :g ell :<: e :::> 00 o CD o N a.; ro o Q) o~ '0 .... 0- a... CO :<:"E e(V') :J IJ) ro E o .r:; I- 0:: >. Q) .0 U'O "0 'o...c as ~ ro _'0 a. .- e al .=; N c: -' Q) U .... .- Q) tl:~'O :<:,3:g e CO :J - (,) n1 .$~ lo;, c- .... :s:!:J 0 S:::CO~'E o <( ::::> (.) "- ,g (,) ~ CO Q Q N """ Q """ I CO Q If 0:: t: o :0::: c. 'i: (.) en (I) C :s:! ~ ca- t Q) "e- o... co o o N -- T'" T'" -- N '0 Q) - e 'C a... .-. t;~ W - ,': ~W ~O ' ~ ~ ~ " z<( (.) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 oOOOOqONO o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 00 T'"" ..- C\I .,.... <fl<fl<fl<fl<fl<fl<fl<fl IJI~ , ': , ,I .', ~ ~ 00 0 0 N ~ ~ q q ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ' N ~ ~ m 0 ~ ~ ~ ro N N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 00 N N N ~ T'" Q) Ol CO a... UI l..l C ClI 0> l!! 0 Ql C > 0 w l..l W .~~I<fl~<fl.~~~ I.,::;!I:I~ CXl. 0 - I ~ - ',' ~<fl<fl ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 m ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ m M M M m m 0 ~ .,.... ..- N N N 0 ~ ro 'If"'"" T'"" .,.... T""" <fl<fl<fl<fl<fl<fl<fl<fl - 'c ::::> 120 g c:OOOOOOOOO OOOCOT"'<oOc:iO Q)riCON ""coT'" E: N E: o o "'0 '- ..Q "'0 c: CO Q)~ E: fii COG < c I... '(jj .9~ 0.r:; ~ ~ 1::U o - o ~ >- I- , IJ) .0 ro l- E ~ "0 iii <(<(a:::a:::a:::a:::gco<( WWIIIII-<.9W IJ) X ...: o t5 ro > ~ a3 '(3 IJ) ~ ~ OJ :s:! ~ ,~ 0 al c.!!2 0 c..... U'1i '0 _ CJ) ro "0 ii: .~ ro a. C - al C"O all-(/) rl 0 <3 ro C(/)"O"O alro al:J CalolJ) .~ .f: e ~ ro E "0 8- ...J OJ U C :J .- IJ) ~EQ;~:8~5-0 .r:;o"O(/)u>:.J.... u(/)-~>-al__.E ro -'u~ooal U~~a5Eroroal = OJ;::: IJ) 1J)u.. al 'c 'c w 8. >! ~ a. ro ro ~ >- 2 2 E () .!!2 .!!2 C I- () U W U 0 0 W ~ o ~ d::, o CO u.. 0:: T"'N(V')"<tLO<ot--COO) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4,2008 ......~__..........M___...M.M ................_.................... .............................................................. ..........................-.................. .... ITEM #:_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: SWM Callout Truck Bed Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the SWM CallQut Truck Bed Bid to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: February 25, 2008 CATEGORY: IZI Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing o City Council Business D Resolution D Other ~!~!~!'.9..~!~:x:_J?'.l:~!.!3.~~~<:.hz.J?:~~,..~~fa.:~~..~~!~~.M~~g~~@.,.........~.~!'.!:..J?!J.:~1..i..~~<?~~~......_..__......_.._..-........-...-.-...- Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated February 25, 2008. Options Considered: --_..T~.._..-A~;d..."ihe.bi(ffoi-tlie.S~iface.Water.MaintenID;c.e..Steei..PlatbecCafid..Tooi..Boxes.RFQ..iQ-The FabShop..for $27,132.82 as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. 2. Do not award the Surfa~e Water Maintenance Steel Flatbed and Tool Boxes RFQ to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. ...........-................--...--..............................-............ ..... ............................-.... .......................-..........-.............................. ........_--_....__..~---_._....-..._..._. DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ee Council CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the March 04, 2008 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, Member Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "] move awarding the bid for the Surface Water Maintenance Steel Flatbed and Tool Boxes RFQ to The Fab Shop as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: February 25,2008 Land Use and Transportation Committee Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager d/JItf\... Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager @tff:.' SWM Callout Truck Bed Bid Award BACKGROUND: Two (2) bids were received and opened on January 29,2008 for the Surface Water Maintenance Steel Flatbed and Tool Boxes RFQ. See attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is The Fab Shop with a total bid of $27,132.82. The low bid received is within the remaining replacement reserves ($28,917.24) after purchase of the main truck and body. Reference checks on The Fab Shop by City staff indicate that the contractor has performed similar work. As a result, City staffbelieves The Fab Shop can successfully complete this project to the City's satisfaction. Therefore the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is The Fab Shop in the amount $27,132.82. cc: Project File k:\lutc\2008\02-25-08SWM Callout Truck Bed bid award.doc Ul Ql Ol III a. I '0 E- W w :I: rn Z o E= -< >oJ ;;l ~ -< E- O - ~ - m ~ Q) ...-0 ~Q) Su:. ~ >. ~ '" ... "" "" '; "" E c 'i;L '" c W w 00 ~ i:O r-- "0 i:O -c "0 i:O tr. ~ ~ .". ~ ..., ~ ~ 1;:, "- 'V -0;:, r \fJ 3 -~ =- ~ ~ N ~ .~ r'< f' ~ ~ ~ ~ ) , -:r i:O j, '~~ ~ --3 >;J - -- ~ '-.\UJ+-3 N \f' \' ~ ~L "" \f' ':jJ - ~ "0 ~&~ --:r N i:O t{' <3"' "" I<l - -r N I"""- ~ ...... CIl ~ l.W ~ X 0 -r "" ~ ...J ,......." 0 ,.., :t :t CIl )- '~ ~ i== "" ... <( No '" '" :;;: \I" + ~ '? -- Q~ 0 M @- 0 l.W @' :I: "" I- I- oc: oc: Z I- '" '" <( a; a; <( Q. ...J ~ ~ ;> oc .... - ...J 0 l.W If) l.W .. " W I- " ~ 0 CIl 1: .: .::: o~I- ~ ~ ....~~ w , CIl e! =... ~ E t t:: ~ - " " 0 0 0:: .. I~ " .. .. c " .. " ~ " .::: " E -~ ~ ~ ;0 " ~ is is u z Z i..i " '" '" '" '" c a; iC iii iC iii .t -r rJ rr - c~ ~ Ii' N tt ':> P. v ) ') (,- '-t -{ .-.:J, " --- --~ --:) 6 /-{ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: N/A ITEM #: .........__..........._..................................................................._._...............................__.._._......'w...._......._.......__ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Discussion of Potential Amendments to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter Chapter 20, "Subdivisions"; and Chapter 22, "Zoning," regarding tree preservation, clearing and grading. POLICY QUESTION: Staff is asking for direction in proceeding with draft code amendments. COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: N/A CATEGORY: D Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing D . City Council Business D Resolution [8] Other: Information Only STAFF REpORT By: Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP and Senior Planner DEPT: Community Development M~Eg~!~~g!.~t!!-..b.:!~I.>._.___..__.._____..__..__.____.._._..___._._.____._...._...._...._...._...._.__....__..._........-----.-..-...-.-.............-.-..-.-.-....-....-....-.-.----....-.--.-..--...--......-.-.--.---..--..----.-- Planning Department staff will give a brief presentation on this topic followed by committee discussion and direction to staff for preparation of draft code amendrnents. ..--........-...................-............--........---...----.......-..-.........------.---.........................---........................-..-..-......-----..--.............--......-..--......................-..---....-.-..-----......--................-----.... Attachments: 1) Staff report to LUTC dated February 25,2008 including all attachments. ...-.............-.....-...-----........................--....-....-.-....---------................-.--......................................................................-..............................-................_-~_.................._........_.._.~..._._.................._..._._..........---.....-....-....-...-----......-..-... Options Considered: Staff is requesting direction with regard to preparation of draft code amendments. See Section A of attached staff report for discussion. ..............--.-.........-..........-.......................................-...................................-.........--................-..---...........--....-.....-......--......................-...................-..-.-........................................................................................-.-...........-......-........--.......- ort Section A to Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: &/tf to Connnittee To Council CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Jim Ferrell, Member Linda Kochmar, Chair Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: N/A THIS ITEM IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02106/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT VIA: FROM: February 19,2008 Linda Kochmar, Chair Members of the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) Cary Roe, Assistant City Manager ~ Greg Fewins, CDS Dir~ Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: TO: SUBJECT: Progress Report and Request for Direction Regarding Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Amendments for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading MEETING DATE: February 25,2008 A. POLICY QUESTION With respect to code requirements for tree preservation, clearing, and grading, which of the following best describes the direction the LUTC feels the City of Federal Way should be headed? 1. Fix what isn't working, but don't change the overall objectives of the existing code. 2. Our current code needs a major update. We need to do a better job of retaining trees and vegetation and minimizing site disturbance even if it adds to development costs. 3. Recognizing that much of Federal Way is built out and remaining parcels have steep slopes and lots are becoming smaller, we should consider allowing greater initial clearing and grading, but increase requirements for tree and vegetation replacement with options for off-site and/or fee-in-lieu of replacement, minimize time frame between clearing and grading and construction and address penalties for failure to perform and for violations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends proceeding with Option 3 listed above. B. INTRODUCTION The topic of tree preservation, clearing, and grading is one that holds broad community interest. In the months that staff has been researching this topic and working with the Planning Commission and interested parties, it has become evident that there are diverse opinions related to this topic. For example, some members of our community have told us that existing regulations are not effective enough ih preserving the tree canopy, or in providing for development that is sensitive to the natural landscape and surrounding development. Other members of our community have told us that the current regulations are too restrictive, do not accommodate the most efficient land development techniques, and add to the cost of development. In an ideal world, staff envisions preparing code amendments that can be responsive to these divergent opinions. We hope to prepare draft code language that does a better job of ensuring development is sensitive to the natural and surrounding built environment, while also better relating to established land development practices. The following is an outline of how staff sees this agenda item proceeding: 1. Staff will provide the LUTC with a briefing on the topic. 2. The LUTe may take public comment ("Interested Parties" [Exhibit A] have been invited to this meeting). 3. The LUTC will be asked to provide staff direction with regard to preparation of draft ordinance language. c. BACKGROUND . The topic of tree preservation, clearing, and grading was initially placed on the Planning Division and Planning Commission 2007 Work Program. Staffbegan meeting with the Planning Commission in study session format in September, 2007 and has conducted three study sessions on this topic, (September 19, 2007, November 9, 2007, and January 16,2008). The staff reports and minutes of these meetings are attached as Exhibit B. Planning Commission Input During initial meetings with the Planning Commission, commissioners requested that staff invite representatives from the development community and utility companies and other interested parties to meet with them to provide input on this topic. Our most recent meeting with the Planning Commission did include a panel discussion with "Interested Parties" (Exhibit A), who provided input and dialogue with the commissioners and staff. The following is a summary of what the commissioners told staff over the course of the three meetings: . Trees are important. There is community and commissioner concern with regard to grading and clearing of vegetation far in advance of eventual site developrnent. Development on steep slopes is a concern with regard to life/safety, especially with regard to long term slope stability. Code amendments should be evaluated in terms of potential added development costs and residential affordability. There may be some value in obtaining services of professional arborists, but the appropriate use of these professionals needs to be established. Tree and vegetation retention/replacement requirements need to be coordinated with utility providers. . . . . . In 2008, the City received a Low Impact Development (LID) grant for technical assistance from the Puget Sound Partnership. The City will be receiving technical assistance from the AHBL Consulting firm to assist in the review and revision of city code to implement LID techniques. Planning Division staff is working with staff in the Public Works Department on this effort. During our recent project kick off meeting, staff was provided with copies of previous grant recipients' products, including revised tree and vegetation preservation and clearing and grading ordinances. We will be evaluating these materials for potential application to Federal Way. City Council Committee Staff Report Progress Report for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Page 2 The following section of this memorandum provides a summary of the key issues staff is considering in developing draft code amendments. That section is followed by a look at what other cities currently require and then a summary of the comments staff has received from "Interested Parties." D. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES The key issues being studied with relationship to potential code amendments are summarized below. For further discussion on each of these topic areas and excerpts from the applicable city code sections, please refer to Exhibit B, Planning Commission Staff Reports for the September 19,2007, November 7,2007, and January l6, 2008 meetings. Code Organization Currently there are seven separate sections of the city code related to this topic. Two are in Chapter 20, "Subdivisions" and five are in Chapter 22, "Zoning." Staffis proposing to place all development regulations pertaining to tree and vegetation retention, clearing, and grading in one code section. Placing all related requirements in one location within the code would assist both staff and applicants in application of the various requirements to specific development proposals. Clearing and Grading Current regulations specify that all vegetation shall be preserved to the extent possible as sites are developed. What this means for subdivision development is that clearing is only to take place as necessary for infrastructure improvements, leaving the remainder of the site untouched until the time that house construction is to take place. However, with steep slopes and smaller lots, residential developers often ask for mass grading. By the time they clear and grade for infrastructure, there is often not much left untouched and/or it may be difficult to come in later to clear and grade the individual lots because the heavy equipment needed to grade the individual lots might damage the infrastructure, for example roads and curbs. In addition the remaining trees on lots, which may end up eventually being removed to construct the house, may become a hazard tree in terms of its stability. A related issue is the aesthetic and life-safety concern of development on steep slopes. The city is receiving many requests for development (both residential and commercial) with application of numerous and imposing (long and tall) retaining walls. There is concern both with the appearance of the walls as well as safety and long term stability of the walls. The following is a list of identified clearing and grading issues: Development on Sloped Sites · Slope stability as it relates to permitting vegetation removal and grading. · Density/site coverage as it relates to slopes (steeper slope, less density/coverage allowed). · Should lot averaging be considered? This would allow the permitted number of lots based on the underlying zoning, but would require lots on steeper slopes to be larger. Mass Grading . Establish parameters where mass grading is allowed in certain cases (e.g. small site size). · Establish a maximum site area that rnay be mass graded. Consider whether we should look at grading on a lot-by-lot, block-by-block-phasing issue. . Concerns about hauling the graded material away. Lot-by-lot grading may impact both the on-site infrastructure and surrounding streets and present a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. City Council Committee Staff Report Progress Report for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Page 3 . Should we treat the grading of a site differently depending on the existing vegetation cover, e.g., grass versus trees? Maximum amount of grade change allowed through grading. What weight should we give to neighbors' concerns? . . Retaining Walls · Establish guidelines for retaining wall design. · Maximum allowable height for retaining wall depending on uselzone. · Design guidelines for retaining walls-use of terracing, acceptable materials, landscape screening methods, etc. · Establish submittal requirements for retaining walls (section, elevation, material sample, photo of similar walls to those being proposed, etc.). Significant Tree and Vegetation Retention City code requires significant trees to be replaced in an amount equal to 25 percent of the significant trees which existed on the subject property prior to commencing any development activity if the approved development will require the removal of more than 75 percent ofthe significant trees on the subject property. For subdivisions, significant trees located within areas to be improved or graded are excluded from the replacement requirement. Often times the result of existing regulations is the retention of significant trees within perimeter landscape areas, without the original surrounding canopy. These trees often do not survive severe wind storms and other times are damaged during construction activity and eventually die (this process can take as long as three years in a mature tree). The overarching issue that staff wants to address with regard to tree preservation and vegetation retention is how to do a better job of preserving trees and vegetation that will ultimately survive for a normal life span, and how to supplement those retained trees/vegetation with replacement vegetation when necessary. The desired result is an acceptable level of vegetation retention and resulting tree canopy for the city overall, with consideration to the unique site and development conditions of individual development proposals. The following is a list of the issues identified for this topic: Tree Evaluation · How significant trees are classified (some communities identify "landmark trees" as well as "significant trees"). · Tree canopy evaluation-some jurisdictions consider not only size but grouping of trees, with greater emphasis on preserving contiguous tree canopy. Preserving tree canopies provide areas for habitat and results in greater tree retention potential. · Review the significant tree evaluation process-how can better evaluation be done to ensure trees identified to be saved will actually survive; don't try to save trees that will likely be damaged during construction, or not likely to survive long term. · Better evaluation and protection of off-site trees. Tree Preservation · Establishing an adequate buffer around significant trees to be saved. · Requiring signage as well as fencing around trees. City Council Committee Staff Report Progress Report for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Page 4 Tree Replacement · Tree replacement-review current replacement ratios (are we satisfied with a 25 percent minimum?) as well as whether larger significant trees should have more replacement trees. · Should we consider off-site tree replacement and/or fee-in-lieu of tree replacement? Either of these approaches could also include a list of priority receiving sites, such as city parks or the Hylebos wetlands. · Types of replacement trees. Consider the concept of "right tree, right place." The city may consider developing a list of preferred replacement trees based on local conditions, such as exposure, soil, and location on site, such as shown in Exhibit C. · Pararneters for tree replacement-greater specificity on where and/or how replacement trees should be placed on site to establish more natural groupings. Clustering versus long narrow strips? · Establish a maximum time period that ground may lay bare once vegetation removed. The city may consider assuming authority for the forest practices permit required for the removal of merchantable timber. · Guidelines for revegetation when needed for interim period. · See grading issues as well. Monitoring of Protected/Replacement Trees · Establish monitoring requirements for a period of time and collect bond to fund any necessary tree replacement after completion of development. · Establish stricter penalties for illegal tree and vegetation removal. Landscape Requirements In addition to regulations related to tree removal, retention, and replacement, there are landscaping requirements associated with development. In general, perimeter landscaping is required for all non- single family development. The type of landscaping, whether a Type I - Solid Screen, Type II - Visual Screen, Type III - Mix of Trees and Shrubs, or Type IV - Open Air Landscaping, depends on the type ofland use, site zoning, and zoning of the adjacent property. There are also specific parking lot landscaping requirements and requirements for screening adjacent to rights-of-way. What Do Other Cities Require? A typical question we ask when we begin to assess the efficacy of our existing code language is, "What do other cities do?" It is usually helpful to take a look at what our neighbors are doing for clues as to what we might do differently and to determine where our city falls on the continuum of less restrictive to more restrictive requirements. Staff contacted the following jurisdictions and also reviewed their codes with regard to the general approach to tree retention and replacement, clearing, and grading requirements, development on steep slopes, and regulations related to the use of retaining walls. . Auburn . Bellevue . Gig Harbor . Kent . Kirkland . Redmond . Renton . Seattle Upon review of these jurisdictions' regulatory approach, staff would characterize Federal Way's current regulations as falling sornewhere in the center of the spectrum, ranging from less sophisticated (less detailed, innovative) to more sophisticated (more detailed, innovative). Jurisdictions that appear to have a more sophisticated approach and provide greater protection of natural site conditions would City Council Committee Staff Report Progress Report for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Page 5 be Kirkland and Redmond. Jurisdictions that appear to have a less sophisticated approach and/or lesser protection of natural site conditions would be Seattle and Gig Harbor. It appears that Auburn, Bellevue, Kent, and Renton would fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, similar to Federal Way. Another observation is that, in general, cities have placed more code emphasis/direction with regard to tree preservation and replacement than on clearing and grading and development on steep slopes. (See Exhibit D for a summary of other cities' requirements.) Staffwill continue to analyze methods utilized by other cities as well as consult model ordinance language coming out of the work with previous recipients of Low Impact Development grants referenced in the beginning of this memorandum. E. INPUT FROM "INTERESTED PARTIES" At the January 16,2008, Planning Commission Study Session, staff invited the identified "Interested Parties" to attend and serve as a discussion panel to provide input to the Planning Commission. It should be noted that at the January l6th meeting, the panel was made up of representatives from the development community and utility providers. There were no "citizens at large" at the meeting that evening. The following is a summary of the input we received. Also, the minutes of the January 16, 2008, meeting (Exhibit B) contain more detailed comments from this panel. (See Exhibit E for additional written comments received throughout the process.) Clearing and Grading Input . In some cases, it is difficult to retain topsoil on site during development - for example when there is no place to stockpile it. . Developers like to keep soil material on site when they can as it is more efficient. . Grading of lots is necessary to keep driveways near two percent maximum slope. Limiting grading can result in steep driveways. . The length of time between mass grading of sites and development is adding significantly to community concern regarding tree removal. If development and re-vegetation occurred in a timelier manner, there would be less time that passer-bys would be exposed to sites that have been cleared in preparation for development. . Every site and every development proposal is unique and need regulations that can respond to unique site and development conditions. . CTED has provided model code language for retaining walls, but staff should not rely heavily on it. The city should emphasize goals with regard to retaining wall design and then provide different possible design solutions from which an applicant can choose, depending on site conditions. . Wall design was viewed as more of an engineering than aesthetic concern and therefore, it was felt the current regulations were working in that regard. Tree and Vegetation Retention Input . Trees should be preserved in clusters. . The city's current 25 percent tree retention/replacement ratio is acceptable to developers. . Evaluating trees for preservation should consider not simply size, but health and site conditions to ensure trees retained will be more likely to survive. . In some cases, it may be preferable to allow removal of more/all significant trees and rely on replanting in appropriate locations, with the result being more tree canopy in the long term. City Council Committee Staff ReportiProgress Report for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Meeting Date: February 25,2008 Page 6 . The arborist the city currently consults is a well-respected arborist and his recommendations for tree protection should be considered. . Cannot retain trees on small lots-should allow their removal and replant per a planting plan in more appropriate location. . There appears to be a need for the involvement of a certified arborist in certain cases for better assurance of meeting tree and vegetation protection goals. However, this need should be assessed with regard to potential cost to city and/or developers. . Trees near power lines cannot be greater than lO feet in height. . Need to address the timeliness of clearing and development revegetation to reduce the amount of time sites lie bare. F. NEXT STEPS After the January 25th study session with the LUTC, staff will draft code amendment language and issue a SEP A decision on the anticipated effect of the proposed amendments. Staff will then take the draft code language to the Planning Commission for discussion and public hearing. Staff will also route the draft ordinance language to "Interested Parties" and notify them of the Planning Commission rneeting dates. Following the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation, the draft ordinance language will be presented to the LUTC for consideration and recommendation to the full Council. G. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit E List of "Interested Parties" Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes for September 19,2007, November 7, 2007, and January 16,2008 List of Recommended Tree Species Table Summarizing other Jurisdictions' Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Standards Written Comments Received from "Interested Parties" Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D K:\Trees, Vegetation, & Grading\LUTC\LUTC draft report.DOC City Council Committee Staff Report Progress Report for Tree Preservation, Clearing, and Grading Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Page 7 PARTIES OF RECORD EXHIBIT-A - '- iji-- PAGE-LOF-l Mrs. Donna Williamson Kurt Wilson 17414 433rd Place SE 30011 4th Avenue South SBI Developing, LLC North Bend, W A 98045 Federal Way, WA 98023 Land Acquisition 425-831-7730 (wk) 253-839-6122 PO Box 73790 206-353-1761 (cell) Puyallup, W A 98373 425-831-7783 (fax) kurt@soundbuilthomes.com Patricia R. Erwin 253-539-8166 (wk) prerwin@comcast.net 253-377-7147 (cell) George Cook 253-839-0931 253-539-0514 (fax) Quadrant 14725 SE 36th Street, Suite #200 Amanda Bell PO Box 130 35736 25th Place South Lisa Spahr Bellevue, W A 98009 Federal Way, WA 98003 Department of Natural George.cook@quadranthomes.com Resources 425-452-6553 (wk) 950 Farman Avenue North 425-864-4681 (cell) Chris Carrel Enumclaw, W A 98022 425-646-4133 (fax) Friends of the Hylebos Lisa.spahr@dnr.wa.gov PO Box 24971 360-825-1631 (wk) Federal Way, WA 98093 Holly Williamson Chinookimhylebos.org BP/Olympic Pipe Line 253-874-2005 (wk) Mark Cross Field Project Coordinator 908 SW 344th Place 2319 Lind Avenue SW Federal Way, W A 98023 Renton, W A 98055 John Norris markc@r>ioneerballon.com Hollv. williamson@bo.com Norris Homes 253-661-0188 (wk) 425-235-7767 (wk) 2053 Faben Drive 206-669-8823 (cell) 206-510-5388 (cell) Mercer Island, W A 98040 316-691-6936 (fax) 425-271-5320 (fax) iohnnorris@comcast.net 206-275-1901 (wk) 206-275-1210 (fax) Paul Woolson Monte Powell BPA Powell Homes 28401 Covington Way SE 29607 8th A venue South Douglas Corbin Covington, W A 98042 Federal Way, WA 98003 PSE pbwoolson@bpa.gov monte@powell-homes.com 6905 South 228th Street 360-772-0294 (wk) Kent, W A 98032 Douglas.corbinimpse.com Paul Bucich 253-395-6867 (wk) Ron Tremaine Will Appleton 253-604-3137 (cell) Redstone Development Bea Sanders Land Acquisition and Development EXHIBIT-B=-=---. : PAGE I.. OF~ September 19, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes September 19, 2007 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Hope Elder. Chair Dave Osaki Merle Pfeifer Wayne Carlson K,\Plann;ng (omrrUs.~ionl.:0t)7iAgrnd1 09.19-1)7 doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION . -------. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES March 28, 2007, April 4, 2007, April 18, 2007, & May 2,2007 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS · STUDY SESSION Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Dini Duclos. Vice-Chair William Drake Lawson Bronson Kevin King (Allernme) Cily Starr Kathy McClung. CDS Director Margaret Clark. Senior Planner E. Tina Piety. Administrative Assistant . 253-835-2601 ~!2!.!t'. C; !E1l!'ilt.rt'IwlI.'. (:0111 ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXHIBIT 8 . PAGE--3-0F~ Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session September 19, 2007 I. INTRODUCTION This staff report contains a review of the current City of Federal Way zoning and subdivision code requirements for the preservation of significant trees, requirements for vegetation retention, and site grading. These code sections are currently being reviewed by staff for possible amendments. The reason this review is taking place is due to re-occurring issues that have presented themselves during the development review process. These issues include: . Difficulty applicants have in understanding the current tree preservation requirements. Significant trees that are preserved often do not survive the site development phase and/or blow down after completion of site development and ultimately are not preserved. Current tree protection requirements often do not result in the preservation of groupings of trees, but result in single stand-alone trees scattered throughout the project site, or strips of trees along the site perimeter. Groups of trees have a greater chance of survival, provide better cover for wildlife, and are a better site amenity. The current tree preservation requirements are not the "best management practice" (8MP) with regard to tree preservation. This may be contributing to trees not ultimately surviving site development. The significant tree requirements do not address the issue of significant trees/vegetation on adjacent property. Therefore, trees on adjacent properties are often damaged and/or killed as a result of site development. Repeated requests for "mass grading," where an applicant desires to clear and grade the entire site at the initial stages of site development-this is currently not allowed without review and pennission by the Public Works Director. In some cases, mass grading may be acceptable, but in other cases a phased approach would be preferable. However, the code does not provide much guidance for detennining when mass grading should be allowed. There are an increasing number of developments (residential and commercial) being proposed on sloped sites. This has led to an increasing number and size of retaining walls. Numerous and/or large retaining \valls present an aesthetic impact, as w~1I as an impediment to non-motorized transportation. There is limited guidance in the code to communicate what is acceptable retaining wall design. Small lots on sloped sites tend to result in greater number of retaining walls as developers desire to maximize the development potential of the site. Requiring larger lots on sloped portions of a site (for example: greater the slope, larger the lot) may encourage more site-sensitive development, less grading and filling, Jots that are easier to develop, and fewer retaining walls. There are no specific penalties for illegal tree/vegetation removal. . . . . . . . . II. BACKGROUND EXHIBIT '- . . PAGE-4-0FJ-I-. This section presents current code language that addresses significant trees, vegetation, lInd clearing and grading regulation in Federal Way, with a brief discussion of each. A. Subdivision Code - Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 20 The subdivision code, FWCC Chapter 20, has two sections that regulate vegetation removal and grading. These sections are inserted below for your review. The underlined and striketre-ough text indicates recent amendments to the subdivision code related to implementation of Zero Lot Line Townhouse and Small Lot Single Family development. 20-179 Retention of vegetation. (a) All natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to be subdivided except that which will be removed for improvements or grading as shown on approved engineering plans. For zero-lot line townhouse development. clearing and grading shall be allowed to accommodate the construction of the building(s). If development is to be phased. clearing and grading shall also be phased. A preliminary clearing and grading plan shall be submitted as part of preliminary plat application. (b) Existing mature vegetations shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. Preservation of significant trees pursuant to FWCC 22-1568 shall apply solely to the development of each single-family lot at the time a building permit is applied for. (c) Lots created on slopes of 15 percent or greater shall minimize grading and shall not result in extensive lIse of retain~ walls. Slopes are to be measured in their natural state. 20-186 Landscaping protection and enhancement. (a) A landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be subrnitted with each subdivision or short subdivisien application for a land division. The plan shall identify existing wooded areas, significant trees, meadows, rock outcroppings, and other landscape features. The plan shall also show proposed buffers, open spaces, street trees, and other omamentallandscaping. (b) Significant trees, as defined in Chapter 22 FWCC, Zoning, shall be identified, except for those to be removed in areas to be improved or graded as shown on the preliminary plat, application for a land division. During construction of subdi',ision improvements and permitting of single family residences buildings, protection techniques, as required in Chapter 22 FWCC, Zoning, shall be used to protect the identified trees from harm or destruction, and to restore trees damaged or lost. Significant trees to be preserved shall be visibly marked by flagging. (c) Where safe and feasible, the meandering of streets and/or sidewalks around significant trees is encouraged. (d) All street trees and other plantings shall be installed in conformance with standard landscaping practices and with appropriate city guidelines and regulations. The sections above establish the requirement that vegetation is to be preserved to the extent possible and that significant tree requirements are to be met. FWCC 20-179 is the section that staff relies on to prohibit mass grading. However, with steep slopes and smaller lots, developers often ask for mass grading because by the time they clear and grade for the infrastructure, there is often not much left untouched and/or it may be difficult to come in later to clear and grade the individual lols because the topography has been greatly altered to accommodate the infrastructure. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page 2 September 19,2007 6 ,. EXHIBIT' . --.-.. PAGE~OF~ Currently, only trees located on platted lots in a subdivision are subject to tree preservation. In some cases, the majority of significant trees are located within proposed site infrastructure areas. Therefore, in many cases only 25 percent of a limited number of the existing significant trees are ultimately retained and/or replaced. B. Zoning - FWCC Chapter 22 I. Definitions, FWCC 22-1 The definitions section has the following existing definitions that could potentially be modified: Significant natural vegetation means any area containing a concentration of significant trees; any area of significant biological importance; and any area containing dense, mature, native vegetation. Significant trees. A "significant tree" shall be defined as: (I) Twelve inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference measured four and one-half feet above ground; and (2) In good health; and (3) Not detrimental to the community (e.g., is not diseased, dying, or likely of falling into public open space or right-of-way, etc.) or obscuring safe sight distance requirements. Significant trees shall not include red alder, cottonwood, poplar or big leafmaple. In addition, staff will consider developing a recommended definition for landmark trees and retaining wall. 2. Article XI, Use Zone Charts Existing use zone charts could be amended to establish a relationship between minimum lot size and/or lot coverage with regard to site slope. 3. Article XIII, Supplementary District Regulations · Division I, Generally The following two sections will be reviewed for possible revision. 22-948 Erosion and sedimentation regulation It is a violation of this chapter for the owner of the subject property to create, allow or perpetuate conditions on the subject property which cause the erosion or undennining of adjacent property. It is also a violation of this chapter for the owner of the subject property to create, allow or perpetuate a condition which causes the deposition of sediments or the movement of other geologic materials onto adjacent property. 22-955 Calculating Lot Coverage a) General. Except as specified in subsection (b) of this section, the area of all structures, pavement and any other impervious surface on the subject property will be calculated as a percentage of total lot area, exclusive of the area of any recorded access easements, in detennining complianc.c with maximum lot Significant Trees, Vegetalion Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page 3 September 19. 2007 EXHIBIT:' B--'.~- ". o A ~ t:: I.. Q,F..:lL8.-:.' coverage required in this chapter. If the subject property conta~nsbii't~ br.t-rr!fie-- . use, the maximum lot coverage requirements for the predominant use will apply to the entire development (b) Exceptions. The following shall be excepted from the provisions of this section: (I) A wood deck will not be considered as an impervious surface for maximum lot coverage proposed if the deck is constructed with gaps between the boards and if there is a pervious surface below the deck. (2) A vehicular access easement, private tract, or that portion of a private driveway located within the "flag pole" or "access panhandle" part of the lot will not be used or considered in determining compliance with the maximum lot coverage requirement of this chapter. (3) One-half of the area covered with grass grid pavers will be considered as impervious surface in determining compliance with the maximum lot coverage requirement of this chapter. · Division 4, Fences This section could possibly be amended to address retaining walls. 22-1026 Barbed wire. Barbed wire is permitted only atop a fence or a wall at least six feet in height or between two agricultural uses. 22-1027 Electrified fences. Electrified fences are not permitted in the city, except to contain large domestic animals. All electric fences and appliances, equipment and materials used in connection with an electrified fence must be listed or labeled by a qualified testing agency and shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All electric fences shall be posted with permanent signs, which are a minimum of 36 square inches in area, at intervals of 15 feet along the fence stating that the fence is electrified. The permitted location of electrified fences is as follows: (I) Electrified fences separating agricultural uses may be located anywhere on the subject property, including on the property line. (2) Other than as stated in subsection (I) of this section, an electrified fence must be located at least 18 inches inside of a wood fence if the electrified fence is within 20 feet of any property line. 22-1028 Razor wire fences prohibited. Razor wire fences are prohibited in the city. · Division 7, Land Modifications The following two sections will be reviewed for possible revision. 22-1094 Discretionary approval (a) Generally. A land surface modification that does not meet the requirements of FWCC 22-1093 may be approved through process III. (b) Required information. In addition to the application material required in process IJ), FWCC 22-386 et seq., the applicant must submit the following: ( I) A recent survey of the subject property. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page 4 September 19,2007 EXHlBlT -'-.---- -~-. P AGE...1-0F.Jl1..-- (2) A map showing the limits of the proposed land surface modification; the location of utilities, easements, right-of-way improvements and any area regulated under FWCC 22-1221 et seq. that is on or within 400 feet of any area to be disturbed by the proposed land surface modification. (3) A tree retention plan. (4) An erosion control/construction phase stormwater control plan. (5) A soils report which contains sufficient information to determine the potential impacts of the proposed land surface modification, as well as proposed measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts, all as determined by the city. (c) Decisional criteria. The city may approve the proposed land surface modification if it complies with the following criteria: (I) Except as allowed under this chapter, it will not alter or adversely affect streams, lakes, wetlands or significant trees, either on or off the subject property. (2) It wi II not violate any express policy of the city. (3) It meets at least one of the following criteria: a. It is necessary to correct an erosion or drainage problem on an undeveloped site. b. It is necessary to create new utility or access corridors. c. Other unusual circumstances exist which make it reasonable to permit land surface modification in advance of the issuance of a development permit, . subdivision or short subdivision approval or shoreline substantial development permit. 22-1095 Tree and plant restoration If, during the land surface modification, any tree required to be retained or planted is damaged or destroyed, the applicant shall plant a tree of the same species at least five inches in diameter, as measured six inches about the top of the root ball if deciduous and at least 17 feet high if coniferous, in the immediate vicinity of the damaged or destroyed tree. The city may require the applicant to remove the damaged or destroyed tree. In addition, if the land surface modification destroys groundcover or shrubbery, the applicant shall hydroseed the bare soil and plant shrubs at least 24 inches in height in the immediate vicinity of the damaged or destroyed vegetation. · Division 9 Yard Requirements The following section will be reviewed for possible revision. 22-1133 Structures and improvements These possible revisions include amendments to 22- I 133(5), "Fences," and 22-1133(6), .'Rockeries/Retaining Walls in Required Yards." These code sections state that fences not over six feet tall may be allowed in a required yard and that rockeries or retaining walls may be allowed in a required yard. There is currently no specified maximum height for a rockery/retaining wall, nor any specific guidance in the code for the appropriate design of a retaining wall. Staff currently relies on community design guidelines requirements to regulate height/size and aesthetics of retaining walls. However, design guidelines were developed to address building design. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page 5 September 19, 2007 · Division 4, Geologically Hazardous Areas EXHIBit' f' 1___ PAGEioF....!j r_ 4. Article XIV, Critical Areas 22-1286 Limitations This section requires that a soils report be prepared for sites containing or within 25 feet of a designated geologically hazardous area. It specifies that conditions of development approval may be imposed prior to permitting and land surface modification. This section could potentially be amended for greater specificity in information required for submittal and possible conditions for approval of development activity in geologically hazardous areas. 5. Article XVII, Landscaping 22-1561Purpose This section will be reviewed and possibly revised to address the retention of vegetation. 22-1564 General landscaping requirements an zones This section will be reviewed and possibly revised. Please review Section 22-1568 in light of the following list of potential amendments: . Adding definitions Potential changes to the percentage of significant trees allowed to be removed Retention of trees in perimeter landscape strips vs. clusters of trees. Better direction on where and how to plant replacement trees. Consider whether tree replacement could occur off-site and if so under what parameters. Consider whether larger significant trees should be replaced with more trees than smaller significant trees. . Should the city designate "Landmark Trees" to recognize unique species and/or size of trees Add language to address protection of trees to be retained. For example, require inspection of protective fencing and signage prior to site clearing and grading. . . . . . . . 22-1568 Significant trees (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to: (I) Regulate the removal of trees from property within the city in order to preserve, protect and enhance a valuable natural resource; (2) Establish standards to limit the removal of and ensure the replacement of trees sufficient to safeguard the ecological and aesthetic environment of a community; (3) Discourage the unnecessary clearing and disturbance of land so as to preserve the natural and existing growth of vegetation; and (4) Maintain a minimum number of significant trees. (b) Definition. A significant tree shall be defined as: (I) Twelve inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference measured four and one-half feet above ground; and (2) In good health; and Significant Trees. Vegelation Retenlion, and Grading Planning Commission Sludy Session Page 6 September 19,2007 EXHIBIT-'__"n - -'- ." (3) Not detrimental to the community (e.g., is not diseasJ? ~Ge.~F...d-. falling into public open space or right-of-way, etc.) or obscuring safe sight distance" requirements. Significant trees shall not include red alder, cottonwood, poplar or big leaf maple. Figure 10 - Sec. 22-156~(b) (c) Standards. (I) Retention required. Significant trees shall be retained on the subject property to the maximum extent possible in all residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional developments as follows: a. If the approved development on the subject property will reqUIre the removal of more than 75 percent of the significant trees on the subject property, significant trees shall be replaced in amount equal to 25 percent of the significant trees which existed on the subject property prior to commencing any development activity. b. All significant trees located within any required perimeter landscaping area shall be retained, provided that this requirement shall not apply to commercial zoning districts. c. Significant trees required to be retained within on-site sensitive areas can be used toward satisfying the 25 percent on-site significant tree retention regulations. d. All significant trees located within required on-site recreation or open spaces shall be retained, provided they do not conflict with on-site active recreation areas. e. The significant tree retention requirements of this chapter shall not apply to the city center zoning district. f. There shall be no cutting of significant trees without authorization from the city for the purpose of preparing that site for future development g. Up to one-half of the 25 percent significant tree replacement requirement may be satisfied by planting larger trees in required landscape areas such as landscape islands, buffers, and perimeter landscaped areas. Such trees shall be a mimmum 12 feet in height for evergreen and three and one-half-inch caliper for deciduous or broadleaf trees. Example: 100 on-site significant trees require 25 to be retained or replaced. Applicant may plant 13 larger trees within required landscape areas which meet size requirements mentioned above. (2) The applicant shall submit a tree retention plan concurrent with the first pennit application for that development. The tree retention plan shall consist of the following: a. A tree surveyor cluster survey that identifies the location, size, number and species of all significant trees on the site. Significant Trees, Vegewlion Retention, and Grading Planning CommIssion Study Session Page 7 September 19,2007 EXHIBIT : B__,...~ b A d I I"d "t'" h " "fi [)I\~J;: 10 OF~ . eve opment p an I entl ymg t e slgm Icant trees ttiit m~~ be retained, removed, transplanted, or replaced, including a final report on percentage retained. (3) Each retained significant tree not located within perimeter landscaping may be credited as two trees for purposes of complying with the retention requirements of subsection (c)( I )a., provided the tree meets at least one of the following criteria: a. The tree is located in a grouping of at least five trees with canopies that touch or overlap; or b. The tree provides energy savings through winter wind protection or summer shading as a result of its location relative to proposed buildings; or c. The tree belongs to a unique or unusual species of native or non-native tree not usually found locally. (4) Where it is not feasible to retain required significant trees due to site constraints including, but not limited to, topography, ingress/egress requirements, existing and proposed utility locations, trails, storm drainage improvements, a site specific tree plan, drawn to scale, shall be prepared. The tree plan shall show the precise location of all significant trees on the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, streets, parking areas, required landscaped areas, surface water facilities, and utilities. The director of community development shall review the plan in relation to the proposed development to ensure tree removal is the minimum amount necessary to comply with the proposed development and meet the purposes of this chapter. (5) When required significant trees cannot be retained (see subsection (I) of this section), significant trees that are removed shall be replaced with: a. Transplanted or retained on-site trees four-inch caliper or larger, which meet the definition of significant tree in all manner except size, and approved by the community development director, based upon the director's assessment of the location of the tree in relation to the proposed site development; or b. New evergreen trees that are a minimum 10 feet in height, or deciduous trees that are a minimum three-inch caliper. The number of replacement trees, combined with the number of retained significant trees, shall equal 25 percent of the amount of on-site significant trees which existed prior to development. (6) The following management practices shall be observed on sites containing significant trees, to provide the best protection for significant trees: a. No clearing shall be allowed on a proposed development sIte until the tree retention and landscape plans have been approved by the city of Federal Way; b. A no disturbance area, which shall be defined to be to the drip line of the significant tree, shall be identified during the construction stage with either: I. A temporary five-foot chain link fence. 2. A line of five-foot high, orange-colored two-by-four inch stakes placed no more than ten feet apart connected by highly visible surveyor's ribbon; c. No impervious surfaces, fill, excavation, or storage of construction materials shall be permitted within the no disturbance area; d. If the grade level around the tree is to be raised by more than one foot, a rock well shall be constructed. The inside diameter of the rock well shall be equal to the diameter of the tree trunk plus 10 feet. Proper drainage, and irrigation jf necessary, shall be provided in all rock wells; e. The grade level shall not be lowered within the larger of the two areas defined as follows: I. The drip line of the trec(s); or Significant Trees, Vegetation Retenlion, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page 8 September 19,2007 EXHIBIT .. 8' 11 ... 2. An area around the tree equal to one fo<RAGclir of each Gfif tree trunk diameter measured four feet above the ground; f. Alternative protection methods may be used if accepted by the director of community development department to provide equal or greater tree protection; g. Encroachment into the no disturbance area may be allowed where the director determines encroachment would not be detrimental to the health of the tree. "'I'"", "-1' -- 22-1569 Performance and maintenance standards (landscaping) This section states that failure to install landscaping per approved plans and/or failure to maintain landscaping shall constitute a zoning violation. This section also does not speci fically address signi ficant trees. Staff would like to consider addressing specific penalties and also specifY ongoing protection of significant trees here. Zoning code violations are subject to criminal penalty per FWCC 22-11. 6. Article XIX, Design Guidelines The following code section specifies thai significant trees within the site perimeter are to be retained or replaced. In many cases trees preserved in these perimeter locations do not survive because they are either blown down or are damaged during construction and do not recover. This section may be amended or possibly deleted if the objective can be realized by amendment to the significant trees section of the zoning code. (Note: underline and strikethrough text is representative of recent code amendment.) 22-1638 District Guidelines For residential uses only: (5) All Ssignificant trees shall be retained within a 20-foot perimeter strip around the site shall be retained and/or r~placed within the applicable required landscape buffer. Potential New Guidelines for Retaining Walls Design guidelines specific to retaining walls are needed somewhere in the zoning code. Design concerns include overall size and height, appropriate materials, and integration of landscape materials. In addition, requirements may differ depending on zoning and whether development is residential or commercial. Staff will develop recommended design guidelines that may be added to Article XIX of the zoning code. III. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION POINTS Staff is asking for Planning Commissioners' input on the issues raised in Sections I and II of this staff report and would appreciate feedback on any additional issues you may have observed or are aware of related to tree preservation and site clearing and grading. With your advance input on this topic, staff will prepare a report that provides further analysis of these issues as well as a series of recommendations for your consideration and recommendatIOn at an upcoming meeting. GENERAL · What observations/concerns do YOll have with tree preservation and/or site clearing and grading activity in the City of Federal Way? Significant Trees, Vegelation Retenlion. and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page 9 September 19,2007 . EXHIBIT -B.. -.._~ What recommendations do you have for better achieving city goals ofPreserF^AG~OF~ while accommodating permitted development? How should expense of developing the site be weighed against preservation of the site vegetation and topography in evaluating the amount of clearing and grading to be approved? . SIGNIFICANT TREE ISSUES . How significant trees are classified (some communities identiry "landmark trees" as well as "significant trees"). . Establishing an adequate buffer around significant trees to be saved. . Requiring signage as well as fencing around trees. . Tree replacement-review current replacement ratios as well as whether larger significant trees should have more replacement trees. . Tree canopy evaluation-some jurisdictions consider not only size but grouping of trees, with greater emphasis on preserving contiguous tree canopy areas for habitat and greater potential retention of trees for the long term. . Parameters for tree replacement-greater specificity on where and/or how replacement trees should be placed on site to establish more natural groupings. Clustering versus long narrow strips? . Review the significant tree evaluation process-how can better evaluation be done to ensure trees identified to be saved will actually survive; don't try to save trees that will likely be damaged during construction, or not survive long term. · Better evaluation of off-site trees and protection. VEGETATION RETENTION ISSUES . Establish a maximum time period that ground may lay bare once vegetation removed. · Guidelines for revegetation when needed for interim period. . See grading issues as well. GRADING ISSUES . Establish parameters where mass grading is allowed in certain cases (e.g. small site size). Establish a maximum site area that may be mass graded. Consider whether we should look at grading on a lot by lot, block by block-phasing issue. What about concerns about hauling the graded material away? Should we treat the grading of a site differently depending on the existing vegetation cover, e.g., grass versus trees? Slope stability as it relates to permitting vegetation removal and grading. Density/site coverage as it relates to slopes (steeper slope, less density/coverage allowed). Should lot averaging be considered? This would allow the permitted number of lots based on the underlying zoning, but would require lots on steeper slopes to be larger. Maximum amount of grade change allowed through grading. What weight should we give to neighbor's concerns? . . . . . . . . USE OF RETAINING WALL ISSUES Page 10 September 19,2007 Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session . Establish guidelines for retaining wall design. Maximum allowable height for retaining wall depending on uselzone. B EXHIBIT, _.~'-- PAGE I!>>'OF....I.L..- . · Design guidelines for retaining walls-use of terracing, acceptable materials, landscape screening methods, etc. · Establish submittal requirements for retaining walls (section, elevation, material sample, photo of similar to proposed, etc.). Low IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) Use of top ographyl vegetation for stormwater management-perhaps this is too big/specialized an issue to consider as part of this work program. PENALTIES Adopt penalties for illegal clearing. GENERAL QUESTIONS · For subdivisions, at what stage should we require them to provide grading plans? Should we require the plan at the preliminary plat stage, to prevent having to go back to the Council to amend the conditions of preliminary plat approval? · Should we require cross-sections, 3-D renderings? · Should we emphasize the "Design with Nature" approach? Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, and Grading Planning Commission Study Session Page II September 19,2007 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION EXHIBIT.' 8'::, PAGE~0F: &fa' City Hall Council Chambers :Wd September 19, 2007 7 :00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Dini Duclos, Bill Drake, Merle Pfeifer, Lawson Bronson, and Dave Osaki. Commissioners absent: Hope Elder and Wayne Carlson (both excused). Alternate Commissioners present: Kevin King. Alternate Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, City Attorney Monica Buck, Contract Planner Janet Shull, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Y ice-Chairwoman Duclos called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice-Chairwoman Duclos requested that if a member was not in attendance, they abstain voting for the minutes. Approval of the minutes for March 28, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed with one abstain. Approval of the minutes for April 4, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed unanimously. Approval of the minutes for Apri I 18, 2007 was tabled because not enough members who attended were present. Approval of the minutes for May 2, 2007 were moved and seconded. They passed with one abstain. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT Ms. Clark announced the Community Development Director Kathy McClung's last day was September 17,2007. Deputy Director Greg Fewins will be interim director until a successor is chosen. In addition, Ms. Clark announced that Janet Shull has accepted a permanent position with the City as a Senior Planner and Ms. Clark introduced the City's new staff attorney, Monica Buck. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October I th, at which tirne; the Law Department will introduce a proposed Federal Way City Code (FWCC) reorganization. In addition, staffwill begin to prepare the 2008 Planning Commission Work PTOgram and Ms. Clark asked that Commissioners be prepared to present suggestions for the work program at the next meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION - Clearing & Gradingffree Retention Code Amendment Ms. Shull delivered the staff report. Staff is seeking input and direction from the Commission for proceeding with research and development of specific code amendments. The issues under discussion include significant tree and grading retention, site clearing and grading, appropriate use/design of retaining walls, and minimum lot size. The City is receiving more requests for mass grading. This is allowed with review and permission by the Public Works Director, but the City code does not provide much guidance for determining when mass grading should be allowed. In addition, the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) may grant. a developer a permit to "log" a K:\Planning C<>nmissionl2007\Mwing Summary 09.19-07.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 ~~F~~"~' site (effectively mass grading it) and the City has little to no input on the decision by DNR to grant or deny a permit. Commissioner Bronson encouraged the staff to work on coordinating with DNR. The Comn'1i~sion discussed penalties and code enforcement for site clearing. Commission Drake asked if other cities have specific language for site clearing. Ms. Shull replied staff would have to research it. .r In addition to increased mass grading, there is increasing development on sloped sites with increased number and size of retaining walls. Small lots on sloped sites tend to result in a greater number of retaining walls as developers desire to maximize the site. Staff is considering requiring larger lots on sloped portions of a site, which should encourage fewer retaining walls. Commissioner Drake asked if the need for change on these issues is coming from developers or staff. Ms. Shull replied that both sides have expressed a need for change. Many of these issues have come from staff observations of confusion on the part of developers and staff on how these issues should be handled. Ms. Clark stated that part of the problem is that there are different parts of the city code that deals with these issues. The city is in the process of reorganizing the city code and that should help, but will not solve all the confusion. Planning Commissioners suggested the staff seek the help of experts (such as engineers and tree experts) and developers (of commercial and residential projects) while developing the potential code amendments. The Commissioners also asked the staff to invite these experts and developers to the Planning Commission meeting on this topic so they rnay be available if the Commissioners have questions for them. Ms. Clark commented that these potential code amendments could mean more specific information (and a higher cost) could be required from developers at the preliminary plat stage. Commissioner Bronson commented that all firms have Auto-Cad and requiring more specific information should not cost a lot more. Commissioner Pfeifer commented that staff needs to be careful not to require the developer to replace significant trees that homeowners wil1 want to remove in order to protect their roof or for other safety reasons. Commissioner Osaki commented that he would rather see a group of trees that are to be maintained by the homeowner's association, as opposed to individual trees to be maintained by homeowners. Commissioner Duclos suggested the staff seek the advice of an expert for what constitutes a "significant" tree and what kinds of trees should replace significant trees. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Commissioner Pfeifer suggested that future agenda packets be sent by email, as well as regular mail. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. K:\Planning ComrmssionI20l17~~<<ling Sunmary 09.19-07.doc -. . EXHiBIT ,,___ _-'~ PAGE~OF_...I ~~ November 7, 2007 Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes City of FederaJ Way PLANNING COMMISSION B -,.-.._._~...+. ..~ '" .~ November 7, 2007 7:00 .m. City HaJJ Council Chambers AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROV AL OF MINUTES April 18,2007, September J 9,2007, & October 17,2007 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRA TIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS · ELECTION OF OFFlCERS · STUDY SESSION Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN Commissioners Hope Elder, Chair Dave Osaki Merle Pfeifer Wayne Carlson Dini Duclos, /lice-Chair William Drake Lawson Bronson Kevin King (Alternate) City Staff Greg Fewins, Interim CDS Director Margaret Ciarlo, Senior Planner E. Dna Piety. Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 1->11'11'. citroffederolli'a\'.com K:\l'lanning Conw>Vssion\2001\A.gcnda 11.07.07 doc . ~ CITYOF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT. .., , ., .,. PAGE.1LOE . U ~.~ November I, 2007 To: Hope Elder, Chair, Federal Way Planning Commission FRoM: Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading MEETING DATE: November 7, 2007 This staff report is a follow up to the September 19, 2007, study session. At the September 19th study session, staff introduced the topic of potential code amendments to address tree preservation and clearing and grading activities associated with development proposals. Attachments A, B, and C provide additional information: I. Attachment A - Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading A. Significant Trees and Vegetation Retention (a) Tree Evaluation (b) Tree Protection (c) Tree Replacement (d) Monitoring ofProtectedJReplacement Trees B. Clearing and Grading (a) Development on Sloped Sites (b) Mass Grading (c) Retaining WaJJs 11. Attachment B - Summary of Requirements to Clear and Grade Land, Remove Vegetation, and to Protect and Replace Significant Trees This table lists all of the regulations related to the subject topic and identifies which regulations addresses tree removal for each specific land use, e.g., existing single family lot, new subdivision plat, vacant single family lot, multi-family development, or non-residential development (commercial, industrial, institutional). m. Attachment C - Information on the Class IV Forest Practices Act Perptit EXHIBIT'......: P AGEJ.!-OF--A-L-- Staff will respond to the e-mail from Alternate Commission Kevin King regarding the prevalence of the total removal of all trees on sites within the last five year period during the November 7Th Study Session. Following the November 7th study session. staff will prepare code language which will be provided to interested parties such as the Master's Builders Association. Friends of the HyIebos, Puget Sound Energy. Bonneville Power Administration, interested citizensl, and the City's Public Works and Parks. Recreation, and Cultural Services Departments for comment and feedback. 1:\2007 Code Amendments\Tree Clearing and Grading\111 0107 Staff Repor1to Planning Commission. doc I We have Iwo interested cilizens 10 dale. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: November 7, 2007 Page 2 ~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way EXHIsrt _ . .- PAGE ~ OF~ ATTACHMENT A Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading I. INTRODUCTION lbis staff report is a follow up to the September 19, 2007, study session. At the September 19th study session, staff introduced the topic of potential code amendments to address tree preservation and clearing and grading activities associated with development proposals. lbis staff report provides additional information with regard to: Significant Trees and Vegetation Retention: Tree Evaluation Tree Protection Tree Replacement · . Monitoring of ProtectedlReplacement Trees . . . Clearing and Grading: . Development on sloped sites Mass Grading Retaining Walls . . II. SJGNJFICANT TREES AND VEGETATION RETENTION Tree Evaluation: At the time of application for the first permit, the applicant is required to submit a tree retention plan that identifies all trees located on the subject site that meet the current definition of significant tree (J 2 inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference, measured four and one-half feet above ground). Some jurisdictions require that any tree with a diameter six inches or greater be identified as significant. Other jurisdictions (Seattle is an example) have adopted more specific lists of tree species where each species has its own size threshold for being defined as significant. The City of Redmond specifies that the tree protection plan be prepared by a certified arborist. The applicant is required to preserve at least 25 percent of the significant trees located on the site. Where the minimum number of significant trees can not be preserved, the applicant must provide for replacement trees to be planted on site. It should also be noted that these protection rates only apply to trees that meet the criteria of being significant and does not take into con~ideration the existing EXHIBIT 8 . . - --.-- . ,. " pattern of tree cover on the site. Furthermore, only significant trees located PAcG&e a.lel~ ~ with single-family lots in subdivisions are subject to tree preservation. Development in the City Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zones are exempt from significant tree. preservation requirements. .< .. . Some jurisdictions require a greater percentage of significant trees to be preserved (35 or 40 percent). Redmond requires a minimum of 35 percent of significant trees be preserved and also allows incentives for a higher level of tree preservation, such as reductions or adjustments to other site development standards. For example: · Reductions or variations of the area or width of required open space/landscaping; · Variations in parking lot design; · Variations in building setback requirements; · Increases in building height; · Reductions in the width of certain easements; · Variations in grading and stormwater requirements; · Other variations proposed and accepted by the Director, except the reduction in amount of required parking. The City of Seattle provides for, "recovery of development potential" where additional height, reduction in setback area, and/or up to a ten percent reduction in required parking spaces can be granted in cases where there is an "Exceptional Tree" that is required to be retained. (An "Exceptional Tree" is a tree that is unique per its species or exceptional size. The city maintains a list of trees that meet the criteria.) The zoning code should be amended to specify that tree evaluation should extend beyond the development site to adjacent parcels. The city's current development regulations focus on protection of trees of a certain size or greater. The result has often been protection of individual trees, but overall loss of tree canopy on development sites. One consideration is to ask for an evaluation that also considers preserving tree canopy or stands of trees, as well as individual trees of signi ficance. Both are important considerations. In some cases, it may be acceptable to give credit for the retention of stands of smaller caliper trees, even if all do not meet the significant tree criteria. Tree Protection: Current development regulations require that any trees that are proposed to be retained must be clearly noted on a tree plan that shows trees in relationship to planned site improvements. On site, trees to be protected are to be protected with fencing and/or stakes with flagging that are placed at the drip line of the tree. The City of Federal Way has been advised by arborists with Urban Forestry Services, Inc. that the current protection zone represented by the tree's drip line is not adequate. The recommendation is that the protection zone be represented by a minimum of 12 inches in radius for each one inch in diameter. For example, a 10-inch diameter tree has a minimum protection zone represented by a 10-foot radius. The zoning code states that the tree plan must be reviewed and approved prior to site clearing. The code should be amended to also specify that protection measures must be inspected and approved on- site prior to clearing. Planning Commission Memorandum Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Attachment A Page 2 EXHIBIT ' -Bo'. PAGE .2.J.OF--!L.:: Tree Replacement: The city's current regulations specify minimum tree size for replacement trees of three inches or greater for deciduous and 10 feet or taller for evergreen. The replacement tree standards do not require that the replacement trees relate to those being removed. If evergreens are removed, evergreens should be provided as replacements. A consideration for specifying tree replacement is to relate the size of the replacement tree to the tree being removed. Another consideration that some jurisdictions provide for is off-site tree replacement. The cities of Redmond and Port Townsend allow for off-site replacement for some or all of the required replacement trees when on-site replacement can not be achieved. Acceptable sites for receiving off- site replacement trees are city or county owned parks and open space areas, public school sites, or private open space areas that are permanently protected and maintained. An option provided by Redmond is a fee-in-lieu of tree replacement. The fee shall cover the cost of tree, installation, and maintenance for two years. The city collects the fee and expends it for the planting of new trees in city owned parks, open spaces, or rights-of-way. Redmond allows for the consideration of landscape restoration (restoring all or parts of the forest landscape and its associated benefits subject to Administrator's approval) to mitigate the loss of trees. For example: · Creation of wildlife snags from trees which would otherwise be removed; · Replacement of certain ornamental trees with native shrubs and groundcover; · Replacement of hazardous or short-lived trees with healthy new trees more likely to survIve; · Daylighting and restoration of stream corridors with native vegetation; · Protection of nonsiginficant trees to provide for the successional stages of forest development. Monitoring of Protected/Replac~ment Trees: The city's ClIrrent development regulations do not specifically address ongoing monitoring of preserved/replacement trees after development is completed. Large trees that have been stressed or damaged can take 18 months to three years to show evidence of trauma and/or die. The City of Redmond has examples of code provisions that Federal Way may wish to consider. The City of Redmond has established sections on maintenance, performance assurance, and enforcement specifically related to tree protection. The maintenance provisions specify that all replacement trees and relocated trees shall be maintained in healthy condition for the life of the project. The perfonnance assurance section requires that the applicant post a performance bond to ensure the installation, maintenance, and adequate performance of tree protection measures. The bonding period is for three years. The enforcement section specifies that any trees removed without authorization shaH be replaced with anywhere from two to one and up to a six to one ratio of replacement trees per tree removed. Penalties can be imposed of up to $3,000 per tree for removal or damage to a protected tree. Planning Commission Memorandum Significant Trees, Vegelation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Attachment A Page 3 nI. CLEARING AND GRADING e. . EXHIBIT...4.... . PAGE ~JtOF...M-:: 4 .. : . \0'. Development on Sloped Sites: The current subdivision and zoning code requirements do not address development on sloped sites in great detail. Current requirements specify that a geotechnical report is required for sites that have steep slopes (defined as 40 percent or greater). In addition, Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 20-179 specifies that lots created on slopes of 15 percent or greater shall minimize grading and shall not result in extensive use of retaining walls. Some jurisdictions specify that as slopes increase, the minimum lot size shall increase. TItis helps reduce the impact of development on steeper slopes and also reduces the incidence ofJarge retaining walls. The following chart from the City of San Rafeal, California provides an example of how percent of slope can effect the minimum lot size requirements. Minimum Lot Size and Lot Widtb Based on Percent of Slope Percent of Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Average Lot Slope Per Gross Acre Size Width 0-10 6.5 5,000 sq. feet 50 feet 10-20 5.375 6,000 sq. feet 50 feet 20-30 4.25 7,500 sq. feet 60 feet 30-40 3.125 10,000 sq. feet 75 feet Over 40 2.0 20,000 sq. feet 100 feet (source City of San Rafeal, CA) The Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development has prepared a technical guidance document, "For Clearing and Grading in Western Washington." In this guide, there is a model clearing and grading ordinance that was reviewed by staff. One of the model regulations specifies: "Limit artificia))y established grades to no more than a slope of 2: 1 [two (2) feet of horizontal run to one (1) toot or vertical fa))]." Mass Grading: The Federal Way subdivision code prohibits mass grading in general. There is a provision where an applicant may request mass grading when they can make a case that there are' unique site and development issues where mass grading is necessary. In some cases, where there is a relatively small site with small Jots, mass grading may make sense because once grading for infrastructure is complete there may not be much site area left undisturbed. A related issue is the stripping and removal of topsoil on graded sites. Staff has learned through participation in recent conferences on Low Impact Development (LID) that when topsoil can be retained on-site during construction and then replaced prior to landscape planting, the plantings tend to fair better because the condition of the soil is better. Planning Commission Memorandum Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Attachment A Page 4 EXHIBIT l P AGE.2lt-OF ...JI'- ....-.< "- -;~ Retaining Walls: There is no specified height limit for rockeries or retaining walls in tl}e FWCC. Staff has seen development proposals for walls in excess of20 feet in height for both commercial and residential development. Staff has been requiring section and elevation details for proposed retaining walls due to the aesthetic impacts they present and have implemented conditions of approval that establish maximum wall height on a case-by-case basis. However, there are no specific design standards for retaining walls in the FWCC. Some jurisdictions establish restrictions on retaining wall height. The Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development clearing and grading example code provides for a maximum rockery height of 12 feet. The City of Mercer Island specifies a maximum of 12 feet in height for a. rockery or retaining wall on a cut slope and six feet on a fill slope. Mercer Island also establishes that within a required yard, rockeries and retaining walls are limited to six feet in height. King County has a similar requirement. Within the setback area retaining walls are limited to six feet in height. If there is a fence on top of the wall, the combined height cannot exceed ten feet. IV. SUMMARY: Staff believes the folIowing items merit inclusion in draft revisions to the significant tree preservation, and clearing and grading regulations. Tree Preservation I. Require that tree retention plans be prepared by a certified arborist in coordination with a landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect!. 2. Either require that all trees that are six inches in diameter or greater be evaluated, or adopt a more sophisticated significant tree definition that establishes species appropriate sizes for significant trees. 3. Increase the percentage of significant trees that are to be preserved. 4. Eliminate the provision that tree preservation is only for areas where single-family lots are proposed-make it apply to the entire site, but provide for greater flexibility in tree replacement options (see 10 and II below). 5. Emphasize that trees are to be preserved in groupings where possible. 6. Require that trees on adjacent properties must also be evaluated. 7. Provide incentives for a greater' percentage of tree preservation. , In some cases, the certified arborist and landscape architect could be one and the same. Planning Commission Memorandum Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Allachment A Page 5 EXHIBIT ':.8 PAGE ~$ OF: &tt..~._. 8. Modify the tree protection zone per arOOrist Best Management Practices (BMPs) that establish tree protection zones based on tree diameter instead of drip line. 9. Require a site visit to verify that tree protection measures and signage are in place per approved plans prior to development/site work. 10. Allow for more than 50 percent of replacement trees to be located within required landscape areas. 11. Allow for off-site or fee-in-lieu-of tree replacement when there are no viable on-site replacement options. Clearing and Grading I. Prepare draft code language that addresses development on sloped sites of 15 percent or greater and establishes appropriate standards for minimum lot size, based on site slope. 2. In concert with item I above, allow lot size averaging so that greater number of lots could be provided on flat portions of a site. 3. Establish a maximum area where mass grading may be allowed without Public Works Director's approval. 4. Establish a minimum area where mass grading wiIJ not be permitted (for example: sites 10 acres or larger in size shall not be a candidate for mass grading). 5. Establish a code requirement that any portions of a site that are graded and not developed within a certain period of time shaH be revegetated. We wiJJ need to work with the Forest Practices Act currently administered by the Department of Natural Resources (see Attachment C). 6. Retain topsoil on site for replacement after construction for better landscape establishment. 7. Establish a maximum height for retaining waHs relating to type of development, site location, and whether a cut or fill slope. K:\Trees, Vegetation, & Grading\Planning Commission\Attacbment A.doc Planning Commission Memorandum Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Attachment A Page 6 ~ co ~~ ~ Q) ~'"O 5~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ := u ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ f-I f-I QZ ~j ~fZ ~~ ~~ ~~ QU ~j ~~ ~~ ~~ u~ Of-! f-4u m~ f-4f-! Zo ~~ :g~ ~o ~f-! ;;)~ O'~ ~ ~ ~Z 00 ~ ~f-I P::~ ~~ ~e,:) ;;)~ m> ~ o ~ ~ ~ m ;;) ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ "0 o 0. o ...... ... o <II ;>- oP.. ] <II ::> .S "'0 0_ 0.0 O,...J ~.?;> Q'~ bOl.L. .S Q) ... ..... fIl till .... d >( .... u:Jv.l z o ... I-< < 5 ~ tJ EXHIBIT ... fJAGF .u.n - <II ..... E.... o 5 :g E fIl 0. o 0 ~- I 0 g ~ ZCl >- ] <II l.L. ..!. - "3 ~ 0 '" 00 "0 ..... 0 .n .S 0 ~~ "0 "0 .... '" 0 f.6-t-Ri 0 go tB "0 .9 II) a a a 0 00 o lii .a '" 1:: c: .n ~ "0 .S II) oj '" "'.a '" ::l go g'-a .n .... 0 ~ '" '" ,8 B oS ~ ~ 00 o '" "0 II) II) c: '" 8"0-0 .... 0 0'....c:>0'!:l ...."'.n .... I9B--oSo~ . 0 ... o 0 ",.- O' 0. 0 ::l d .~ ~ ~ .n x c;;~ ~_4) ~ ~ '" 0 0.- 0. S .... > '" v 0_ c:eSB~-5 E 00 '" ~ 0 0 0 fa d oo~ il<;;a _ r:l 0 o.",.n 0 O)Q)xM """'- o'ij 0. o 00:0 x.!l.S v ~:::: >-5ootlo.o. oj.a ::l ;> a 0 '" a "0....", v <;;"0 0 liic:..o::ufiroo a",..... o 0 ~ r:l 0. 0 '" o.v.n ~ ~ -- ~e ~a~ .... B 0 v:;:: Ei r:l'~ .Quo oog~ . ]' eU~'=:oo5l ","O:g~~oo ~..o..'!3 S''''' a u o ~'s 5l .~ '" ~8u c: s.~ .a 0 ~ ~ u v '" 't) S u;e '" 0 v v. ~:.:= B .... ....... ~ 0.... ...... "O~:::: .>( ~ f:3 ~ .... o.'S ..... a v -",:.0 <II <~.g:aS',g~ ~.a~ o ....5.... ~ E~ ii: !.Uvoo .....lV).Ovo..5 + .... '" ~..... '" 0 + 0. en * >.... 0. +......E!l:l.....n'" * 0\ ...... ...... ..... · 0 c: Oc:o NO''''' g.;:: 5 ..... r:l u -voo o U u ~~> \0 00 "0 -; 00 fa ~.s c: 0.0 ... tV..... ... 0- .9 ~ ~ uSe o .u .... Vl.....lo... ~. F:1IJ -,~ ~"""--"" - 3 .......... t:: t:: v v :'8 E ~ Po '" 0 ~.... I V t:: > o v zo ~ tI.) ;:J Q Z ~ ~ (5 ~ "0 o 0... o - ..... o (Ij ;>- 00.. "0 (Ij t:: t:: ::> .- "0 o ..... 0...0 0....:1 U>, ;>.... o 's o (Ij gp~ .... v ..... .... U) bO .... t:: x.... ~t/l z o i=: -< ~ ;J C-' ~ >, ] ~ ...!. ..... "3 :2: '" .... c: o E o ;> o ... ]' ~ 0.. '" .... <2 I:: .2 .... '" .~ 0.. 0.1=1 '" 0 ~:~ o ;;- "'.- 0-0 ,.Q-O .<;:: ~ ~- o v E u o I:: '" 13 LLl <Q-o . .;:: ~ bIl 5 I:: .S ~2go _'~ 0 -g'" J3u] '" bIl <<l I=IU- ",>-0 -bIlU 0.1=1'" ll.)~- 0 ,.Q.~ go r-x... ... U 0. a.,g'Cii '" " g -0 !:1';; ~ Q.) ~ Cl) 0.- !;:iICv;;- -0 'a.- ... 0 F=-o bIl....V....:3:d .- 5.0 0. 0 <<l ~ :g .9 .s ~ -; 1ii>.0. o.?- - 1=1 go u '" "0 '" o.>>~...t:l "'.0 I::,s U o U a .g"3~~g. '" :a U'!'"I-o :(fr~i3> ... Ci. Vi ~ oS :::l J3 '" ~",~g.>> 0.>.<.:101:: u.o{/)~ <<l.... 0.-0 I:: 1=1 ... 1=1 . 3e9~<2~g ~ l1~-o u [.~ ~<u:au8.90 -Ci.~~:alp:'::: ~u>~ei;~ *.o?-:':::"'-o~ ~a tr) .... ,-;,0.. N v NO"'.... c: r1 ~ 011)0 '.::"'8 a ~ (Ij Po t/l~~ EXHIBIT ~^~c .!l1 r i ... . .S ~ d h' :.' ovo :0 ~ ~ ~ b~~ u~oo o 1=1 g -0 -0 (,) .0'-. bIl 0';:1 . ~ v E '" 0;> tlll S':;: 0" e ;:I IC V> ~ .. .... u.9 :~~ ~ ~ ~ 1(5 .g b lJ) &'$ ~ g: 8 "'J.L.:::l-O.... e_...o ~~~ 0.. ",.- 0 0 .... .... II) "'N,.QU~""O"""'>> o.vill)N v>.g &'$"01ii"3.o tllltlll&.... "'11)0>"0 .S ~.;;:; 8 r! u,.Q 0 DO t;:l "" U l:l ~.a ~'a ~ El'; ~.~ ~ ] o ;:I ~.cl 0 "'.8 1=1 t;l.- ... E ... .0 .... UNo..... <<l -0 {/} 0. ... .... -0 9 09 ol=leu-o-o -o",u DO 0 ..... U ~ U ~ 8 .0 d .::: 50:> ;:I IC 5 .9 "'~ b:::l >> .::1 (,) ;>.- '" .0 '~g8eJ.L.~OE] o..c:-o O"'N_u:a",-o","'u ... "'N-~..I=l '" (,)-o~ uo.. '" duICU'" 0. vi ~ i1 -5J"g a 0 lI)'a i': a'" . tlll tlll ;:I 0. ..... 0 .;:: b bIl II) DO .~ .S ]0" ~ ~bIl '0 <1:l g e Vi &'$ 2:-.s -0 ...... II) '" .tl 0 ......0 DO =-= u '0 0 tI) Vi ~ 0.. Om bO 0;:1 ~ dO... e II) u 0 u._ '" .. .0 .... .::1 No...... -0 ... _ .0 ;> c;:: .... "0. "3 "3 ~ g .~ ~ "3 S 1"3 ~ .1=1 'B g' ~ ;g 5 a .9 ~ ~ i': a .B~ 8 :;; J.L. ~ ~ a] t;l ,g ~ 2:- OrtN-u:a"'-o-....o l:i. "N 01 .,g..c: . &'$'a 0.' Cii cO ~ "," ~ ~ -5J ... d g V .~ v'- S t,)k btl).o>. bIl bIl g. 0. . v 0'::: ...o.ou gg .S .S .- rt ~ '0 <b g e <;; '" 3 -0 .E u.cl 'a .... '" .tl .9 B ;{! = c;:: r,:-:::u o.u",,,, 0"'-- ~ ] 8 .S r::5 9 ~.g e a b -5J E -0 v '';:: ct) ~ fJ'J Q) .- ~ ^ o vi '" ~. .0 '0 9 :D _ bO r;J) '... _ 11) rI) ~ 0) or;; - S V N - -0 v lJ) .0'- . o . ::l.... "'.- ... 0 > DO 4;j '"C):g 0" 3 ~ v b 0 - 9 Q) ~ g lii'3 '<3 0. ..,g I=l :;:; 5 '" .0 '60 P ",.o.i:ljg:fo t: 1:1"0 ~= bIl ~ i:i.... ~ U 'a 2 '" '" v b jg ~ ovo... oo..c:d'tlll....'" (,) a eIl!:1.9 N .... El 0 8 !:1 -0 E bIl V .5 .8 -0 "0. 0':;: '" 3 v "0 .S 6 .~~ ~ .g u 9 <1:l 2 "0 ~ t v l:l'" "'::lu"O",~",a",~ 0. oO"~vll)"'UellV'" ~.S ~ l:i. ~ J.L. ;g ~ .g ~ Vi l:i. a ~ "0 -bOaE o.S t:: S NPooV t:: r1'P 0 .g ~ ~ a ut::(5..c: Q) '" .....~ V)~p..~ ~-_.. F~ CoN, ... III 5 ~ eo.. ..c:: o ~ 1:: ~ <Il III o ... f- C 01 o !t:: c .~ Ul o u 01 0.. III ~ -0 C 01 ti o '0 ... 0.. 8 -0 C 01 C .8 (d OJ 00 o > o :>- o E o ~ -0 c: 01 ....I oJ ] o -0 c e 01 .g 3 ~u o 0 E ... o ~ ::E 5 5 5 .- ... = os .- g- e~ E.... o 0 ~~ c: 01 'c e ] g o..Ul 3 EE v v ~ S rJ) 0.. V 0 t:X:- . v a ~ ZQ j;;I;1 VJ j;:;) ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ -0 V 0.. o oed :>- vt:l. -g ~ ::> .5 '" ..... c v S v :> 2 ] ..... C':l P: -0 V ..... 0..0 0.....1 0>- :>- v's Q C':l bOl.J,., .s V ~- rJ) bO .~ .S tLlV1 ;z; o i=: -< ~ ;;J o ~ >. ] C':l ~ . .... .... "3 ~ ~VJ .0.....-0 ';n e 3 '" ..... 0 ~ V) .... ""' '" VJ -g 0 ~ .;; '" 1:lIl_ 0 o.l:l ~ 0 <.,:; C ? b . ~.go.....] oc::g~eo ... '" '" 0 '" oO"'ta3 .cl S o'i:J 0 ~o:Oeoo * oS ~';n ~ ...-0 VJ 000 -B:::: .8 oS -0 -g .9 2 gf ] rd 0 ~ '0..;3 eo ~ ~ 0 ~ os; 0 vi e t;j g ~ -0 '0 g ......cl '" c: t:l 0'- ...... (I) ~ (fj Cd ...... ~ Vcnt:- <<2_ ~ 1:lIl.g"E ~'I:: ~ VJ .S c: '" .~ go 0 -Cio--tj..........'"'" < rd 0 H ~ 0..-0 * 0..8 VJ a go fil VJ c:: .- '" C::-B 0._ >. .- ~....... !9 ...... "g ~.g ~..... Q.) res V"- ;. t:l bo...... .... 0 c:: a o .-::l --o"'1:lIl ~ ~ eo c:: o ......~.s;.::: <1 ...- Q '" 0 V o'x ~ ~ 0..0-0 .-. 0\ o rJ) ....... c · .9 N ..... N ~ c::. ~ .2 CT'"Cl'- t)~c::-g ~oj:?: 8- EXHIBIT., " PAGE.llOF: "A~;- ug' eo.. ..c o g .( .... ... .... 0 .s ~ g >. ~ :::: 6'~ ~ .s C 0 .~ ;.::: .8 ... ... 0 0 ~ 0 ... l! 00 ...:s-g 0-:> 0": o ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ B _...c:.8mVJ...~oBtd o ~ '" ~ v;>.o:l":<II ~ C::J9~-o-St;og~-o ~ -S e ~L~ g. i ~ e g ;>~Bh><"'.cl::lBe ~....'" _0 0..0 0-", eo * ..... c:: <II 0 -s .- ctJ.~ v rJ v-o-v @ 'c ~ .( >':1- a,,~. ~ rdvNo .g .;3 N 'zj .....9 U'I:: .'1:sUU g._ ~ I VJ~~cr "- en c..... Cl) ,=: ,,_ 0 tI) * '" II) ~ 5 o q:; '2 bO en II) o <':I ]. ~ -0 C oj o II) o ... 0.. 2 -0 fij r::: .g t;j U bO II) > II) :- o e ~ -0 C '" .....J v' -0 f! o '0!C E '" .g~ ~u o 0 5; ~5 5 5 .- ... :n; 's B" e~ 0.... UO ~~ -E E ]5 o..lI) 3 55 ~8 ~o. ~..9 I U I:l > o U zo ~ rn ;:J Q ~ ~ -0 ....1 -0 U 0. o - -' o <'<l >- 00... ] <'<l ~ .5 -0 U -' 0.0 0....1 ~b U Os o lIS tl/)~ .S 0 .....- III bO .... I:l ><.... U:jCl) z o ~ < ~ ;:;> c..? ~ ;;.. ~ ~ .,.!. .... :; ~ '" ..... r:: o S o > o .... ]' ..... ttl ~ u"O ~ 8,e -ci:.c .~ ~ c:: u o::J....ttl....o ~l\l""O:S 'C: U ttl > 0 ..... u '~,e.~ u o 0 'C: ttl Sou.g ~ ~tj 0. 0 ~ ~ 0 g:E' '" t'a:.a liJ.... O:Ss 0 <l:l - ::J 0 bO.9.~ ola ."Oo.",oS:;;""~ >. J:'j :::: S 0 El 0..... - .~ '" " -.:3 t;:: "0 > 0 05 ...... .~ ";:J "0 Po e..... o ?lib c:: ;>-;;..vliJ o 0 O~ Q"O 0 t: t: .... >. >. El '" 0'" e u u u u g u fJ"O > u 0. 0. .- V -0 liJ fr] 0 ~ 2 e ~.g t) .s P >'"0 l\l El 0. 0. 0. 0 0 o:s * ; r::VL..niT PAGE3."C.F: iJl' ~~ ell., ..c l;l ~ ..( IIJ "0 .0 0 .!:l ::J.... .~~ ~.~ 0 c::r 0 "'0.0 e>. v ~Od::::<<sVJ~ 0.. 9 u ''''..d ttl"O lZlb]~""'~V>.d .g c o:s c: ~ c::.S c: ~ V) o:s"O.2"O.2 ~ ~ [ ~~ ~ s ~ s e bO,.2-ci b'a 0 u 0 IIJ U ::J u u 8 bO 8 bO.D 0 > ::l o .~ u u u u 0 ~ u ~ Z '" ... > .... > ..... -:; "0 .- * d c:: .... 0 o:s 0 o u 05 .:: VJ ~ U U ~ eo.o:s>l:;po u 0 co -;:j a 11.)..c ~NliJao~~ ~ ~ .~ 05 P 0 El "'...........:; d..... P .- >oJ 0 ;;> 0 do' ..... 9 u -0'- 0... "0 o "".... ...... 0 ~ 0.> -....oests> o~S~~o.~~ oSliJ....ououu .........OU>N>.... ...... * d c: .2 0 s'r;; o e bOO o 0 >05 u oS ~ ..... ;1 o u ai..... :> 0 o d 8>- u ttl ~s 00 -:t 0'1-0 ~ ~ I:l s:: 0.9 "a {I) o 0 u ~ r.nU:j ~ II) f':: c '" o ~ .~ Vi II) u o:s 0. II) ~ '0 C oS U u o ... 0.. 8 '0 ~ c:- .B ~ U bO II) > U > o c: 0) ~ '0 C o:s ....J v '0 ~ o '0 e la .g ~ ~u o 0 5; ~ 5 g 5 .- ... ~.3 's if e~ 0.... UO tlOi:' r:: oS .- E j~ c.. Vl ~ 00 ;;J o Z ~ ...J o .....J -0 (I) 0. o Q)~ ~ii: "2 ro ~.9 -0 (I) .... 0.0 O.....J V;>-' :>-- (I)'S o ro bOlJ.. .S (I) .... -- <I.l 00 .... ~ ><.... U)V) z o .... E- -.( >oJ ;:J C,:l l2 ] 1::1:: .g (I) 'iii S (I) 0. ~..5? ~ ~ o (I) ZQ ;>.. ] ro LL. .c "3 ~ U) c: (J) S (I) :> o ... 0. ] 'iii 0:: .a L4 V 0 ~Q)l!l.....o :0--5 C u i:i "'98-50 ~. "_ 0 VJ . 0~"O....<; e 'lbO ~ .: ~.~ & ... 0 U '" 0 . oc8Sa U ;:...15 ~ .~ C "0 t:.... 0 bO u 3&~a..2~ o 0. u 0...." ()a.g-B~~ ~ o .::; r:: ~ 0 ~.- o .... 8~ .... 5'0 -0 0 ~~ V B :: e ~ a;~_.Q ~ 0.1:;- :2~..9 uo.><",-, u u U ttI of:3a:::: ... ~ '" ~ l5.~09 ta"O~~ 'a NO a ~ bOo <I.l -- V ~ 'f ~ f:3 8. "<;j - O::J <; I:; ~ (J) rn :g rJ) 11) ..... fI) 8-B1':~~ tJO~-l1 .... >( "'(d Q C'O (J) 0 ~ u 13.9 8 ta .9 ~ ~ 0. Vi 'a ~ ~,D..2 ~ .:P ~.~ ~ ~..2 'f ~ a 8..gJJ u ....-5 v<; -1>al5 ~g."fiu >- u :;:: n; 0 '" "'... o:a 0 .~ f:3 ~ > ~ 8 ~-f;i 13-5~:g 0 ;:"'::J -g l5 e ~ & ~ e ~ ~ 1> ~ '" ;:: ~ ~. 6 c & ~ ~ ~ & g ;;s i5 g .s.g bO i5 ... 0 0 u 0 0 ... t:1 0 .... ... 0..9 0 0. a ....g 9 ta ... c.::I 0 C'" 0 a go 0. !: ..cl'a:;- ~ "0 U ~ 0 f>:, 5 0. o 0 0 .... bO 0 ll:l 8 o.ll:l"d t: ~ 0 .g u .~'3 ~';;;.~'a ~ V) 'a B & u > .D 0" 0 0.D "'.. 0. N .....~ 0 :> ...... ~ ~ 10 a ~ ~.::::' u 0.::::' >< ... 0 10 ... v en L. ...... VJ tI) L-. ~ 'VJ 0 0.. 0 "'0 .... .... 0 C ........ ... o ~ 0 ~_ c 0 10 0 >- Iii 8 :J ell 5 a :J f:3'/:: 6"~ :::: :> ... 0 0 '" a 0 10 co.""::J "0 os: go. 10 0 0. '" '" ~ 0 0 ;>. bO 0 0;>1:< ...OOdO'" t:d'" :> .... ~ V) ~ a g.::I 0. ~ -g &'13 .... e50t'-O......'OV)OfiiocU 0. a -"'l c ll:l 0 CON].... ... 0 d 0. +J tt1'a U ttI <.> . >< 0. ~ s:l tt10.1O~ :.O'<.>~B 10.... 0. 0...9 .!::l ; .:P ~ ~ 3-...., .:P~ ~ 0 ..2 -<"f 0 ~ .... '" ""a ... '" "'.~ _.,.. 10 <:J:>O'OOObO ~o.c:.DO> :=:.g ~ a -5 -5 .;;; ~ go.g ~ ~ B .g .. cu ~ E:<+-.to ......: .. . ttI '" ::l u 0 '"' -0 u .g :;;; 0 .... '" ~ ./:: ;:...~ ... oS Q) Q) . '" p 5 8 ... 0. ~ .~ c ...-<"f"''''roOOoc;:......u Q) Q) 0<:J Q) 0'" t: ~'" r:! .~ r:!""o 0 Q) r:! ~ i:i "0 .. d I:; ::: l::: 0 0 0::1 ..... ttI U 0.'13 C 0.. ~t...,.. .... .... .... ""(j Vi 0 Vi 0 ~ 0) ..2 Q) 0 U ~ ~ 8 N ~ 'K a Q) E ~'::'iU u u u~ 0 au _ E 0. <<>:- > ~!+:: tC o.':::.~ ~ 0 E ..9 '0 ~E 0 ~ oa'a ~ ttI v:. .~ .~ 0 V ....... bOb/} ~1I).c:.DU:> *'..2 ~ ~ or;; 'r;; ~ g' -5 ~ ;;l B .g u 09 ~ .DU~S --5,-9 0. <;o~o ...c:: .... 0--- '" B 0. ~ U'J "- ...... G) 8"'1':"0 o II) Q) ...-5;(<; ~ g ~'g Vi ~"03.g~ '2 u El or;; ~ bO.9 '><... Q) 0 .- '" ttI <+=< ~~8:;;j~ 00 \0 V) bO . ~ N.... N 0- I': ~ o '" 'B"2 o ttI V).....J OJC uta o~ -5 Q) .D g. ..Cl... v~ .s ~~Q):E~ ~ ... 0 g. -f;i 3 .g ~ :.0' 0;; :::: E ~ '" ;:.. '" 0..... '" ~ B 6"~ -0 ~ .... ... Q) t: 8 8 0 8 0 ... ttI ,~ ~ i:i~1> g &0 '" i:i.'::l-5 0 bOi:i o OJ "'... 0 _ S 11)... 01:: I:; 0 ... 8 :> C I': ... C' U C co..... a 8: 0. eO 8 ~ !:~'O U ~ 0;>'50. '" ..2 ... I+:: U I+:: 8 0.1+:: -g t: ~ 0 II) v ~ &'a.~'a ~ V) 'a fii & d) -s :> 0 bO.o bO 0. N bO'... e 0 ~ :=: .g -5 ~.;;; ~'r;; ~ B';;; ~ 0. <.> "0 ... o . .D Q .!::l g fa bO .9 8'.S (,).S i5 "'-5:3.002 tI).~ u.~.~ ~ o~a~"'o g"d "'~g ....s~"dO ui ~'~:E ~ U g l5 l+:l ~ a 0 ~ (,)':j 'a 0 ~.; 0 ~ ~ .~.o B 4,) 0. co 60 f/} 0.... '" V).... 4,) ....."'~N"'M - Iii g ;:.. u-f;i t1mo~ ~.9.~ 1iI U oS 0 bO...: l+:l'1i 0..9 as .~ "0 -g go.M ~ ~ '3 ~ ~ ~ggofao ~-",,_J:) .. "0 '" ~ ~ U ...9 gp ~ ]-[1 g.!::l ~-ci ... &~ 5 fJ ~ fJ'", 0"""'--- to:: 2'" ~ os i1:I B 0 b/}.9 O.D 'r;;:s.~ ::;; ::::.... v..d -<l:: ~ 0. '" ... B -02 0.... .!::l '{' ::l I': 0"0 ~~ 0.<:, ~ ~ ..."0 ~ <<> 0.9 to::~ 'S ~ .~ <<> tIJ.D .. -8 .......'-........... ~ l- E 11 II:: 02 co Vi Q) {) 0:1 fr ~ " C 0:1 U Q) o ... 0.. 2 " ~ C .2 tii U co u > Q) :> o 5 ~ " ~ ~ .; -g o " E fj -66 ~u o 0 5; ~u .2 ~ :4'5 's 8" E~ 0.... UO .~i ~~ 0..11) ...... tIS 'E ~ u Q :ge "'0. u 0 ~u g i) ZO ~ r.n o ~ ~ ..J ..... o .....l "I:l u 0. o ...... ..... U tIS ;;.- uo... "I:l tIS Q Q ::> .... ~+-> 0.0 O.....l U;;... ;;....... o's OtIS 001.1. .S u tibh '><! .S ~CI) z o .... f-o <( ~ o C ~ s:: ~ ~ 8.~ "fl ~ 0 ~ rei fIl.= ....8 0 ~ 3 & 0 s d.~ b~geo~ . j:j ...;:: ~ -0 0 ~ reI.8 reI..o >. ... ~ o-se==~~ltI ~.~ 0 rei -s.~ l:l 'a :s ~.d -0 ? bO"O .. '" ~ .... .g ._ ~ B fj -0 ~o rei ~ Cd.;;; 0.> e <g~g,eo~ *_Ofllo.O.. ..... o fIl .. j:j....B ~ ~ 0 3 gad 0 ~== j:j .= ~ .q ..J rl5ofIlO.o t+::Oij~E .a ... .... -s.~ bOdfto-o .- .g .d .... bO ~ l:l 0 .Q.~ ~ ~.;s 8: 0 * ..~relN bO t;j .~ -s ::2 g ~ bO o ",.:;2 -s .S o ~ rei la s:: ~.N 6 0. ~ '" c: <+:;, ~ ~j:j.sc5og~ - Cd :3"- tt-. d v ~~reloo<EEl "'~a~~~"'o. ~ ...+::1"'00 .. ._ ~ a o~ <+:;, U ~fIl+::l ~> .d ....._ 0 .... ~ t' 0 ~ <l:l 0..;;; -0 on "O~ N -g ~~ s ':;2 ~ ui ",.= ... ~ -s ~ d . 'a +::I s::l 0 & 0 ..0 -0 ~ .9 '" ~ ~"O bIl .g god == ~ ". t;j ~...",g8 o rei ..Orel-o?o g ~.~ ~:a.~ g ?o ~ .8"~ ~ .~.~ t3 .... en .~. V o..g ~ rI'J M t;::: e d 9 ...0 t;j d i:l .. ~.~ 0 ~ 0. s:: ~ ~ -0 g fJ '" 0 tIS s::'a ::> e rei . 0 > 1 g ~ 0"0 i:l S.9 bIl -g ~ ~ -g ~ 'B . '::2' V) la o'a a ';;) _.~ S::'B 9 rei rIi 0' reI".~ ~....reI~~ .. rei ._ .- 0 ? 0 bO.... .... 0 ..." 0 ~ 0 ~ e ~ ltI 9 0.';;; e::.2 0 0' e "0 .;;; ltI >. 1 (..I., , .... .::: ::2 ~ '" .... s:: Q) e ~ ;;. o .. ! "0 ~V)~~ ::2 N 0 0 Q) ra -- ..0 ~ .a t;j fJ .... bIl;:; o gf';;; ~ V) 0_ Q).... rei .0.<;: d II) l/] l/] 0 ~.;:: d"zj II) rei 0 c:: > t1:I .... B ...."0 d II) ;~ ~ U L.. ~ ~ e Cl} g 9 &g .... al i5:: -g '" t;j ~.gi:l t:l u CL) ~ 0>0_.9 .9.~ 0. 0 ~ .... ~,.t.V)w~C'd _ ~ c: o..~ e ~ 0 lU -ti:l 0 oJ-o 0.'" s::Cl) .... 0 0 Cl} 0 ... c:: !::2 ....s 0 Cl) reI.;;1 0 g _.~ t3C's::ego -a e.g Cl} 0 '" -~.S 3 ~ -o.~ rIi tn.;jL-c-^t/)c"'iS ~.~ ~ ~.s :!3 ~ * on i:l '" NCl)~ dOt:2...d::l t:2c2 o ~ a .~... ~ 0 0 i rei.. 1"!bo "'reI"'....::2. "'nO +::I.... >. Cl} Cl}'- 0 I;/) 0 ~ 0. ..... t:2'~ ..0 0 0. II) El .. <+:;, g:.::: o al C' '" b rei ft'f: ~ .i:i -Z2 al ~ t3 0 0 ... ~ 0 0 0 rei bIl"d U rei . ... ~ 0 "d "1 0. ltI 0-... t:2.d ~ a a.~ ~ fJ -g -0 -0 ..0 ~ rei g o .~ 0 rei...."" al fJ o:=: d t:2'~ t:2 fIl a fIl bIl "d .... 0. rei .~ 0 to!. o-ocu ~"'rIi"lIl.d...CU""" o 3 0.0.13. "'... 0 '" 0 to J! -o~>'t:2 .d~~fjtB.., o.ij o.al..!l! g'g::s fJ CUN ~ ~ ::> o.e Ei 0.... ",.0.... b- cu 0 * CU..... .. c -s00 (\j ag~~ g S 0 0 .~ s os:: <l:l~:;o. .0 .~;.1 g 0. III .2 == '" 0.:;2 0 -s CU "'.....1"! ",-s bO> ..t::O+::lN 5CU '" bIl'~'C: ... "d CUd otE CU ij'~ l/] -"! 0. !::2 .d~O+::lccua I-< egg.o a <E * '" ~ .. .d cus:: CU.d Bg -s (\j 0 bIl.!:l 0 0 I;/) .... .~ .o.s ~::s . ~ . O'+-t.....~...,VU'.ltl.). en .... s:: III t:2 0 ","0 III .... t:2 III .. III t:2 0 CU <d .~ a e o...S 0 ~ 0. ltI ~ ~ 0 i:i >. '" ltI.~ -g "d CUc::~II).o 0 CUlU(\jCU g ~o..~-g g ftftrli" ft .. 0 ...... U 0 ... ~ go... .3 't: U "l "l tB 0. 0 .... bO"O"O..... ~~ g [~lL~ j.E j * '0 c gf E.O -E ~ ..M '-" ::J~"" r.B O'~ E...... Cl) ~ o VJ 0 0.';:: E S::cu<hg~o. .00 e t:lo.;:;<<lO -'o~ - ..., .- Q) o;~t;j bOt ~ t3.~ ~.~ ~ e 'a ~ i:l 0. !:; ~bO+::I"CUl:i t::.;;; g tE 5..a * B 1: ~ ~ a"tj ""' .~ ;q1l)1I) scus::.....a::l s::tE~s:: II) e e . 1tI~ 2 g.~ <<l... II) 0 _ ....." Q) rn ".. on. r^ M G) G) - 0 -::: -' !:l :>- II) cu'- ~~' ~ <8 cu.9- ~ 0 .... 9';:3..0 e 0. II) 1:0 <Ii' .., - 0 - o (:) tr"O oJ rl ~ -I:: rei .c -5 '" ... .. ....t;:le2..."looelllbll-oO.o..2 - ',-j !::; cu -0 '" 0. '" 11).'" s::.d ... 0. J! ~o.~ ~~-g"O-o.o~ <<l g 0 1=1 0'''' ~ "'.... - '" fJ cu:::: d C::'7 ~ a c:: '" I'l '" bO '" .... 0. "'.;:l cu "" >( o cli)O d 0 ~ rIi" ~~ ~ eo; gw ~ o..o..a.!:l ij l/] ~ bIl.d"O. . g 0 ~ >. t:l ::2.d!.-:i '"0 ~ tB .. . .- l/] "'o.reI(\jC'o<j..it:l~ culUOCU 0.0 cu El.... cu::2;:3 (\j eN;> s:: IU ~ ::>0... 0...."'.0_+.1 00-0.... * .'...~ _ 0 ij i;p eo.. ] -< ." o P! I- ~ o tl: .~ Vi u u '" i5. ~ -0 t:: '" - u u 8 0... 9 -0 ~ C .8 11 Cl) bO u > u > o s::. !j ~ -0 ~ ...J of ~ o -0 t:: E '" .g ~ 50 ~B ij ~ ~ ij 5 ~ .- ... =.5 .- 0' E~ E.... o 0 ~?:' .g ~ ] ::l 0... In -a ..... c=- ~ 5 'Ql E ~g. .- Q ~ ZO u> - ~ v S v :> o .... ] .- <1l 0:: "0 v ..... 0.0 .,9...:1 ~.?;> o'~ gp~ ..... 4) 'Iii..... .>( gp ~Vi z o - I-< -< ..J ;J ~ ~ EXHIBi1'B. . ~.~ ~h j,,~~q ALOE,::". ~ u> () fIl::l ._ # _ '" V.o::I 0 oJ (:l!a:Jg-~W--- _ "0 ._ ..... ~ ;;;;>.. 1! 0..0 v .~ la >. 0 "0 ~ '" B '" e l'j 0. tJv13_ooG~vv":':::'" .g <I) 0 ~..8 u ~ 1:1 .8 .::: g 0. ~ .... :r,...... 0 .. "0 '-' oJ t "'"U go "0 e "3 .!r~.8 la ~ ~ o..s la v] ...~ fIl ~ .J:l ^ d ~ <5 "0 "0 oS "0 o 8 5 o.~ Z .;;,:.a 0 ~ S'S v l1.. '-'.J:l d: z e c5 .~ 2; 0 .S oS .S <I) N a v'~' C" .. :s e ~d "3 ~& vO d"'V'" "0 _ 0 .::1 d L. U v "tl "'s"'''''tIlVd ~ 8 ~ V.~ t -g .!::l .9 ....b...O'l:lO"''''... .0.,2 oJ v 0.1<1- Q) 5 ... 0.;.0-.(-"0 v d 080B .~uElQ fIl '" t;: "0 - .!::I El :J x ."" II) U ... ::s.J:l .... OILlQNOdC"o- .g .,~ e ~ ~ e ~ a ..... rh rh.... 0. 0..9 ;> u g 3 B & e >. ~ :3.!::I ~ "0 1:l -r;; e ... :g.... u & 0 OQ~aV.o .. '" ;.... 1 f.1;< .... ~ ~ ~ ..... d .S 5] ~ ~ ~ uel> -go~ -d u '" ~ bD d 0 _ v u fJ .!::l U to........1:I o_SUrh .0 N :> "0 .tS .0.,2 ... "g ~ 0.13 go -0 . _ _ v d .. ... 0. fJ 0. >..... () v ~ ;;;El...",uOsoBe"'~~El 0 .J:l::stS ~.&:1 ",t;:II)" El <I) (:l.J:l!J.o U) i .... !::I ;;; 0 x:'a NO'" U 0:1 I:l '" ~. .J:l-;i 0::s1Ll 6bu"O la u:;;13 v"O ,g. .~ 11 .g] 1i...3.~,g ~ ,g ~ 9 ~ .J:l <<t.S .g ~ .~ if s 8: ~'::I :3's.~ <I).. e< 1iI g'U C"5 _..aeEl ~. "0 "0 v g 8 ~.!::I '::1 ",_::s '" CTo.--~~E eela"'j3v <I) .. o..S ~ s vO .J:l vv ~ "0 >..<;:: ~.!::I :> v 8 ~ v ::s 0 ~ .~ .... ~ a [~ o..,I:lUu "0 ~el'j1:lgo~u 'a u:'::: .. 0.;;; 5 bD.o o.~!?" ~ ""'v '.0 ..... 0 ~ d d <I).... < '" '" ~ U -_eEl II) 00 V rr'l . S \0..... .....~ ,._ N ::I NO Q .g 5h ..... ..... o II) II) II) Cl)Q 5 ~ Eo.. -fj '" t: < o .g ,; :0 ~ g If> .1: os 0. E 8 r::: .2 ] ::1 ~ ~ ] '" ~ ~ C <<t () tC 'c ~ Q) u ..!2 ! -0 C <<t ~ U Q) o ... Q.. E -0 ~ C .~ (;j o DO II) > GJ ;> o ! -0 c j " :5 '"0 ~ gf 'ii l! o '"0 r::: os t>Il c: .1: 11 o " ~ "S fi E '"0 c: " ~ " '8 u r- o o ~ t -0 E ~ .g ti lil- ...u o 0 5; ~5 .2 ~ ",.- .~ :3 E If EP:: 0.... U 0 ooC .5 III ~ ~ - :::I o..cn ~ CITYOF ~ Federal Way , EXHISIT-. ..~.. PAGE"OF-y::" ATTACHMENT C ~ FOREST PRACTICES ACT I. Definitions '~Forest land" means all land which is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber and is not being actively used for a use which is incompatible with timber growing. ... "Forest landowner" means any person in actual control of forest land, whether such control is based either on legal or equitable title, or on any other interest entitling the holder to sell or otherwise dispose of any or all of the timber on such land in any manner. "Forest practice" means any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and relating to growing, harvesting, or processing timber, including but not limited to: Road and trail construction; Harvesting, final and intermediate; Precommercial thinning; Reforestation; Fertilization; Prevention and suppression of diseases and insects; Salvage of trees; and Brush control. II. Summary of Class IV General IV Forest Practices Permit I . If a development is proposed on land with merchantable timber and the landowner desires to clear the land, he or she must obtain a Forest Practices Permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2. The landowner can apply for a Class IV Forest Practices permit from the DNR once a development project has been issued a Mitigated Determination of Significance (MDNS, threshold determination pursnant to the State Environmental Policy Act [SEP An. 3. The landowner can harvest the on-site timber once a Class TV Forest Practices permit has been issued by the DNR. 4. A Class IV Forest Practices Permit expires after three years if the landowner does not develop the property. EXHIBIT ,... ... PAGE--.OF-d.-:: l' J" .; " 5. Prior to December 31, 2008, the City may request that jurisdiction for Class IV Forest Practices Pennits be transferred from the DNR to the City. This may allow the City better control on timing of harvesting of timber relative to the development of the site. 6. Staff needs to do further research and obtain direction from the City Council on whether we should pursue requesting a transfer of jurisdiction for Class IV pennits from the DNR to the City. 1:\2007 Code Amendments\Tree Clearing and Grading\EXHIBIT C Forest Practices ACl.doc Planning Commission Memorandum Forest Practices Act Attachment C Page 2 EXHIBIT ,,8~:.'___, " PAGEaIOF~ January 16, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes January 16, 2008 7:00 .m. Commissioners Hope Elder. Chair Merle Pfeifer Wayne Carlson Kev;n King (Allemn/e) City of F ederaJ Way PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 7, 2007 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMlNISTRA TNE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS , City HaJJ Council Chambers · STUDY SESSION Clearing & Grading/Tree Retention Code Amendment 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. AUDIENCE COMMENT 9. ADJOURN William Drake Lawson Bronson K '..Plannin~ (' o""nissionl200~\"gmda 0 I. J b. 08 d<>< City Staff Greg Few;ns. Imerim CDS DireclOr Margaret Clark, Senior Planner E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assislant . 253-835-2601 W\l'1t'. rill 'offltfleraffl'nl'. wm .~ CITY OF ~ Federal Way . MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT:': " _ . . PAGE11-0F~8--- " January 9, 2008 To: Hope Elder, Chair, Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading MEETiNG DATE: January 16,2008 I. BACKGROUND This staff report is the third in a series of reports to be provided to the Planning Commission for study session purposes on potential code amendments related to retention of significant trees and clearing and grading associated with the development of a site. Previous study sessions were held on September 19 and November 7,2007. We are providing the staff reports prepared for the two previous meetings .as well as the minutes for your review. We have also included citizen comment letters or e-mail received on this topic. II. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY SESSION The previous two study sessions were intended to brief the Planning Commission on how the existing regulations work and point out to them problems that are being encountered by both staff and developers as a result of implementation of the regulations during the development process. The purpose ofthis study session is to hear from developers, utility companies, and interested members of the public as to how we may improve the regulations in order to make them easier to use, while still balancing the protection of the environment with developer interests and economic development. m. DISCUSSION POINTS 1. Regulations should be reorganized in one section to make them more useable and to eliminate duplication and conflicts. Attachment B of the November 1, 2007, memorandum to the Planning Commission lists all of the regulations related to the subject topic and identifies which regulations address clearing and grading and tree retention for each specific land use, e.g., existing single-family lot, new subdivision plat, vacant single-family lot, multi-family development, or non-residential development (commercial, industrial, institutional). There are seven separate sections of the code related to this topic, two of which are in Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," and five of which are in Chapter 22, "Zoning." 2. Existing codes do not provide enongb gnid.nce .bont nnde=~~ grading would be allowed. The code amendments should clarify under wba,t con. - ."'''' mass grading is allowed. ' . The Federal Way subdivision code states that all natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to be subdivided, except that which will be removed for improvements or grading as shown on approved engineering plans. If development is to be phased, clearing and grading shall also be phased. It also requires existing mature vegetation to be retained to the maximum extent possible. However, the City does allow mass grading of a site based on unique conditions, such as topography. The City requires that a clearing and grading plan be submitted as part of preliminary plat application. The engineering plan must conform to the clearing and grading plan. In addition, the final plat must comply with the conditions of preliminary plat approval. Once preliminary plat approval has been issued, a landowner can apply for a Class N Forest Practices permit from the . Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The land can then be cleared of merchantable timber in the clearing limits as depicted on the approved preliminary plat.t The zoning code allows all removal of vegetation for non-residential site development if a certain percentage of the significant trees are replaced. Once a land use permit has been issued, a landowner can apply for a Class N Forest Practices permit from the DNR. The land can then be cleared of merchantable timber in the clearing limits as depicted on the approved land use permit. A related issue is the stripping and removal of topsoil. on graded sites..Staffhas learned through participation in recent conferences on Low Impact Development (LID) that plantings tend to fair better when topsoil is stockPiled on-site during construction, rather than trucking the soil out then replacing the soil prior to landscape planting. Soil "best management practices" (BMPs) include preserving site topsoil and vegetation where possible, reducing cornpaction,and amending disturbed soils with compost to restore healthy soil functions. 3. There is no specified height limit for rockeries or retaining walls in the FederalWay City Code (FWCC). Should the code limit the height of these walls and implement design standards? As developable sites become more constrained, there has been an increase. in both the number of retaining walls and the height of walls in order to provide level building pads. Staff has seen development proposals for walls in excess of 20 feet in height for both commercial and residential development. Due to the aesthetic impacts associated with the increase in numbers and height of retaining walls and rockeries, staffhas been requiring section and elevation details for proposed retaining walls and have implemented conditions of approval that establish maximum wall height on a case-by-case basis. However, there are no specific design standards for retaining walls in the FWCC. Some jurisdictions establish restrictions on retaining wall height. The Washington State Department of Connnunity Trade and Economic Development clearing and grading example code provides for a maximum rockery height of 12 feet. The City of Mercer Island specifies a maximum of 12 feet in height for a rockery or retaining wall on a cut slope and six feet on a fill I "Merchantable stand of timber" means a stand of trees that will yield logs and/or fiber suitable in size and quality for the production oflumber, plywood, pulp, or other foresrproducts, and of sufficient value at least to cover all the costs of harvest and transportation to available markets. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Connnission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 Page 2 EXHIBIT~_ slope. Mercer Island also establishes that within a required yard, roJ?AG~f ~> limited to six feet in height. King County has a similar requirement limiting retaining walls to ~ix feet in height within setback areas. In addition, if there is a fence on top of the wall, the combined height cannot exceed ten feet. 4. Should we adopt lot averaging in conjunction with a slope density ratio? As lots become smaller, and remaining developable sites tend to be steeper, there is a tendency to mass grade as well as use more retaining walls. One solution may be to allow the permitted number oflots based on the underlying zoning, but require lots on steeper slopes to be larger. . 5. Should we re-evaluate how "significant trees" are classified? \...... City code requires significant trees to be replaced in amount equal to 25 percent of the significant trees which existed on the subject property prior to commencing any development activity if the approved development will require the removal of more than 75 percent of the significant trees on the subject property. For subdivisions, significant trees located within areas to be improved or graded are excluded from the replacement requirement. ::iJ:~ In order to determine the number of significant trees to be preserved and or replaced in the event that more than 75 percent is removed, the FWCC requires a tree retention plan that identifies all . trees, located on the subject site that meet the current definition of significant tree (12 inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference, measured four and one-half feet above ground) at the :',time of application for the first permit. Since the City's current development regulations focus on protection of trees of a certain size or greater, the result has often been protection of individual trees, but overall loss of tree canopy on development sites. In addition, development in the City Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zones are exempt from significant tree preservation requirements. As discussed in the following section on survival of preserved trees, it may be preferable to consider preserving tree canopy or stands of trees, as well as individual trees of significance. This maybe accomplished by giving credit for the retention of stands of smaller caliper trees, even if all do not meet the significant tree criteria. Jr. In addition, should there be a different standard for classifying different species of trees for protection? The City of Redmond has a "landmark tree" designation for trees measuring more than 30 inches in diameter. The City of Redmond also specifies that the tree protection plan be prepared by a certified arborist. 'l' 6. How can we ensure that those trees identified to be preserved actually survive? Current development regulations require that any trees that are proposed to be retained must be clearly noted on a tree plan that shows trees in relationship to planned site improvements. On site, trees to be protected are to be protected with fencing and/or stakes with flagging that are placed at the drip line of the tree. The City has been advised by arborists withUrban Forestry Services that the currentprotection zone represented by the tree's drip line is not adequate. The recommendation is that the protection zone be represented by a minimum of 12 inches in radius for each one inch in diameter. For example, a 10-inch diameter tree has a minimum protection zone represented by a 10- foot radius. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 I , Page 3 EXHIBIT I ~- PAGEM..OF~,..,- The zoning code states that the tree plan must be reviewed and approved prior to site clearing. The code should be amended to also specify that protection measures must be inspected and approved on-site prior to clearing. Current tree protection requirements often do not result in the preservation of groupings of trees, but result in single, stand-alone trees scattered throughout the project site, or strips of trees along the site perimeter. Therefore, significant trees that are preserved often do not survive the site development phase and/or blow down after completion of site development and are ultimately not preserved. Groups of trees have a greater chance of survival. provide better cover for wildlife. and are a better site amenity. In addition, the $ignificant tree requirements do not address the issUe of significant trees/vegetation on adjacent property. Therefore, trees on adjacent properties are often damaged and/or killed as a result of site development. 7. How should replacement of trees be regulated? The City's current regulations specify minimum on-site tree size for replacement trees of three inches or greater for deciduous and 10 feet or taller for evergreen. Some jurisdictions provide for off-site tree replacement. The cities of Redmond and Port Townsend allow for off-site replacement for some or all of the required replacement trees when on-site replacement can not be achieved. Acceptable sites forreceiving off-site replacement trees.arecity or county owned parks and open space areas, public school sites, or private open space areas that are permanently protected and maintained. Another option provide~ by Redmond is a fee-in-lieu of tree replacement. The fee covers the cost of tree, installation. and maintenance for two years. The city collects the fe~ and expends it for the planting of new trees in city owned parks. open spaces, or rights-of-way. Redmond also allows for the consideration of landscape restoration (restoring all or parts of the forest landscape and its associated benefits subject to administrator's approval) to mitigate the loss of trees. For example: · Creation of wildlife snags from trees which would otherwise be removed. · Replacement of certain ornamental trees with native shrubs and groundcover. · Replacement of hazardous or short-lived trees with healthy new trees more likely to survive. · Daylighting and restoration of stream corridors with native vegetation. · Protection of nonsiginficant trees to provide for the successional stages of forest development. 8. Should the City require monitoring of preserved and replacement trees? The City's current development regulations do not specifically address ongoing monitoring of preserved/replacement trees after development is completed. Large trees that have been stressed or damaged can take 18 months to three years to show evidence of trauma and/or die. The City of Redmond has established sections on maintenance. performance assurance, and 'enforcement specifically related to tree protection. The maintenance provisions specify that an replacement trees and relocated trees shan be maintained in a healthy condition for the life of the Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, an<l Grading Planning Corrunission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16,2008 Page 4 EXHIBIT 8._ project. The performance assurance section requires that the applicant ~~~Qf--d ensure the installation, maintenance, and adequate performance of tree protection measures. The bonding period is for three years. Damage or removal of trees required to be preserved is subject to enforcement action. 9. Should there be specific language to address tree replacement adjacent to BPA and PSE power lines and easements? Utility companies such as the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) need to manage vegetation on and near their rights-of-way and easements in order to keep people safe and their systems reliable. Trees (and other tall growing vegetation) that grow close to power lines can be a hazard. Trees do not have to touch a high-voltage transmission"line to be dangerous. In certain circumstances, electricity can "arc" from wires through the air to trees and equipment, resulting in fires, injuries, or even fatalities to anyone near the tree or equipment. Touching any part of the electrical path can cause serious injury or death. During wind storms, tall trees adjacent to power lines may cause power outages, which can disrupt service to homes, businesses, hospitals, and important community services. In order to prevent power outages, trees close to power lines are removed or trimmed by the affected utility company, which have their own management plans. In order to prevent future conflicts between protection of power lines and "danger trees," any tree-related code amendments should coordinate w,ith the vegetation management programs or plans of utility companies. IV. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PREVALENCE OF MAss GRADING During;the November 7th Study Session, Alternate Commissioner Kevin King asked for information regarding the prevalence of the total removal of all trees on sites within the last five year period. Due to topography, rnass grading was allowed for Campus Crest and Wynstone, two adjacent plats located along Campus Drive, and North Lake Ridge Division 4, a plat started in the Potential Annexation Area and subsequently annexed to the City. Numerous commercial projects have also been completely cleared and graded; however, this is allowed by code based on replacement of trees and meeting landscaping requirements. v. NEXT STEPS The next step in this code amendment process will be to provide a similar briefmg to the City Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) for their input prior to actually drafting code language. K:\Trees, Vegetation, & Grading\Planning Connnission\OI 1608 Staff Report to Planning Commission. doc Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 Page 5 " . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION EX~:' PAGE~OF--U City Hall Council Chambers January 16, 2008 7:00 p.m. . MEETING MINUTES . Commissioners present: Hope Elder, Merle Pfeifer, Wayne Carlson,. Bill Drake, Lawson Bronson, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (excused). Alternate Commissioners present~ None. Alternate Conunissioners absent: Kevin King and Tim O'Neal (both excused). Staff present: Interim Community Development Director Greg Fewins, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Senior Planner Deb Barker, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. ~~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~~,.. It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of November 7, 2007, as presented. The motion passed; ncfnays. Chairwoman Elder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REpORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION - Clearing & Gradingffree Retention Code Amendment Ms. Clark explained that this evening's study session will be a little different. Representatives from agencies and developers have been invited to participate in a panel. For each discussion point, members of the panel will be asked to express their questions, opinions, and suggestions. Members of the panel are: Douglas Corbin, Puget Sound Energy (PSE); Gary Nomensen, (PSE); Tina Melton, PSE; John Norris, Norris Homes; Ron Tremaine, Redstone Development; Kurt Wilson, Sound Built Homes; Paul Woolson, Bonneville Power Administration (BP A); and Don A?, BP A. Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. Discussion Point # I was that regulations should be reorganized into one section to make them more usable and eliminate duplications and conflicts. There was no discussion on this point. Discussion Point #2 regarded providing guidance about under what circumstances mass grading would be allowed. A related point is whether the City should require topsoil to be stockpiled and reused. Staffhas received infonnation at Lower Impact Development training that stockpiling and reusing the soil would result in healthier soil. Commissioner Bronson commented that stockpiling and reusing soil would possibly result in healthier soil only if the original soil is not contaminated. He suggested that if staff proposes that soil be required to be stockpiled and reused, that testing for contaminates be part of the regulations. Mr. Norris stated that smaller constrained sites can be a problem. Builders use all the available ground, so there is no place to stockpile the soil. He doesn't agree that reusing existing top soil will result in healthier soil. Replacement soil is not necessarily unhealthy. We need to address the affordability of housing and how stockpiling can add to the cost. K:\Planning Comnission\2008\Meelins Summary 01-16-08 llevised.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 Mr. Wilson stated that we need to differentiate between commercial and reside~14Q cannot leave soil on-site when doing commercial development because everything is built on pads. Builders don't want to take material off site because it is more expensive to haul soil away. On residential development, they attempt to just scrape off a few inches from top. Builders want a maximum two percent driveway and limiting mass grading can end up with steep driveways. Saving trees is great, but trees should be preserved in clusters. Ms. Melton ~tated that whether native top soil is used or new soil is brought iil, the top soil must ~h suitable for planting trees. Proposing regulationS must consider specific site conditions. Ms. Clar~4r' ~ for c()des ~t use this approach... ~~~ Mr. Norris stated that the City's ordinance that allows 25 percent replacement for significant trees works. It ~ has flexibility because it allows mass grading with replanting of trees. Mr. Tremaine agreed with John, Kurt, and Tina. Commissioner Elder stated that the project on Campus Drive has been a source of a lot of complaints to her. We need to educate the public that we are not just going ahead with mass destruction of trees. Ms. Clark noted that mass grading on the Campus Crest was allowed due to site constraints. Mr. Wilson added that this situation occurred due to SEP A being issued and then the developer obtained a Forest Practices pennit. This is a loophole. The City should consider how to close the loophole. We need responsible development. Ms. Clark said that staff is working with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on this issue. The City may be able to take over the Forest Practice permit. Commissioner Bronson said that the problem isn't mass grading, but timing. Ifhouses had been built sooner, there probably would have been fewer complaints. Commissioner Carlson asked whether the City's engineering department had applied any seasonal . restraints to the clearing. . Ms. Clark r~sponded that there were some restrictions on when they could clear and grade. Mr. Wilson said that imposing seasonal restrictions is an issue. The concem is discharge of stonnwater and erosion control. There shouldn't be a blanket statement in code because every situation is different. Discussion Point #3 regarded height and design standards for rookeries and retaining walls. Commissioner Elder noted that the City needs to be careful to keep residential and commercial rockeries and retaining walls separate. Mr. Noms said that we don't need extra restrictions if we already have them in code. A rookery over four feet already requires engineering if it is supporting dirt. The developer doesn't want to build walls because they are expensive, and imposing design standards can be even more expensive. Many times, rules don't consider that each piece of ground is different. We should allow the Director to make modifications. Commissioner Pfeiffer asked for examples of the code John mentioned. K:\PlaMinl COJmliuion\2008\Meeling SUIJll1ll'Y 01-16'08 Revised.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 jnuary 16, 2008 EXH1BIT-,\ ~. _- p AGE~:OF _fl.l~,~:... Mr. Norris stated that in King County, if a wall is over five feet, you must obtain a pennit. The wall needs to be engineered so it doesn't fall. Commissioner Drake said that engineering drives what you have to do. Code addresses engineering. We are talking about aesthetics. Commissioner Pfeifer asked about the maximum 12-fo~t rockery. bp A . Commissioner Carlson said that the City should not rely on the CfED model. There are problems wi~ !tttfI~,.. model. We should offer applicants a choice. The City should provide different design solutions and allow , the applicant to choose. Mr. Wilson asked if we are talking about retaining walls on single family housing lots or other retaining walls. The City can't restrict a single family home owner from building a wall on their lot; this is a property rights issue. Developing the property on Hoyt Road without walls wouldn't have been feasible. The developer doesn't want to spend money on walls. If they have to step a house, all you will be able to see is the siding of the house. Terraces would look better. Commissioner Bronson stated that if a large wall is masked with shrubbery, this could be a security issue as people could hide in the shrubbery. He also stated that if the retaining walls were regulated by OHSA, a handrail would be required. He asked whether City code has such a requirement. . Mr. Wilson responded that the rule is that any wall over four feet high-requires a four feet fence. He added that screening of walls should not be prohibited. Commissioner Long asked if code specifies whether a wall or rockery should be used for a structure over six feet tall, and whether the staff or developer gets to make the choice. Ms Clark stated that planning doesn't address this issue. Ms. Clark stated that it is hard for us to choose a specific height. We may need to look at alternatives. Mr. Norris stated that there are new walls that look nice. One thing that detennines what type of wall to build is whether there are utilities close by. Sometimes it is better to use a gravity wall, other times poured in concrete is better. The developer has to detennine what the best type of wall to use is; they want the pl~t to look good. Discussion Point #4 was about adopting lot averaging with a slope density ratio. Mr. Tremaine stated that this approach would allow flexibility to build around the slope without losing lots. Mr. Wilson likes flexibility, but he stated that conventional lots should not be prohibited. The developer can build on lots with topography by tucking the garages under the house. Commissioner Bronson stated that in previous meetings some Commissioners Wanted to provide a way to make some lots smaller but still result in the same number of lots as in a conventional subdivision. The intent is not to force a developer to do things a particular way. K:lPlanninl Commi..ion\200BlMeelinl Summary 0 1-16-08 Revised.doc Planning Commission Minutes F'age 4 J:U,ary 1~008 EXHIBIT_, - ~ Discussion Point #5 related to significant trees and how they are classifiedldefined.p AG E ~O F .liI Mr. Norris stated that the present ,ordinance is working. It is flexible. There are iots of trees in Federal Way. He added that builders don't cut trees for the fun of it; they want to retain trees, but you can't retain tree canopies and plot out lots. Keeping trees may get someone killed as the tree may come down on~use. . Commissioner Elder asked Mr. Noms for clarification ~ ~ Mr. Norris expiained that the existing ordinance allows the removal of trees and planting new ones that in ~J-' time will grow large. Not allowing mass grading is a problem. Ms. Melton stated .that using caliper to define a significant tree should be reconsidered. We should consider the health of the tree, its location, and amount of soil available. Tree failures during the last storm occurred in trees in buffers. We need a certified arborist to identify significant trees. Commissioner Pfeifer asked Tina Melton what is wrong with using the drip line to id~tify the protection zone. Mr. Barbarinas, the City's consulting arborist, had recommended defining the tree protection zone based on a ratio of the diameter of the tree to the protection zone. Ms. Melton responded that Mr. Barbarinas is a top arborist. The problem with using the drip line is that roots can grow beyond this line and there could be stability' problems. Trees to be preserved should be based not only on caliper, but whether the tree is in good health, whether there is root rot, or whether the tree will fail in a wind storm. Commissioner Pfeifer asked whether it will cost more for the' developer if an arborist is used. Ms. Melton replied that it would, but we need to weigh that cost against retaining trees. Commissioner Bronson said that we are trying to find a set of rules that are workable and not too expensive. But Ms. Melton is saying that we should hire an arborist. He asked whether there is a way of achieving our goal With less cost. Commissioner Elder asked how we can make an educational guess about what trees will be workable. Mr. Wilson replied that a Maple Valley project of his required a tree survey. The survey would have cost $50,000. However, he convinced them to use a different approach. He further stated that YOll cannot retain trees on 3,000 or 4,000 square foot sized lots. In Maple Valley, the trees were removed and replanted with a planting plan using native trees. This allowed all useable land to be developed. It is cheaper to retain trees if you can, but in many cases, you can't. Federal Way has a 15 percent open space requirement. Commissioner Pfeifer asked how Maple Valley defines significant trees. Mr. Wilson replied that their dennition is based on a 24 inch caliper tree with X amount of canopy cover. You need to consider the size of a lot when adopting requirements. 'you can't save many trees on a 5,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Bronson said that the panel says they want mass grading and a determination of number of trees to be planted as part of project. Do we need an arborist involved? Commissioner Bronson also stated that if mass grading was allowed there should be a specific time in which trees have to be replanted. ' K:\Pllnnina Commission12008IMeelina SIIImllIIy 01.16-08 Revised.doe Planning Commission Minutes EX H I'S I T ,_~::~.16, 2008 PAGE___Q'F~',' Mr. Wilson responded that the City should take over the Forest Practices Act Permit in order to have more control over the replanting time. Page 5 Mr. Wool,son with the Bonneville Power Administration conveyed their concerns about the kind of trees to be replanted adjacent to their easements, specifically stating that BP A does not want trees over ten feet near power lines. Mr. Norris agreed with Mr. B~'s comments that trees should be replaced. He would like ~ allow the developer to replant trees In locations where the trees won't cause problems. ',~ Commissioner Carlson stated that residents don't want to wait 15 or 20 years before a neighborhood looks ~ good again. City should have a certified arborist insure that trees that remain will thrive. Discussion Point #6 regarded ensuring that trees identified for preservation survive. Commissioner Drake said that he thought that the conclusion was to allow mass grading'and replanting. Ms. Melton stated that site conditions should be taken into account. On some sites retaining trees would work well. However, trees near substations are a potential problem. Each site needs to be evaluated independently. Commissioner Elder agrees that one size doesn't fit all. We also have to be aware of the perception of citizens who may think that the city doesn't do anything about the mass grading. Commissioner Elder also stated that she appreciates the feedback from panel because it helps the Planning Commission with a decision. Commissioner Drake asked if it boils down to whether we are willing to pay for an arbonst. It is what. you are willing to spend to preserve trees. Commissioner Bronson asked whether there are thumb rules for evaluating the type of tree to be preserved so that a planner can determine when as arborist is needed, e.g., which type of tree with which type of soil doesn't need an arborist. Ms. Melton responded that she is not aware of any boiler plate or checklist; it would be a challenge to develop one. Mr. Norris stated that he is concerned about Ms Melton's comments concerning the need for an arborist as this would add to the cost of housing. A builder may even have to change roads, etc to retain a tree. Every site is different. Ms. Clark stated that the subdivision code does allow you to clear for infrastructure improvements. Mr. Tremaine asked who would be liable if a significant tree that was required to be preserved falls two years later. Discussion Point #7 asks how replacement of trees should pe regulated in regards to size, of site-replacement or a fee-in-lieu of replacement. Ms. Melton stated that requiring a minimum number of trees could be a problem from a screening standpoint in regards to substations. This could result in transients hanging out there. She also stated that K:\Plannin8 Commiuion\2008\Mcelin8 SUrmlIl)' 01-16-08 R.evised.doc Planning Commission Minutes EXHIBIT replanting large caliper trees in sloped areas can damage the slope. t?AG ~~ planting the right tree in the right spot. Ms Melton also added that allowing off-site replacement in places , such as parks is good and a fee-in-lieu could be dedicated to tree planting and not used for other purposes. Page 6 January 16, 2008 Mr. Norris stated that a three-inch caliper tree is expensive. Most cities require a two-inch caliper tree. He is also concerned that a fee in lieu of tree' replacement would be viewed as money generator and overused. Commissioner Long asked about the caliper being used by other cities. Mr. Norris responded that a two-inch caliper is common. He further states that three-inch caliper trees require a r90t guard that costs more than the tree. Commissioner Pfeifer asked Ms. Melton her opinion about root guards. D. Ms. Melton responded that science hasn't made a decision as yet ~ 4Pr Commissioner Long stated that he liked'the concept of replacing trees on site. He suggested replacing as many trees as possible on site with fee-in-lieu for the remainder of the replacement trees~ Discussion Point #8 asked whether the City should require monitoring of preserved and replacement trees. Mr. Norris stated that here is no guarantee that the replacement tree would not die within three years. He added that it takes a lot of time and work to get performance' bonds released. Commissioner Bronson asked if staff knew how many replacement trees had died within the last five years and whether it was really a problem. Ms. Melton agreed with Commissioner Bronson, stating that monitoring would be an enormous amount of work for both the developer and the City. ' Commissione! Carlson agreed with Ms. Melton. Failures normally occur when people aren't doing basic care, such as iirigation. Commissioner Bronson asked Ms. Melton if she would let the City know what percentage of failure PSE has. Discussion Point #9 regarded whether there should be specific language to address tree replacement adjacent to utility (such as BP A and PSE) easement and rights-of-way (ROWs). Commissioner Drake asked whether utility companies already had regulations. Ms. Melton responded that PSE doesn't have power lines in Federal Way over 150 kilovolts. They do have language about vegetation management. PSE normally trims areas adjacent to power lines every three or four years. They work with land owners ifhazard trees are on private property. Ms. Melton again mentioned the right tree, right place philosophy. She stated that she can provide the City with specifics. ' Commissioner Drake asked if we could just adopt the utility companies' standards by reference. Ms. Melton responded that some of the regulations are Federal regulations. K:\Planning Conrnission12008IMeeting SUJIIIJlII}' 01-16.08 Revised.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 16, 2008 ~J .'~ EXHIBtT M.' Don A with the BP A stated that BPA can work with the City about ~sAG~OawaeJCl-7....~ their ROW. Ms. Clark stated that we want to be more specific about types of trees to be planted adjacent to utility easements and ROWs. Ifwe default to their regulations, it may not be clear in the future that they have the right to keep their easements and ROWs clear of hazard trees. ~. ~ Mr. Woolson asked that BPA be provided a planting plan ofprojects adjacent to their easements and -<1~ ~b~~~ ? Commissioner Carlson asked Ms. Melton if she could provide a permitted plantings notebook. Ms. Melton stated that she has some literature about the Tree City USA program. Doh with BP A states that street trees adjacent to their easements will have to be topped by the City or BP A will cut them down. Ms. Clark will talk to Public Works about this issue. Mr. Nomensen applauded the Planning Commission for inviting the panel. He stated that PSE has been analyzing outages that occurred during the 2006 storm. They found that 40 to 60 percent of the outages were caused by trees in required buffers. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. Clark stated that the 2008 Planning Commission Work Program has been adopted by the City Council. A copy was provided to the Commission. in February, the Commission will have a dinner, hold elections for chair and vice-chair, and have a study session that will discuss the work accomplished in 2007 and the upcoming 2008 Work Program. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. K:\Plannins Commi..ion\2008\M..tins SUlmIlIry 01-16-08 Revised.cIoe Title I8H - Development Regulations - Forest Practices and Tree Conservation 18H.40.130 -- Appendix F C EXHIBIT-- .- PAGE I OF:' ... . - -l. Appendix F - Recommended Tree Species The following table provides information on selected species of native and non-native trees suitable for use as replacement trees. All species listed are suited to the climate conditions found in the Pacific Northwest. The list is for guidance only and is not intended to be all-inclusive. Other tree species may be utilized where appropriate when recommended by a professional forester, certified arborist, or licensed landscape architect. Grand fir Abies grandis Yes Large Vine maple Acer circinatum Yes Small Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Yes Large Japanese Maple Acer palmatum No Small Norway Maple Acer platanoides No Medium Red Maple Acer rubrum No Medium Yes Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Yes Small Pacific madrone Arbutus menziesii Yes Medium European hornbeam Carpinus betulus No Medium Yes No Medium Yes l8HAO -- 26 No Coniferous tree achieving heights of up to 150 feet. Tolerant of a variety of soil conditions, similar needs as Dou las fir. Deciduous tree typically reaching heights of 5-35 feet. Treelike in open sun, crooked sprawling and vinelike in shade. Good fall color. Tolerant of a wide variety of soil conditions. Prefers moist soils, but can tolerate drier conditions once established. Deciduous tree. Form varies widely based upon competition and soil conditions. Typically 20 to 30 feet high when grow in open conditions but can reach heights of 80 feet or more in the forest. Good fall color. Tolerant of a wide variety of soil conditions. Similar environmental needs as Dou las fir. Common deciduous landscape tree. Slow growing, typically grow to no larger than 20 feet in height. Well adapted to the Pacific Northwest and well suited for small lot use. Popular varieties 'Atro u ureum' and 'Blood ood'. Common deciduous landscape tree. Typically achieves heights of 50 to 60 feet. Care must be taken near sidewalks and drives as roots can become a problem. Well adapted to the Pacific Northwest. Common deciduous landscape tree. Varieties 'Armstrong' and 'Red Sunset' are recommended for street tree use. Fast growing, typically to 40 feet with brilliant fall control. Well suited to use in Pacific Northwest. Deciduous tree seldom larger than 20 feet in height. Tolerant of a wide variety of soil conditions. Fruit ve valuable to wildlife. Broadleaf evergreen tree typically reaching heights of 20 to 60 feet. Prefers dry sites. Can be difficult to ow. Red eelin bark. Deciduous tree growing to 40 feet. Variety 'Fastigata' recommended for street tree use. Well suited to use in Pacific Northwest. Decidious tree, slow growing to 40 feet. Good fall color. Well suited for small lot use. No No Yes Yes No No English hawthorn Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington hawthorn Crataegus phaenopyrum Western dogwood Camus nutallii Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos Incense cedar Libocedrus decurrens American sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua Tulip tree Liriodendron tuli i era Sourwood Oxydendron arboreum Flowering plum Prunus blireiana Prunus cerasi era Japanese flowering cheny Prunus serulata Flowering cheny Prunus subhirtella Yoshino flowering cheny Prunus edoensis Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Small Small Small Medium Medium Medium Large Medium Large Medium Small Small Small Medium Large Title 18H - Development Regulations - Forest Practices and Tree Conservation I 8H.4O./30 -- Appendix F Small deciduous tree, typically no larger than 25 feet. Well suited for small lot use, but can be rone to disease. Grows well in Pacific Northwest. Yes Small deciduous tree, typically no larger than 25 feet. Well suited for small lot use with good fall color. Grows well in Pacific Northwest. Deciduous tree up to 30 feet in height. Prefers well-drained sites and partial shade. Could work well as a supplemental planting under a canopy of lar er trees. No Deciduous tree up to 30 feet in height. Scarlet fruit. Prefers highly fertile soil and grows best in moist, o en areas. No Deciduous tree up to 80 feet in height. Prefers moist or wet sites with rich soils. Works well for streamside and wetland lantin s. Yes Fast growing deciduous tree with height of 40 feet. For street tree use, seedless varieties such as 'Marshall' are preferred. Well suited to Pacific Northwest. Yes Fast growing deciduous tree with height of 40 feet. Varieties 'Shademaster', 'Skyline', and 'Moraine' are referred varieties. Yes Coniferous tree achieving height of 150 feet. Drou ht and wind resistant. Slow owth. Yes Common landscape tree very tolerant of urban conditions. Achieves heights of 60 feet with good fall color. Well-suited to use in Pacific Northwest. No Large deciduous tree achieving height of up to 60 feet. Ve tolerant of urban conditions. Yes Medium deciduous tree with good fall color. Achieves height of35 feet. Well-suited to use in Pacific Northwest. Yes Small deciduous tree with colorful dark foliage. Typically reaches height of 20 to 25 feet. Well suited to urban conditions and small lot use. Yes Small deciduous tree with colorful dark foliage. Typically reaches height of 20 to 25 feet. Well suited to urban conditions and small lot use. Variety 'Amanagowa' and 'Kwanzan' well suited for street tree use. Yes Small deciduous tree with colorful dark foliage. Typically reaches height of 20 to 25 feet. Well suited to urban conditions and small lot use. Variety 'Rosea' and 'Whitcombii' well suited for street tree use. Yes Medium sized deciduous tree achieving height of 40 feet. Fast owin. No Fast growing, long lived coniferous tree growing to height of 150 feet or more. Prefers drier sites, but tolerates a wide varie of soil conditions. l8H.40 -- 27 Title I8H - Development Regulations - Forest Practices and Tree Conservation 18H. 40. 130 -- Appendix F EXHIBIT C~~~ PAGE.J.OF..$ _..,IL. .... "lI'._ IT - Flowering callery pear No Medium Yes Widely used in cornmerciallandscaping. Pyrus calleryana Deciduous tree 25 to feet in height. Well suited to urban conditions. Varieties for street tree use include 'Aristocrat', 'Bradford', 'Capital', 'Chanticleer', 'Reds ire' and 'Whitehouse'. Oregon white oak Yes Large No Deciduous tree typically not more than 50 feet in Quercus garryana height. Provides food and cover for a variety of wildlife. Slow owin, refers well-drained soil. Pin oak No Large No Deciduous tree achieving heights of 50 to 80 feet. Better suited to ark or lar e lot use due to size. Yes Medium No Coniferous tree reaching height of 60 feet. Very shade tolerant. Most successful under canopy of lar er trees. Westem red cedar Yes Large No Coniferous tree growing to height of 150 feet or Thuja plicata more. Best under moist, shaded conditions, but tolerates a wide variety of soil conditions once established. Little Leaf Linden No Small Yes Small deciduous tree reaching height of 30 feet. Tilia cordata Tolerant of urban conditions. Western hemlock Yes Large No Coniferous tree growing to height of 150 feet or Tsuga heterophylla more. Best under moist, shaded conditions, but tolerates a wide variety of soil conditions once established. l8H.40 -- 28 00 E-c Z ~ ~ S 0' ~ ... 00 z o ~ E-c U ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ o = Q .... = ~ .... = ~ Co 1:; "C . is 8 ~ ..... 0 0 8~~ .~.~ ~ Cl + ';;J o .8 = il 0 1:: o 1< ~0.s"C ~ rJl o oS 0 .1::'..... J:j ~ !:S01:: ~ .~ "C a <IS I-< ~ .g .~ ~ ~ "a 6- ~ .~ "C "0 < ~..9';;J ~-& ~ :i "a:fl g 01::'.......... ~!:S 0 C '" "C = O:l o 0 0 0 ].~.~i .,00.... ~........... V,:l - 1:: 0 ]EXHJBIT ..0 ___ ~ ~ ~ '~5'~ii= I Of: ~ .~ :; ~ 0 0 O'rJl 0 1;1.) t/).;::; e....... ~...s:= .... _o.a<lSO~OO <g~:.a:;~~g Q.) ~~ N ';: ~ ~ ~ ';:R -5 +~ II ~ I .... 8 .~ "a ~.s . Co = ..... Co = ::::= ~ C -d - ....S ~ ~ ::-~ ~ ~ '1::" O.!l ti .8 !ll ~ ~ :: ~ ~ ~ !:S .~ <IS 0 ~ 0 0 > > 0 0 >.. 0 --g ';=.!l s 0 J:j,g 0 g J:j ,g ,..; ..,"..... rJl 0 ..... <IS ... ... ~ I-< I=< !S ~ I-< i:J~~ 1i.<:.aB~~.s ~~~.s ..... ~ 0 ~ 0 o.c]tij~ t+:l::::=Cd~O :~ ~ --g ~ ], rJl rJl.S 0 - d - 0 <IS..... 0 O:l <ge8.f1"a "C ~ 0..... Co~ ~o 1I'jf>> rJl"aO ~a:gl 11~~ o 3 0 ';;J "C.E 0 '0 ~ Iib.a rJl 0 ~.c > ~ is'13 8 8 0 .....~ <IS .... > 0 ~ i:: 0 ~ cno"Cp.:f~J:j .c ..... ~~ ti ~ g--g- ~~ ~ ~ -d bb S .s j' .; g'~ ~ ~ g ~ "C :; 0 = ~.S !3 0 1)' I-< .a Co 1ib;:S on rJl o I-< t+:l 0 .... ~~ 0 0 0 .... ....E >.. ~ 'S .8 'a'~ 0 Cd ~,g '0' <IS ::> 0 0 "C 0 rJl ....- ~ ~~~.a~~=~1-<1-<~0~~>1-<~- ~ .e ';;J ~ Ii. '9 .~.S ~ ~ ';=.s 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 1:; ..s .s 8.:; ~]..::s 5] ~ ~~]8g.sg.sct:l ~ /:'. "C.... "S1l~'cc ~ .... Cd Q .... = =s'sc.,Qu Q ~Q~~~loJ~ .... ~.""'c.l~"'~-==fIl "'"SCd",C. ....Cd.... ~~i;.8;~~~~ ~~~ii::EE~~;~ o is ~ 0 ~ .....('<)23 8..... .... sO"C .s.~ ~ .s ~ Q) ~ ::;s~g~ Q) ~ = ~~ ~~8gf- ~ 0 Q)'~ .8 ~ ~ ~ "v.; ,.g ~ Q ~]~~ = '" ::I ,Q ::I < Co ~ ~.....'jf 5 ~ :g Q) 0 0 ~ ~ii o >.... 0 t+:lp.:frJl"C ;;::; o . ~::::= --g - <IS .!:l fr.~ I-< -;; ";;l;:::l -';:c.s><i:lg' I=< O:l 001-< o - "C S .!!i .... Q)'~ ~ g o.~ ~] ~ c ='::1'" c.2 >. ......8o~O O!ll <~s~g8.li.~ "C = 6 "C ~ B - o.s .....;El~ '!:l~ ~...1=1 .... <IS..c:l S ..... 0 ..... .... - <IS ..... 0 U .... 1<i .!:P S <IS .0 :; "C I-< Q) o ~ ..c:l.s 0 ... 0 0 rJl ...... ~ Co 0 0 ~ ..... :; "C U 0 ... ..... O..c:l 1-<.... "C 0 g! Q) t+:l ..... "C <IS 0 o....I-<~<IS..... .....o~....... rJlOoo ~ e] ""rJl ~ ~ ti 3'a .!:l ..... 0 ~'€'I:: ~ rJl;Ej o 0 50 ~ 0 O/J (;l <IS J:j I:: ::I :g rJl 1il 0 0'>:1 "C ,.<:;i ~ ~ '<;l il g !S:.a] < 8. ~ ::;s ~ "a ~ ~ 8] ~ 23 23.23 .... :.o-! :.a --g"g~ ... I-~ b b ~ O-N'<tQ) rJl <IS o =_ ;::g Q)~ .......... ilo '" c ~ e rJl . il <IS Q) "C 0.... "C rJl~.c ~P::;."'" 0 ~ 'a .s 0 0 a.s _~Q)S~t::~ ~ ';;J .t<l ~ E-< ~ ~ j "C 1il <IS ~ ....; il~~~~ o .!:l'S,S 0 !S6-~~1i. ::;S~"Olibg. ~ ~ ::::= < '" Q ,Q '" Cd == ~ r; ..... :g .~ ~ S ..... g = = 1 0 I=< ~ .~ is!S t+:l.a .....rJl .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... 0 <IS.... g Cf.l >..c:l "C .;::1 =3 "2 :gJ:jcrJl I=< _ <IS 0 o ,~- ~ 'S 0 ~ E ~ 0 ~ 0" t<l ~'o 'il il.~ .,; ~ fr'~.c >. ~~'a ~ 0li.0>>1il' t::o .cl.....!ll 08 E-<.s ~ ~ 1<i"C ~~ is] oB .~ Q)-d o t<l 0 ~ rJl .S _o.a < g ~ ..... rJl o ~ '"' ,-0.... 0 0 0'- ~ S'I:: ... ~~ 0 .... .8 ~ 0 .8 .S .;::1 0 0 0 ~.a~ ~il p::; ~ il :.a .S 't:l = Cd ~ '" ~ -;; '13 rJl C <IS = 3 0"C ~ 0 1. J:j g. rJl :.... .c ~ j~ B.!:l U <IS ~ Co 1il 0=-_.!l0000 =Co<lS~O~c_~"", 0::10>> o' rJl is 0..9 "C 0 t.S ~ s"c:l"O . ~ -;; -g o ~"O.c ....! ~ .!:l 0 I-< rJl 3.....1-<01il.~"c:lCf.l>>. >>="c:l Cf.l 0"0 'S "c:ll-<~t:: ~. 00> ~~ _rJl 0 3 = ~ ~iM~~!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "c:l 8 -d .~ il] ~] ~.~ ~ < :.a lib ~] ~ ~] <0:< .~ <0:< g. ~ ::I > .!! ~ = ~i ..."c:l!3 ~"c:l' ..... .... 0 ~.s 0 lib 0 = .s ~.S ~ ~ 0 i5 ~ S ~ rJlil ~:g ~ ~~'El]~~ O-..c:l I=< <IS"'..... rJl~ o <IS U <IS 0 0 O'~ 0 ~ ~ .s:.a lib S c.2 ~ :; lZi (ol 's. Q E-< ; /:'. ~ ... 't:l ~..... ~ '" Cd '" E-< ::I .... Cd";::I fIl > go ....~'" 't:l ~ = .cl '" Cd .... ~ ~.s=~ ; Cd :c .S ......c ~ C".}~. Cd~.....s~ .cl;<::QQ.,~ :> '" !:: ~ '" ? (ol _"'.... == = -= ~ .. == ::( == "'" =' ,Q ~ .s ..... . 0- ~ .~ g.~ N 0 "'" = ,Q "'" " == ~ G 'l:l == " :;! "'" :;a -d o .!:l g. e 'l:l == e 'l:l ~ en u ~tIS..... .g e'3 ~ ~ t:l. u :3..... u o....iO!.l:l os ti. ;::R'~ ;>;::l 0 5b ~ s' ~'!iJ cu =' t - 41 = cu E " cu 00 CJ 's. = E-t ~ ~ o '" '"c::l '" ..... ~~ ~0;9.. :I: 'r::' 't : i:> >- '" . ..... '"c::l 1:l ~ e ~ ~o~ ..... u '"c::l '" tIS tIS ~- o e-s (l)l:i:: ~ 0 t:l.oBo.o ~ .~ .il -d o 0 0 ~ u .-;:: ~::3 -;:: i5. '" <.::; 'v .... u I=l u - 0 u ol5.8"5J~ (I) ...,; =.gcg o ~ ~.~ 8 .~ ~ .~f 1:l '.g ~ 8t1S '" 0.J:J <d - .;:;l !..!. '.c tIS U 0 0 tt-ittt:-;:::;..::1~::stl) o U !:! g; ~"ta e ~.9t1StlSt:l.;><S .....1:l-d' 0 oe~ 0;9~ ~oo >-1;i ..... U = 0.J:J .b ...-4~cd~c;tI) .S go 0 "0 ;> 'E (I) .....J:J 0 0'8 -:.s l5..t; < .g ~ ~ ~< o 0;9::;0 _ o~.J:J ~ g 1=l0-d'i:1a ""-::l 0.J:J 0 0 :3 .... .... '"c::l0,.E;~"'~~ ",- (I)(I)ue 3 ~ e e-0;9 ~ t:l. ~~~0;9~;a2 "1\ ..... 0.0 i ~XHI~! ,., ---- 1 ~.~ ~ .~.~ tfGJ: @ :lOF:~ tIS ~ U ~ u. i ri U ~ t; 8 g.~ .~ ~ :a:g - eo.5.M:a a.'s ~ ~ ~ e ~:ij 8 e~ t; ~~2 ~ ~~ ~~ . '"c::l~ o ~ 0 0 ~ i:> ~;.:::I .J:J Z O..l:l 0.0 t; ~ g It: g ~:E .S ~ .~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ] ~ .S -B -g SO ~ ~ t) 0 en o ~ :.9:E g..Cl'f'! 1-13 e'"c::l..!l!~u-~- t:l. ~ t:l. 0 tIS ;::l a.jg 3 'p.S ~ ~ ~ ',fl .8 ~ ~ ] 2 8 5'~ ~ l;J ~ '"c::l2l0 .~] g 00" <d .~ ~.s ~ u 0 ~n '" ~'p a'..... 81<10;;: p.,.J:J"ta0 .... ~~~ .~ ~ S .0 '" 0 ~ ~ _.~ ~ "'" .J:J t:l. 0.0 .... u u =~ '"c::l ~l;Ju~.....'"c::l ~~ u o ~ .S c 1:l '.c -;::.J:J 0.0 0 ~ '.c a ~ ;!3 '.c i:> '"c::l <d U J:l O'!:l '"c::l tIS "" '+:l ~ U",o =e ~'+:l_"'<:<~..Iofo.b. 0 ~ o..l:l 0.0 0 0 '" '"c::l ~ U.S - .'" Cd '"c::l u o !:;.~ e B U l5..... e.~ ;::l - "0] ;> ~ <:I ~ tI)"'::: L... 0 ~. CL> ..... - .t:::! d C1)' 0 0:.3 t:l. tIS "3 " 0 fr lil 3'~ g. !:; a.;:;l:.s l5. fj t:l. 0 ~e~~~~~~.J:Je<S8~~<~~~.g .... ~.s1U ~ ;:....0..... 'a e - 0 = 0.0 ~.E ~ t; ~ ~ '"c::l .El l;J -; '+:l_;>'.cU;!;lenS5 o U 0 u.!:l l;J 0 _ . ,$.~ l5..g 5< t:l. ~ ~ 0 <0 ~e e~ g::;su U <:I '"c::l 0;9.;:;l = '=> ~ tIS 1:l "'00.0 0 .g "0 .~ S ~ <S'"c::ltlSo.ot:l.~ -~-B~~-a ~ e.s ~~ ~ ::; .... ] .J:J <S <d ;:.... .J' oU'" .J:J..; '" o..l:lU '"c::lo ~ '" .b ~ "~ u~ t) ~ tIS';; '"c::l:+:' 8. =. ~ ..... !:;.;; ~ ~ "'.'.8 Q '" R,o 0 0 tIS u =I:l!:::-o!::ju-o o 0 0 Cd .b '", .9 ~ 0;9 ;::l -= ~ i cu cu J:!: cu .. S C'. .. S C'. 'f 8 -g c/, cu 8 -g l::"~~cu,,~ = is...s " .c is...s ~f-;~'8f= .s ~ .~ 0 ",.S 0- = t:l. ~~ s..... 8 .g 0 ~ .~ '"c::l ..go 1;; '€ -d oe~~~l;J 13~::;=..l:l~ .t:l.'~ 0.9 ~ ~ I::o~~....o OU'+:l'+:l.J:J'"c::l o 00= =0;9~ ~ .S g '" 0;9 .... o'r::' I-< = i:> 0 o (I) El N.J:J .E == C'. cuS.:l ..cl CJ == .. cu cu cu"s "'" = cu " "'" "'" .. p., .. " cu =' ..cl cu C" ~~~ = = .... = ~ CLl ....."'J'i o CLl 0/) CLl I-< .~ J:i <s 0'1;)'1;) ... 8 CLl . 'S ~'s '" o Q.. 0" !a ~ e e ~ -= ~ = ... :l .t::l ~ CLl I-- p,...."O 0:1'1;)'1;)'1;) ~ ~ .S r; = :3 .a I-< 0:1 '" r:I CLl ; gj... ~ <.~ E 0 Q o '1;) g. .....0 r; 0/) >-.S ~..... ~ ~ ~;g.S, ~ 5l ~ ~ ::s 0:1 e 18 t.:: Q....o U Uu 'n ::s.......a ~ ~8~1abh ~80tQ.....o:I ~L~ I-< 'ag. <s ..... CLl ..c CLl o. ~u "B>tCLl>- ~ ~ ..oCLl .~ '5 ~ ~ ~ '" u..... .... '" t.:: Q.. CLl .s ~ ~.S ~ ~'€ ::s ~e'1;)a~:::eCLl8 "Q..CLl!:<l::o:I......UO "Cl = = e "Cl ~ '1;) 1a ~ ~ = 'p u .Q .a -E "Ci t.:: ... = C'O CLl ..... ~ CLl'1;).S tI.l8.8~B~ Q..Q..",O CU j ~ = CLl U..... =. 0:1 '> 0 s 0 0/) ~ 8.g '1;) .e .~ .i3 0= CLlO.......... r; ~ ~ U~'5 !a ~ 'a .s... Q.. ~ 0 CLl >oS ~ uil o:I'~ '" I-< ~ CLl..... ~l:lgj<So,9o CU E ~ cu tI.l u '1;) = CLl 0:1 ~ Q oe'a1agf ~ 'P... CLl......p O/)O/).a'1;)~~u I-<'~'~ ~.~.o =.g <s.~ 0 S ;::l P ~ Q ~ ~.-<;::; CLl O"~ i:l 0 CLl!:<.....~CLl...CLlU .....Q..o ~8 I-< p,.5le. oQ..~<s u 's. = ~ '" .... cu E = t u t=I)_~ cu .~ 1l "Cl .9f.st:t fIJ.a.-~.! ~~~~~ 0:1 t+-4 ";Stf +-a ~cd>~~ ca::::: 1:i aO/)~O"Q '1;)o:I'1;)CLl '.E'~ CLl e] CLl ~'c5.s S CLl '::S P::'8 !a..o] ;:R .~ 8 ,9=~t::CLltjU~g~..... ....g I-< CLl >-8~"" ~ &r~ < ",r-op,..,..!:< Q..- 0:1 I--,9 d cu. <Ii M ... I-< CLl <.sE:;~ EXH lalT :J> PAGI= ~ DE ~ ~ ~ o 0'1 .....,'#.~ ~CLl 00 ::s ......,..0 "'CLl,9 <l:I r;..o'~ 0/) ~CLl ~.q'1;) ~ ..... $:;j GJ........ . 0:1 0 !a 'S a o=r;.!l..o~ Z..oUUo:lQ.. '1;) ~ CLl t.s >0" Q CLl CLl 0 ~ I-< 'p ~'~::;l ~ . '1;)<+=i0~ o81-<~ca z..o<se> ~"-~""'--",. ~ o Q ~ ... o Z '"' CLl > o Q ~ ... o Z M '"' CLl > o Q ~ ... o Z '"' CLl > o Q ~ ... o Z '"' CLl > o Q ~ ... o Z .... .... ..~ - - cu '" = .e-= ......t=I) .dCU cu .- = ~ ~ .~ e--. = .... l; e e e--. u- ~~~ "Cl =t~~ =t-;IIJ cu~!3-Q~ 9:! :=>::..~'::~...t .d='~= .,..cuU=~u...._:l... .....du_...cu =.d~ :=~cu....= "'....cu~=...cu-...."'="'u=~~= ~l=S~a.t::l~=~J=~...cuz~ ~=:f~~.s~=.a~u'~.9~~ = = .... = ~ = ~ 0.. :-.a . tlSs~ = >. blltlS 8. =-Ja ~.~ ~ ] ~ 0 = .E - ",.;l.~ ~ Q,) U ~ 5-l;':: ~ ~ Q. I!) ..... ~..o I!) '" '" "0 gf...... S ~ I!) ~ I!) _ ~ '" .... .?;_ .......bllO.....I!)Q.OIJ = .. = ~ .. = of ~ = ~ 6 = .,8 g 1:: ~ .s ~ ~ fr 6 Cd .t;j .~ ~ od ~ ~ .... '<7 .~ e e I!) Q..::: ~ fIi .E ~ ~ e .~ ~ ~.6 ~8 ~ u ~ '0 Q.8l!)....~bll I!)~o.g ~~:;;&~~"'~~@'8 OC = ~ :!1! .. ::2 bll_ ~ - tIS...;] ~~I!) ~ :E . rl "0 ..s ~ tl ~:OS'~.E ;>, = Q. ';:3 ~ 0 = <O=O,p = I!) = I!) tIS >;.E .~ 'r;; e ...... 6b..o..o ~ Q. 6h I!) g 1:: ~ ~ >. ~.a 1il 1:: e. .0j>......0-<O=O ",;a 0-- ~ B fJJ ~ e ~ [~ a. ~] e g OC = = e OC ~ ~ 0 e!;l...... "'''''''1:: o I!),s 0 = = <t:l = ...... <Ii ~I!)~ bll~"05 ..0 .~;a ~.s go a "0 .€ I!) g go go til ~ j!;l <11..0 ",-- ="0 1=l:::: tIS ~ ~ 0 I!).~ 0 I!) I!) .... I!) I!) 0::> ","0"0 o!;l..o "t:f ~ ~...... ~.~ ~ ~I!)", tIS O!:l' .....~tlSl!)l!) I!) ~tIS'<7t1S 'E '~.2 ..s ~ ~ . ~ gp..9 ~ 'E ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ !;l'~ ~.~ ~ ~ s .~ .... I!) bll "0.;:3.... tl tIS'~ >. e 0" a.!;l 1ii I!) .... l!) bO.... ~ o:S = ~ .... t] ~ -5 ~ .~ ,.Q .~..o .... bll5 '" .... .g >. ~ ~ ~ -5 B .....s a. .... g'...... ...... .~ >. I!) = 0 u X I!) O' 0 0 > u' S I!) .... !;l';;<' B.... 8 .E ~ ~ ~ "0 '61> '0 >. ~ "g ~ I!) g ~ rl;.E ~;:: ~. I ~ ~ I!) ] S ~ ~ El < ~ ~ e 1a ~ ~ ~ ~..:l 6h ~ '0 r-' ~ ~ e a 'E ~ .~ :.a E D c:> ~ 6h ~ g. .s o I!) .;!l..o tIS...... ~~ !:l u l!) :I ~ ~ = = ~ 8 a.~ ~ ~ ~ f!;..9 ~ 5h I!) . ~ I!) >...9..... ~ ~ I!):t:: I!).... "'-!;:l bll'8..:l 1!).g..9-a .~ 5 1ii e- 'g ~ B ~ Q.'t:I.s Cd ~ tI) l!) E ~ l!) CI.l l!) a .g f!od'~ I!) I!) .... ~:E ~.~ bll:El I!) I!) .~ 0 ~ ~ .=: 1i.,.Q rl .s ~ <;;8 o~ ='8",.s'-€J] :; oS ~ al!) ~.;:; "0 B d I!)....O -uI!)O(d ......O-Q.tlSCl"'Q.U ~t)o;..9=~]....~ "'g>'~I!)::>u~~ a.Q 8.g '~.8 8. 8'r;; u ... Q. = ~ .... = ~ c-. ~ c-. IOi = ~.... (Ij Q.,=Cl.l!)~ .soc=":= l!)l!);;;~U t ~ Cl. ~ .c oc.s~.Cl~ ..=-;~~~ .... >. -g .s ~ '" u l:l Q. tIS >..g ",I!)I!)..o~ I!)..o U"O;::::' ~ .; .a ~ '0 tIS I!) 0 I!) tJ:l a ~.s~'B EXHIBIT 1? - PAGEJt-OF: S ..... .... "O.;!l0 0 _~<;;~ C"'I!) . . ~ ..... .E 00 ..0 "'-blll!)bll'<7>. ~.~ 'j ~ 'Q) ';; ~ I!). r>:> I!) !:i ~..sil' ..:l"J:;.Cl", I!) g I!)'~ 0 g ~ · ~ .... .... ::>-<0=0 .;;<_ ...... 0 '8 = .~ t:: oS.~ s. I!)'~ '" I!) U Q. ::> 's'" bll...... I!) I!) bll "0 > 1:: '5 .~ ~ ~ 0 1!)0001!)~a@' D~..:loe= o I!) o bll ~- .~ d fIi '" tIS "'~ "OtIS-tJoo .... ~ '" bb<t:l ~ I!) I!).a...... u 1ii .~ 'S :.a .~ := ~"B [~g.1 "0'8 ~ t:: . blll!)"O = Q. I!) .~ bll'S I!).S 0" -"0 I!) U tIS .... < 6h.~ >. ............ ...... ....... 0 0; .. .... = ..... "0 I!) =~~::Q ~ 0 ~ = "'::::l oj ~ tIS.Cl '" ~c-. "'=OC ~... l!) ..,.oc~ ~ ~ = -- ..=t.?o; ~.g 4i "O.E! bll ~ ~.s .~ -5 .~ ] 8'~~~ '" .... I!) 's] >. ~ 8 ~",ra~~ "<:t bll ~ 1a .S' tIS .... I!) f! 6h~ !;l I!) o tIS I!) oS =.~ bll blll=l O"h .~.a Sl '" ~ tIS !3 tIS < .S -tJ "0 ~ ...... I I!) I!) ~ "Eh ~ I!).S 'go; ~ '" ...r (d ~ O"~..9~bll '" (d >.'I::.S ~ =] J;l .S o 0 uS 6h~c.;:;:;e~ '" '" I!) -0 .....0 00 ...... . 00 -M 8~ . l!) =~;g..:l~ I!) 'E a ~.~ I!) .~ oS "0 ~ = 'S: ~ ~ ~ I!) 0 g ~ e ~ ~I!)' "'jl'il!)Q.....O;I:: B~:=OSOSI!)Q.!:l tIS....I!)!;l"O"01ii.i:l~ ~ .s ~ I!) ~ .s ~ ~ Q. "..... ~ ~ I!) x "0 -g tIS..... tIS 1!)..o.s~e6h !;l"O"OOobll >. ~ B .:a ctl .il ...; I!) 0] bll...... '" I!) ,.Cl 'S 1!)',-1 > E-o~' .Cl~~..!a = .... ~.... = U ... v l\le8~ .5!;Q' v =.... = ~:1 -e.....ac-.l!)'" ~ .~ t\.; :is - :is ....~.......~~I\l ..=e~~~~~ = Q ~ = ~ ..;.: o o:S ..g "0 >. Q) E c '" OtO"tl ;:l c Q) ~:s '3 O'r::' 0" o ::s: ~ ~ = ~ = ... = .c = < ... Q .c ... = == OJ) G "0 = = ::2 ... ~ "0 = a "0 ~ - C Q)Q) 'a.s ~ !:l .5 !!l 0:;::: ~l:i-<E:l e .....S-;:: p.E.;3'o. Q) o:S'r::' '" Q) '" ~ is o:S g ..90.........- 0_000. Q) = ~ ~ 'il = ':=8 d .~.S Eo .... Q).... . O..cl::: "00 "'d.... Q)N Q) .;;:1 E II ..cI d -fl....Xo~N <:lEQ)o:S,.c .;;:1 '" >.,.c S U ~ tie g ~ :3 Q) E = Q) lZl ~ .. Q., Q ~ e--. '" ~ = 5 .~ e ~ f "0 .. >,= = Cl" = f - Q,)"'C VJd ~~"tl ~Q) oog o~- l'f"l~",Q) co~o ~"tlEJl .g8Q)~ .... Q)S.... ";S'J:l 000 ~'s ~ Q) Q) Q) C o:S r-- :ll:J'E~:; ~E-a" a::l ~.s 8.. e:> ~.s:::, ~~ ~ 'J:l !!l ~ ~ 8;.= Q)'s ~ <+=i ~ c~,.c:S""'"O' - Q) 0 >-' r::' ..... "0 o:S '" ""J:l . >.::s: Q)-I Q) g ~.g ~.~ e] Jl. !:l J:<..... i:l'J:l '" 0 0. ~ Q) $ :if'::l ~ .B ..!l! 'C' .~ ~ = .... c 0 Q) 0. "6 .. ..... o 0. g..-=:S ::I. .... _.... Q) r::' ..... Q) . '" Q) 0 ::s: 0 cp.8'";;l"tl ~ Q)<<l"tl.... .s C'J:l'il ~ 0 ~:.>:l Q) E .' g ] ~ ~ ~ ].-fl~ .~ ~ ~ ::E a.s ~ ~ ~ ~ 8.. ~ :a 8 - ..... i::'~' '> 0 Q) \0 '[j ~ -= i) ~ 0. 8.... > ~~ Q)<SO ~:fl .~~5 .= o:S Q) - Q) ~ .g5-gfrb~ lZl p.O~N- - 8i:l 5h l'f"l Q) ..... 00 e '" - Q) ~ ~~ ~ .... - Q) fr p., .... .fl .;3 - ~ ":=lC.... ""r::' '";;l..cl ;:IC;;Q)o:S::s: +>0 e s:l 0.::::: c (5.s ti _ Q)0Q)0!=10Q)- o:S _<<l 0.0 ~'J:l 3<+=i Q) g >::I>:;:::o",o:SSQ)..gJ:< ~ ~ e .~ -" o:S ~.~ ~ .~ Q):<'" 0. 0 ~ ~ 1;;';::l Q) ~ "tl ~ ~ g..S 0 b ~ c ~ b .S .;..; . = ~ g .t:~ ""'~ 00 l'f"loo~ 88..!l!N~oo~~ . 0. "frooO\- I 0 ;:J~~Co~o\::::l~ ~ o:S ';;; 0 Q)~ Jl~ co:S ;::l ~ 'J:l ~ ::> .;; Q) ,.c bll 8 Q)" ..... 8 ] 8 =;@..!l! ~ ~ .~ "0 to "tl 0'. 0. _ ::I 0;>.Q) > Q) c-"~ 8;~-fle-1i ~o:S~~> ~ ~ ",..9 o:S Q., I OIl p.t.8 Q) b ~ .... '" Q) ~ <<l e ",. J i:l 0 'a 1:I..cI 0 ~ u"OoQ)oQ) Q)06b'+>0;EQ) G) ~ 8 ~ 5 ~ . e ~.;; ~ ~ ~ 6h Q) ... ~~~... u.~",5.s~ e--. ~=a~= ~ ~~.SQ.,== = ~ "'."',g ~ c ~ e ~ ~;: Q) ='.:0 Q) Q~et:si3='" ~..cI Q.,"O = = ~ ~ .S ~::::: ,,; -Q) .....Q) .8- ~~ o~ ~~ "O~ 8.... Q)oo~", 'J:l~ 0. ~ -..... Q) _ o:S bll :;:::;<<l~~;S~~ .~ Q) 6- 0...... '" 1;; 1a u.;3Q)g.oo:S~"tl = - ... ... :m Q '=f~-;~ ~~=~= ..."'.......:j:l QQ)...d~ "':j:l'::; ~ = ........... Q,J ... u ~ ~ ~ Q) Q) ..cI=~Q)Q) :> Q) - ... ... ~Q.,Q.,~~ EXHIBIT 1> --'_~,......,="".'" :PAGE S~Ot:L trl o .g N .~ o:S ::E '8 o o Q) u:l U ~ bll ;@ ~ ] OIl .~ o:S Q) [) Q) ~ ~ '" -= ~ = ] ~ o U r-- o o !)I ,:.; , EXHIBIT ....----. '.-.. . ',',n. ..__ __-0""-- . PAGE I OF-LL- Citizen Comments ,. City of Federal Way City Hall .PO Box 9718 33325 8th Ave. S. Fede:ral Way, WA 98003 fW.~FiIV C~t W&v4w~ . . ~vVti'lkt -Jk Ct.f--CYfI- RECEIVED MAY 29 200? PUBLIC WOf-iKS DEPARTMENT . . - r'l. . iIiiI . - .. ..... Federal Way, WA 98003 I '. , --ii EXHIBIT . PAGE ~ , ~i ..."..--,," ...... .. I _0 F _-Jl.I.----i To Whom ItMay Concern: My name is Amanda Bell. I have lived in Federal Way for my whole life, and I must say that it is a wonderful city in which to live. It has been brought to my attention that large . amOlmts of trees in Federal Way are being cut down to make Way from more housing developments. It haS .happened in this city over the past few yem. I would like to see more trees being planted to replace the ones that are being cleared out and fewer trees being removed from construction areas. HopefullYt this could help sustain our state's natural beauty, even when houses are being built. I would be happy to raise monc,y to help pay for the trees to be planted. I would like it if you could place restrictions on the amount of trees to be cleared out in different properties. I can be reached at the above address. If! do not hear from you within two months, I would be happy to send a reminder letter. Please help save our natural resources; there are too many trees being lost due to these new developments. If you consider making these changes, I will feel that I have macl!a positive impact to the environtnent. Sincerely, .JJ~ Wl Amanda Bell 1 1 t;t; .l'\..t; It;llUUll allU LallUi:)\"apJJ1):;/ '.11 <lUlU):; ~UUt; rage 1 or J Margaret Clark - Tree Retention and Landscaping/Grading Code From: To: "Dini Duclos" ........ ....:.. .. 1 AI -.. "Tina Piety" <Tina.Piety@cLfederal-way.wa.us>, "'Margaret Clark'" <Margaret.Clark@cityoffederalway.com> 10/2120072:48 PM Tree Retention and Landscaping/Grading Code ---------.l:. .----. EXHltsll... ~ :. Pl~GE,.._...~ ]F_l~..=.~ Date: Subject: Hi Margaret and Tina, , was talking with a resident who is very concerned about development and what is doing to the animal habiltat with all the removal of trees etc. I told her about the Planning Commission and what we are looking at. She would like to receive notice of any public hearing so she can testfy. Her name is Mrs. Donna Williamson and she lives at . - , - -r-ed Way 98023. Telepho- l' ~. Could you add her to your list for notification. Thanks, Dini file://C:\Documents and Settings\DefauIt\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47025A3CCHPOCity Hall I... 11/512007 · u5'" 1 U l L :iT'll 1- W Margaret Clark - Fwd: Tree, Clearing, Grading Ordinance 15'I....,~'f.'rN 1 LUJJi l~~ _b....~-.--~ L. t~ 4.~lIQWIlP!;lNl~.~~~~_ li11lll il5iSt...:-~'I _~ From: To: Date: Subiect: Greg Fewins Janet Shull; Margaret Clark 11/13/20078:05 AM EXHIBIT Fwd: Tree, Clearing, Grading Ordinance EJfa --.-------------------------.--- -- --..---..----.--.-------p-AG- - F: OF .~_~L_ .......~"'IlI'~ fyi Greg >>> "Kurt Wilson" <....... 1 - Greg: IkT - 11/13/2007 7:03 AM >>> Per your direction, I forward the following comments_ Sorry they are later than expected Tree Retention: Do you really plan to regulate tree removal on existing single family lots outside the ROW? Can the developer unilaterally make the determination as to whether or not significant trees are retained, replanted, or mitigated offsite? <This is very important with mostly infill development with topography that occurs in Fed Way> Tree surveys of 6" and larger trees is a real waste of money with little benefit If a threshold of retention is established, it should be incumbent upon the applicant to show how the standard is met by using retention, replacement, mitigation, a combination thereof. (ie: x amount of tree units per acre retained based on a representative sample survey of the site) Making this process as predictable as possible without discretion of staff is most important to our industry. (ie: why propose to retain narrow strips of trees (specifically in non-residential development) when we all know they are highly susceptible to wind damage and that developers will just have to jump through another hoop and get a forester to convince the staff that tress should be replanted and not retained) Replanting seems to in most cases make the most sense. So why not structure the code to allow this to happen without a bunch of back and forth with the City staff which costs our industry time and money? Consider giving credit for street trees of certain calipers and species. Mass Grading: Mass grading should be allowed in ALL urban areas. Who are we trying to kid? Most all of the "flat" sites are gone. I have never been able to figure out the reasoning behind this policy other than one incident, Jornada. One experience is not the way to govern. What benefit is ultimately gained? All it does is increase costs for the Builder when the City is successful!) Why would staff want to limit the use of walls? Developers usually try to get out of spending money on walls so that the builder is left to deal with the topo problems. It always makes sense to deal with them in bulk during the mass grading activities. This allows the final streetscape of the community to be predictable from the start. Federal Way has forced some pretty bad clearing/grading approvals on developers in the past, ALL FOR NO NET GAIN TO THE CITY! There are numerous wall types that actually are both beneficial and actually very aesthetically pleasing. Topsoil is usually retained on residential plats because it is an increased cost to truck it away. However, this is virtually impossible for this to occur on commercial development sites. (Keep in mind that keeping too much (More than 6" ) on building lots requires a displacement of the excess non-structural material on the lot after the foundation is backfilled causing steeper driveways in order to minimize haul-off) (not always the best thing for the end user in my opinion.) ::I/C:\Documents and Settings\Default\Local Settings\Temp\xPgrpwise\47395AD9CHPOCity HalL 11113/2007 . -0- - -. ~ It appears that the direction City staff is heading with these proposed changes is going to make it even tougher to evelop the remaining residential land left in the City limits. The City has made good improvements over the years and I would like to see that continue. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Kurt Wilson EXHIBIT-E ._::~ P A.GE__$__JF_"J'i.-- -"1I"-'1If J_'~ - e://C:\Documents and Settings\Default\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47395AD9CHPOCity Hall... ll/l3/2007 ~ CITYOF ~ Federal Way MEMORANDUM lltve k@pb1:S . Qjm.~eu1s fer bold ;-fa/;oud ~~ EXHIBIT . E;-.. ~ PAGE~OF_..ua.-. . January 9, 2008 To: Hope Elder, Chair, Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Greg Fewins, Interim Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading MEETING DATE: January 16,2008 I. BACKGROUND This staff report is the third in a series of reports to be provided to the Planning Commission for study session purposes on potential code amendments related to retention of significant trees and clearing and grading associated with the development of a site. Previous study sessions were held on September 19 and November 7,2007. We are providing the staff reports prepared for the two previous meetings as well as the minutes for your review. We have also included citizen comment letters or e-mail received on this topic. II. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY SESSION The previous two study sessions were intended to brief the Planning Commission on how the existing regulations work and point out to them problems that are being encountered by both staff and developers as a result of implementation of the regulations during the development process. The purpose of this study session is to hear from developers, utility companies, and interested members of the public as to how we may improve the regulations in order to make them easier to use, while still balancing the protection of the environment with developer interests and economic development. III. DISCUSSION POINTS 1. Regulations should be reorganized in one section to make them more useable and to eliminate duplication and conflicts. Attachment B of the November 1,2007, memorandum to the Planning Commission lists all of the regulations related to the subject topic and identifies which regulations address clearing and grading and tree retention for each specific land use, e.g., existing single-family lot, new subdivision plat, vacant single-family lot, multi-family development, or non-residential development (commercial, industrial, institutional). There are seven separate sections of the code related to this topic, two of which are in Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," and five of which are in Chapter 22, "Zoning." EXHIBIT E Even if you reorganize all the regulations pertaining to EeAJ3f.e-8~~Wll..smL1~ have to have cross-reference citations in each land use. So what are you accomplishing, other than adding more paper? Leaving the details within each land use is more efficient. . 2. Existing codes do not provide enough guidance about under what circumstances mass grading would be allowed. The code amendments should clarify under what conditions mass grading is allowed. The Federal Way subdivision code states that all natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to be subdivided, except that which will be removed for improvements or grading as shown on approved engineering plans. If development is to be phased, clearing and grading shall also be phased. It also requires existing mature vegetation to be retained to the maximum extent possible. However, the City does allow mass grading of a site based on unique conditions, such as topography. \ Is the code clear on what "mature" or "natural" vegetation means? Invasive species could be considered "natural" vegetation, but they are not desirable. The City requires that a clearing and grading plan be submitted as part of preliminary plat application. The engineering plan must conform to the clearing and grading plan. In addition, the final plat must comply with the conditions of preliminary plat approval. Once preliminary plat approval has been issued, a landowner can apply for a Class IV Forest Practices permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The land can then be cleared of merchantable timber in the clearing limits as depicted on the approved preliminary plat. 1 This is what happened on Campus Parkway where the huge hillside was stripped cleanl Surely there must have been some significant trees that could have been saved. Sounds like DNR overrides city codes. The zoning code allows all removal of vegetation for non-residential site development if a certain percentage of the significant trees are replaced. Once a land use permit has been issued, a landowner can apply for a Class IV Forest Practices permit from the DNR. The land can then be cleared of merchantable timber in the clearing limits as depicted on the approved land use permit. A related issue is the stripping and removal of topsoil on graded sites. Staffhas learned through participation in recent conferences on Low Impact Development (LID) that plantings tend to fair better when topsoil is stockpiled on-site during construction, rather than trucking the soil out then replacing the soil prior to landscape planting. Soil "best management practices" (BMPs) include preserving site topsoil and vegetation where possible, reducing compaction, and amending disturbed soils with compost to restore healthy soil functions. 2. There is no specified height limit for rockeries or retaining walls in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). Should the code limit the height of these walls and implement design standards? 1 "Merchantable stand of timber" means a stand oftrees that will yield logs and/or fiber suitable in size and quality for the production of lumber, plywood, pulp, or other forest products, and of sufficient value at least to cover all the costs of harvest and transportation to available markets. Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 Page 2 EXHIBIT-E PAGE..__8., ')F___~L!L_ As developable sites become more constrained, there has been an increase In both the number of. , retaining walls and the height of walls in order to provide level building pads. Staff has seen development proposals for walls in excess of 20 feet in height for both commercial and residential development. Due to the aesthetic impacts associated with the increase in numbers and height of retaining walls and rockeries, staff has been requiring section and elevation details for proposed retaining walls and have implemented conditions of approval that establish maximum wall height on a case-by-case basis. However, there are no specific design standards for retaining walls in the FWCC. ,..""'" Some jurisdictions establish restrictions on retaining wall height. The Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development clearing and grading example code provides for a maximum rockery height of 12 feet. The City of Mercer Island specifies a maximum of 12 feet in height for a rockery or retaining wall on a cut slope and six feet on a fill slope. Mercer Island also establishes that within a required yard, rockeries and retaining walls are limited to six feet in height. King County has a similar requirement limiting retaining walls to six feet in height within setback areas. In addition, if there is a fence on top of the wall, the combined height cannot exceed ten feet. The Mercer Island and King County specifications sound good to me. 3. Should we adopt lot averaging in conjunction with a slope density ratio? As lots become smaller, and remaining developable sites tend to be steeper, there is a tendency to mass grade as well as use more retaining walls. One solution may be to allow the permitted nUl}1ber of lots based on the underlying zoning, but require lots on steeper slopes to be larger. By requiring lots on steep slopes to be larger you probably get a more aesthetically pleasing development and more pervious surfaces that help drainage and other water-flow issues. 4. Should we re-evaluate how "significant trees" are classified? City code requires significant trees to be replaced in amount equal to 25 percent of the significant trees which existed on the subject property prior to commencing any development activity if the approved development will require the removal of more than 75 percent of the significant trees on the subject property. For subdivisions, significant trees located within areas to be improved or graded are excluded from the replacement requirement. In order to determine the number of significant trees to be preserved and or replaced in the event that more than 75 percent is removed, the FWCC requires a tree retention plan that identifies all trees located on the subject site that meet the current definition of significant tree (12 inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference, measured four and one-half feet above ground) at the time of application for the first permit. Since the City's current development regulations focus on protection of trees of a certain size or greater, the result has often been protection of individual trees, but overall loss of tree canopy on development sites. In addition, development in the City Center-Core (CC-C) and City Center-Frame (CC-F) zones are exempt from significant tree preservation requirements. As discussed in the following section on survival of preserved trees, it may be preferable to consider preserving tree canopy or stands of trees, as well as individual trees of significance. This may be accomplished by giving credit for the retention of stands of smaller caliper trees, even if Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 Page 3 all do not meet the significant tree criteria. EXHIBIT ,E_ PAGE~OF: -OJ t~ _11 ~~_. In addition, should there be a different standard for classifying different species of trees for protection? The City of Redmond has a "landmark tree" designation for trees measuring more than 30 inches in diameter. The City of Redmond also specifies that the tree protection plan be prepared by a certified arborist. I like the idea of preserving tree canopy or stands of trees. Makes more sense to do that because retaining significant trees on an individual basis could reduce problems with wind, shallow root base and erosion. I also like the "landmark tree" concept, though there seem to be fewer of those around the city. 5. How can we ensure that those trees identified to be preserved actually survive? Current development regulations require that any trees that are proposed to be retained must be clearly noted on a tree plan that shows trees in relationship to planned site irnprovements. On site, trees to be protected are to be protected with fencing and/or stakes with flagging that are placed at the drip line of the tree. The City has been advised by arborists with Urban Forestry Services that the current protection zone represented by the tree's drip line is not adequate. The recommendation is that the protection zone be represented by a minimum of 12 inches in radius for each one inch in diameter. For example, a 10-inch diameter tree has a minimum protection zone represented by a 10-foot radius. The zoning code states that the tree plan must be reviewed and approved prior to site clearing. The code should be amended to also specify that protection measures must be inspected and approved on-site prior to clearing. Current tree protection requirements often do not result in the preservation of groupings of trees, but result in single, stand-alone trees scattered throughout the project site, or strips of trees along the site perimeter. Therefore, significant trees that are preserved often do not survive the site development phase and/or blow down after cornpletion of site development and are ultimately not preserved. Groups of trees have a greater chance of survival, provide better cover for wildlife, and are a better site amenity. In addition, the significant tree requirements do not address the issue of significant trees/vegetation on adjacent property. Therefore, trees on adjacent properties are often damaged and/or killed as a result of site development. This paragraph cites the problem I mentioned above. I suggest we amend the code to follow the Urban Forestry Services recommendation that the protection zone be represented by a minimum of 12 inches in radius for each one inch in diameter. This refined code will encourage saving stands of trees rather than individual trees. 6. How should replacement of trees be regulated? The City's current regulations specify minimum on-site tree size for replacement trees of three inches or greater for deciduous and 10 feet or taller for evergreen. Some jurisdictions provide for off-site tree replacement. The cities of Redmond and Port Townsend allow for off-site replacement for some or all of the required replacement trees when on-site replacement can not be achieved. Acceptable sites for receiving off-site replacement trees are city or county owned parks and open Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January] 6, 2008 Page 4 EXH'B'T~ , --- . .. D!\nF 'I!! "1F_ ,19.-- space areas, pubhc school SItes, or pnvate open space areaSt1ial~are p-etrrf~t1y protected and maintained. Another option provided by Redmond is a fee-in-lieu of tree replacement. The fee covers the cost of tree, installation, and maintenance for two years. The city collects the fee and expends it for the planting of new trees in city owned parks, open spaces, or rights-of-way. Redmond also allows for the consideration of landscape restoration (restoring all or parts of the forest landscape and its associated benefits subject to administrator's approval) to mitigate the loss of trees. For example: · Creation of wildlife snags from trees which would otherwise be removed. . Replacement of certain omarnental trees with native shrubs and groundcover. . Replacement of hazardous or short-lived trees with healthy new trees more likely to survive. · Daylighting and restoration of stream corridors with native vegetation. · Protection ofnonsiginficant trees to provide for the successional stages of forest development. I would consider off-site replacement only if on site was impossible to accomplish given the wider preservation radius that is being recommended above. Fee-in-lieu ofis questionable, since we had that with development in Federal Way over the last 25 years and I wonder how well it worked. Is there some way to find out what park/open space throughout the city has been acquired using fee-in-lieu of monies? There was some listing of that pre-2000 when I was on the Parks Commission, but I don't remember the source. Landscape restoration, as promulgated in Redmond, sounds like a good idea, but who is providing the funds and staff to do all the monitoring this entails? 7. Should the City require monitoring of preserved and replacement trees? The City's current development regulations do not specifically address ongoing monitoring of preserved/replacement trees after development is completed. Large trees that have been stressed or damaged can take 18 months to three years to show evidence of trauma and/or die. The City of Redmond has established sections on maintenance, performance assurance, and enforcement specifically related to tree protection. The maintenance provisions specifY that all replacement trees and relocated trees shall be maintained in a healthy condition for the life of the project. The performance assurance section requires that the applicant post a performance bond to ensure the installation, maintenance, and adequate performance of tree protection measures. The bonding period is for three years. Damage or removal of trees required to be preserved is subject to enforcement action. I would adopt Redmond's plan, though once again it is a question offinding and staffing. But what good is regulating the preservation and replacement of trees if there's no monitoring period, money and personnel to do the job correctly? 9. Should there be specific language to address tree replacement adjacent to BP A and PSE power lines and easements? Utility companies such as the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) and Puget Sound Energy Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 Page 5 EXHIB'T~ ...... . ...~. D~~E · IIOF~ (PSE) need to manage vegetation on and near their rights-of-\vay an't easements in order to keep people safe and their systems reliable. Trees (and other tall growing vegetation) that grow close to power lines can be a hazard. Trees do not have to touch a high-voltage transmission line to be dangerous. In certain circumstances, electricity can "arc" from wires through the air to trees and equipment, resulting in fires, injuries, or even fatalities to anyone near the tree or equipment. Touching any part of the electrical path can cause serious injury or death. During wind storms, tall trees adjacent to power lines may cause power outages, which can disrupt service to homes, businesses, hospitals, and important community services. In order to prevent power outages, trees close to power lines are removed or trimmed by the affected utility company, which have their own management plans. In order to prevent future conflicts between protection of power lines and "danger trees," any tree-related code amendments should coordinate with the vegetation management programs or plans of utility companies. What do the utility companies have in place as their own plans for replacement, monitoring and avoiding public hazards of trees relative to their equipment? We should see the actual wording of the "Plan" if there is one and take it from there. IV. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PREVALENCE OF MAss GRADING During the November 7th Study Session, Alternate Commissioner Kevin King asked for information regarding the prevalence of the total removal of all trees on sites within the last five year period. Due to topography, mass grading was allowed for Campus Crest and Wynstone, two adjacent plats located along Campus Drive, and North Lake Ridge Division 4, a plat started in the Potential Annexation Area and subsequently annexed to the City. Numerous commercial projects have also been completely cleared and graded; however, this is allowed by code based on replacement of trees and meeting landscaping requirements. V. NEXT STEPS The next step in this code amendment process will be to provide a similar briefing to the City Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTe) for their input prior to actually drafting code language. K:\Trees, Vegetation, & Grading\Planning Commission\Oll608 Staff Report to Planning Commission.doc Significant Trees, Vegetation Retention, Clearing, and Grading Planning Commission Memorandum Meeting Date: January 16, 2008 Page 6 .. PUGETSQUND ENERGY Date: Subject: Attn: 1/2212008 Tree Retention and Clearing and Grading Ordinance Margaret Clark, Senior Planner ~~ ", PAGE 12. OF__~ This memorandum is intended to provide the City of Federal Way's Planning Commission with viable and workable solutions for the development of a new Tree Retention and Clearing and Grading Ordinance. The comments, in an outline format below, have been provided by PSE's Certified Arborist, Tina Melton. Support: . Tree Preservation: o PSE supports using a certified arborist prepare a tree protection plan when a tree retention plan is submitted to permitting. We also support the recommendation to expand the tree protection zone to your consulting Arborist with Urban Forestry Services. Jim Barborinas is one of the top Arborists in the industry and his recommendations are consistent with industry standards. o PSE supports the emphasis to preserve trees in groupings and would encourage the commission to preserve trees where there is no target within striking distance of the tree. PSE estimates between 15-30% of the outages experienced in the December 2006 storm were caused by mandated buffers and tree retention policies. One recent example is that of a large church that was constructed on S. 336th St. and 20th Ave S. in Federal Way. A narrow buffer oflargely previously unexposed trees were retained along S. 336th St. and during the 2006 December storm, a majority were blown into our power lines and onto S. 3361h St, causing outages to numerous customers and lengthy delays. · PSE supports the landscape restoration that allows for mitigation for the loss of trees particularly: o Wildlife snags (one of the policies we have implemented when possible for hazard trees that may threaten our overhead power line system) o Removal and replacement of hazardous trees Consider: . Tree Retention: o PSE would like the commission to consider exempting the retention of significant trees requirements on any new electrical substation site or immediately adjacent to existing substation sites. Even with an excellent tree protection plan, there is still some risk for tree failure associated with clearing and grading for new substation sites. Large mature Page I trees near a substation is a significant concern not only from the potential of tree failure, but also from large limbs breaking off in moderate to high wind conditions and falling into the exposed conductors within the substation and causing a major outage to thousands of city residents. This is truly a public safety issue. i ~~~. . Tree Replacement: EXHIBIT o PSE would like the commission to consider not setting a predetermined sizJitAGE ~I_. ,;~) F _. ...~~.. for tree replacement. Often the site will dictate size and species, for'example. · Planting a 3" or larger caliper tree on a slope may cause more damage to the site during installation. 3" caliper trees can weigh up to 200-300 lbs and the mechanics of installing the tree will cause significant disturbance and exposure on the slope. · Site conditions could also limit what is replanted, i.e. power lines, underground utilities, existing structures in the area all playa roll in the long term sustainability of the replacement tree. · As it applies to new substation installations. The planting requirements my increase security threats to the site if the site is over planted, shaded and offers decreased exposure. This type of scenario attracts transient and other illegal activities and is a problem with several of our substations in the PSE territory. · PSE would recommend that a tree replacement plan be submitted to city staff and approved based on site and use conditions. ,~...",:.u.:..~ . Off site Replacement: o PSE supports the idea of off-site tree replacement. We have agreements with unincorporated King County to plant off site when appropriate but within a designated basin. This allows for easier maintenance as the replacement trees are grouped together as opposed to individual parcels. o We would also ask you to consider adding language to include consistency with the Right Tree Right Place message through the National Arbor Day Society to ensure that any off site mitigation considers tree species and location to overhead or underground facilities. . Fee in Lieu: o PSE supports the idea of fee in lieu of tree replacement as it takes the burden of monitoring and maintenance off the developer or utility, but it will certainly impact the city staff. The City of Olympia has a similar aIlowance. o Our only comment is that if fee in lieu is approved as part of this regulation, that there is a contractual agreement included in the permit that will require the city to use those funds obtained for tree replacement to go to tree replacement exclusively. We have observed in other municipalities where when operating budgets are limited, the tree replacement funding is re-directed into the general fund. The developer may not have any issues with this policy, but from an Arborists perspective, we want to see tree replacement funding go towards planting trees. Page 2 · Monitoring of Protected/Replacement Trees: PSE has a programmatic clearing and grading p~it with unincorporated King County DDES. Rather than a bond issued, the permit requires a 3 year monitoring and maintenance schedule that we report on annually with photo documentation included. PSE does not wish to advise the City on which tree replacement method would make the best sense for the City but wanted to provide the commission with alternatives. . Regards, ikrJa& ,t. tMlm Municipal Liaison Manager South King County Emai1: douglas.corbin@pse.com Office Phone: 253-395-6867 Cel Phone: 206-604-3137 Fax: 253-395-6882L ____.. _ _ _ __ __ ____.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ ____ EXHIBIT E PAGE~_.()F_~ --........., ~ ._________._______._____....______________________---.-~{ Formatted: Font: 12 pt Page 3