technical review letter 1 - creekwood 22-105973-SU - 5-9-231 Doc ID 82787
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
33325 8th Avenue
South Federal Way, WA
98003-6325
253-835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
May 9, 2023
Applicant:
Barry Margolese
Amalani LLC
415 1st Ave N, Unit 9998
Seattle, WA 98109
barry@amalani.com
206-910-2728
Applicant’s Agent:
Ivana Halvorsen
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Ave S
Kent, WA 98032
ihalvorsen@barghausen.com
425-251-6222
RE: Creekwood Preliminary Plat & SEPA | Permit # 22-105973-SU (Plat); 22-105974-SE
(SEPA); Parcel # 1221039037 (unaddressed)
Dear Creekwood Preliminary Plat applicant team:
The city’s Development Review Committee (DRC) is reviewing the Creekwood preliminary plat
and SEPA applications for the above-mentioned parcel. The preliminary plat application was
deemed complete by the Community Development Department on February 16, 2023.
Members of the DRC have provided technical comments below. If you have questions
about an individual comment, please contact the department representative listed.
General Comments:
1) Technical comments made about an item on one sheet or document may necessitate changes
to other related sheets and documents. It is the applicant’s responsibility to determine any
such necessary adjustments. Please ensure consistent information is communicated
throughout the plan set and associated application materials.
2) The city’s legal review ‘clock’ has remained stopped since the time your team appealed a
condition on one of the Public Works administrative decisions that your team received in
March. The appeal outcome could significantly affect the overall plat design and the appeal
needs to be resolved for the City to further analyze the plat and issue a SEPA determination.
Regardless, the City is providing this initial comment letter on the preliminary plat so the
applicant team can be made aware of other issues that need to be addressed based on the
City’s initial review. Comments in this letter pertain to the preliminary plat as proposed in
the 1/19/23 application.
3) To further review and process the applications, please address and respond to each comment
below, provide the requested information, and revise any and all plans as appropriate.
2 Doc ID 82787
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING DIVISION
Evan Lewis, 253-835-2646, evan.lewis@cityoffederalway.com
Preliminary Plat Application and SEPA:
1. Basic Zoning Compliance:
a) Correct the Lot Area Table on sheet 4 of the plat map to reflect that the allowable
impervious coverage is 50% (as required per FWRC 19.200.010 for the RS 15.0
zone) rather than the 60% shown in the table.
2. SEPA Checklist
a) The city is unable to make a SEPA determination at this time due to numerous
unresolved issues and additional information that is needed including, but not limited
to, wetland, stream and geotechnical review corrections; issues pertaining to site
access and the ravine crossing; construction impacts; and others addressed in this
review letter. Therefore, a complete review of the accuracy of the applicant’s SEPA
checklist has not yet been completed. Also see several Public Works comments on the
submitted SEPA checklist later in this letter.
3. Wetlands and Streams –
a) Provide corrections and address all comments and recommendations #1-5 on pages 3-
4 of the 3rd-party wetland review memo from ESA (attached).
i. Note in particular the size, category and buffer width change (from 50 to
150 ft) for one of the wetlands as described in the attached ESA memo.
Correct the preliminary plat to reflect the revised buffer as well as the areas
of any lots or other site features impacted by that increased buffer width;
among other corrections listed in the ESA memo.
b) Provide an updated proposal that does not cause any stream buffer intrusion. The
proposal includes a stream buffer intrusion (associated with Drainage Y) caused by
the ravine crossing and the proposed area of clearing/grading.
To allow a stream buffer intrusion, FWRC 19.145.330(3) (Intrusion into stream
buffers) criteria 3f requires that “it is necessary for reasonable development of the
subject property.” The intrusion is not necessary for reasonable development of the
site. The subject property can already be reasonably developed with several lots to the
east of the ravine crossing; though pending further review on those lots as well.
Your options would be to modify the proposal so that a ravine crossing is not
necessary – such as scaling down your application to only include lots on the east side
of the ravine – or to revise the ravine crossing to not cause a stream intrusion. If the
application is scaled down to only include lots to the east of the ravine then the
preliminary plat application should be withdrawn and the applicant should apply for a
short plat (which is 9 or fewer lots under FWRC).
3 Doc ID 82787
Any update to the proposal would have to be consistent with requirements and
processes of FWRC 19.145 Environmental Critical Areas chapter and be subject to
further review by the city’s 3rd party critical area reviewer(s) at the applicant’s
expense.
c) Related to 3(b) above, please show at least 5 foot setbacks of all retaining walls from
all stream and wetland buffers, consistent with FWRC 19.145.160.
4. Geotechnical Engineering Report –
a) Provide the “Additional Information” requested on pages 4-6 of the 3rd-party
geotechnical review memo from NV5 (attached).
5. Smelter: Given the findings of elevated arsenic levels and submittal of an Environmental Site
Assessment on the smelter plume, the applicant shall do the following:
a) Send the environmental site assessment to the Department of Ecology for review and
comment; the primary Ecology point of contact is Eva Barber at 360-999-9593 and
eva.barber@ecy.wa.gov. Provide the City with Ecology’s written response or
approval of this environmental site assessment with your resubmittal.
b) Remedy the site per the Ecology’s Model Remedy Guidance as a component of the
grading permit and then submit a written approval of cleanup (No Further Action)
from the Department of Ecology to the City following completion of the grading
activities. The No Further Action document shall be submitted to the city department
of community development prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
6. Design Criteria
a) Increase the amount of usable open space proposed to at least 10 percent of the gross
site area (86,510 sq. ft.) and provide a detailed open space plan that both shows and
describes how at least 10% of the gross site area meets usable open space
requirements of FWRC 18.55.040 and 18.55.060. The plan should specifically
provide a description, and indicate on plat drawings (as applicable to fulfilling the
request) the following information about each proposed open space tract:
i. Amenities proposed to ensure open space tracts are readily identifiable and
accessible to all residents.
ii. How the tracts will accommodate a wide range of active recreational
activities.
iii. Proposed or retained areas of trees and other vegetation or features on the
tracts that would limit their usability.
iv. Open space tract slopes after clearing and grading.
v. Clarity on how the applicant will ensure the usable open space tracts are the
central focus and an amenity for the project.
4 Doc ID 82787
The 1/19/23 submittal contained an insufficient level of detail on the proposed open
space tracts such that staff cannot confirm if they’ll be ‘usable’ open space.
Note that, as specified in our FWRC 18.55.060 design criteria for open space and
recreation, ‘usable’ open space means, “Areas which have appropriate topography,
soils, drainage and size to be considered for development as active recreation areas.”
b) The applicant’s request for a calculation of open space to be based on developable
area rather than gross site area is not acceptable and does not meet the code-required
method for calculating required usable open space specified in FWRC 18.55.
c) As proposed, the trail proposed along Lakota Creek cannot count toward meeting the
usable open space requirement since the applicant has not shown how that trail is
accessible to all plat residents. The applicant’s argument, that the trail is accessible to
all city residents and therefore to residents of the plat, is not acceptable and is
inconsistent with city code and its intent.
d) If the 10% usable open space requirement cannot be met, alternatively the applicant
may request an “administrative alteration” to request a reduction in the minimum
amount of required usable open space as a share of the total open space requirement,
consistent with the following requirements of FWRC 18.55.060(3):
“Any combination of open space types may be used to accomplish the total
area required to be reserved as follows:
Open Space
Category % of Gross Land Area
Usable 10% minimum
Conservation No maximum or minimum
Buffer 2% maximum
Constrained 2% maximum
An administrative alteration of the open space category percentage
requirements within the above categories may be made by the parks
director on a case-by-case basis, but in no case shall the combination of
categories total less than 15 percent unless otherwise provided for in
FWRC 18.45.010. Review and approval of such cases shall be based on
the following considerations:
(a) The change in percentage requirements would result in a superior
open space plan than could be accomplished under the standard
percentage requirements.
(b) The availability and types of open space located within the
immediate area.
5 Doc ID 82787
(c) The presence on site of environmental features that are unique,
rare or of local importance.
(d) The opportunities for the preservation of significant views and
creation of public access points of interest.
(e) The relationship of the proposed open space to the city’s park
plan.”
Note that tree retention and wetland buffer areas can count as ‘conservation’ open
space. FWRC 18.55.060 provides further definition of different open space types.
7. School Access Analysis – Federal Way Public Schools does not have comments on the plat
at this time.
8. Clearing and Grading:
a) Update the preliminary grading plan to reflect the following requirements from
FWRC 19.120.040 and to confirm compliance with FWRC 19.120.110 for clearing
and grading on sites with slopes over 15 percent.
i. Show all slopes existing and proposed slopes that range from 0-15%, 15-
40%, and greater than 40%.
ii. More clearly delineate areas of both clearing and grading.
b) Mass clearing: Unless demonstrated otherwise after review of your updated
clearing/grading plan per 9(a) above, it appears you’re proposing mass clearing and
grading of most of the site. FWRC 19.120.080 states in part: Permitted clearing and
grading areas should minimize removal of existing trees and minimize the
disturbance or compaction of native soils, except as needed for building purposes.
Permitted clearing and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve
critical or sensitive areas, buffers, native growth protection easements, or required
tree retention areas shall be delineated on the site plans.
For mass clearing and grading of the site, you must provide written justification for
modification of clearing grading and tree retention standards pursuant to FWRC
19.120.050. The written request must specifically address each criterion in FWRC
19.120.050(1)(a-d) and (2)(a-c). The modification request must include justification
for supporting the request, and at a minimum, identify if there are any areas that can
be preserved in existing condition; rational for the clearing request; impacts to trees
and vegetation; methods to mitigate visual impacts; etc. This is not a variance per
FWRC 19.45
This is not necessarily an inclusive list as additional clearing and grading information
will be required during engineering review.
9. Rockeries and retaining walls:
6 Doc ID 82787
a) Reduce the height of the retaining wall on the north side of Tract A from 8 ft to no
more than 6 ft. Per FWRC 19.120.120 the maximum permissible height of walls and
rockeries is six feet. Permits for walls are required at the time of engineering plan
review.
b) Update the landscaping plan to show that terraces created between rockeries and/or
retaining walls shall be permanently landscaped and revegetated with Type III
landscaping as specified in FWRC 19.125.050(3). This is required per FWRC
19.120.120.
Note that this is not an inclusive list as additional clearing and grading information will
be required during engineering review.
10. Tree Retention, Replacement, Density and Forest Practices:
a) Submit a complete forest practices application using the forest practices application
form (attached) and consistent with FWRC 19.120.200 application requirements. The
related forest practices application (permit #23-100093-AD) included no completed
application form.
b) The plat will need to include strong and enforceable restrictions limiting tree and
vegetation removal in all environmental conservation tracts and geologically
hazardous areas.
Note that tree density requirements, consistent with FWRC 19.120.130, may also apply to
individual single-family lots and be verified at the time of building permit.
11. Public Comments – As of the date of this letter, the city has received 2 public comments,
which are attached.
PUBLIC WORKS – DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
Cole Elliott, 253-835-2730, Cole.Elliott@cityoffederalway.com
Preliminary Plat Map 01-12-23
GENERAL
1. The City’s Approval Block (Standard Drawing 2-1) shall be on the lower right-hand corner
of all plan sheets.
2. The Permit number shall be provided once the preliminary plat has been accepted as
complete and an Engineering Permit for the improvements is issued.
3. The Cover Sheet must include the One Call phone number (1-800-424-5555).
4. The Cover Sheet must include the Development Inspectors phone number 253-261-5257
and the City’s ROW Inspection phone number 253-835-2725.
Sheet 2 of 11
5. Legend needs to include Existing and Future ROW, and Road Monuments.
7 Doc ID 82787
Sheet 3 of 11
6. This sheet is entitled “Early Clear and Grade Plan”. No such application has been made to
date.
7. It does not appear to be feasible to grade the site using only a single construction entrance
off of 21st Ave SW without construction of a bridge or retaining wall (separate application
and permit) and perhaps fill at the ravine.
Sheet 5 of 11
8. Clarify whether proposed retaining wall along the northeast portion of site will be within
or outside of “Future” City Right-of-Way.
Sheet 7 of 11
9. Provide a separate cut and fill quantities table
10. Provide an impervious and pervious summary table for the plat (Not including the future
home sites).
11. Proposed retaining wall design does not include a maintenance access road.
12. Current stormwater vault (separate permit) appears to include too many “dead zones” as
designed.
13. Road A Section “A” (Sta. 16+66 to 21+33) does not correspond to City’s Type “W” cross
section. Replace with Type “W”.
14. On Road A Section “B” (Sta. 14+18 to 15+66) and Section “C” (Sta. 10+45 to 14+18),
typically roadway centerline and ROW centerline correspond.
15. Section “B” (Sta. 14+18 to 15+66) again does not include maintenance tract to bottom of
retaining wall.
16. Section “C” (Sta. 10+45 to 14+18) must include a minimum utility section of 3 -feet not
2.5-feet as shown.
Sheet 8 of 11
17. Tract B does not indicate access road for maintenance.
18. Tract B vault must meet King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Section
5.1.3
19. Storm Vault does not maximize separation of inlet and outlet for flow through operation.
20. Current design includes too many “dead zones”.
21. Proposed CB #22 is currently shown in wheel path. Relocate outside of wheel path.
Sheet 11 of 11
22. Again, proposed CB #22 shown in wheel path. Relocate.
23. Again, Maintenance Tract to bottom of wall must be shown.
8 Doc ID 82787
24. Detail A – City counts wall height as base of footer as BW to top of wall TW.
Measurements of detail and narrative given on AD request for retaining wall do not appear
to correspond.
25. Detail B – Soil Nails or Tie Backs will not be allowed within City ROW.
26. Retaining Wall Detail is missing Sheet 2 of 2.
Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR)
TIR Worksheet (page 5 of 376) – Proposed wall type is not MSE. Correct.
TIR Worksheet (page 7 of 376) – Water Quality must be Enhanced Basic not Basic.
Soil Survey Map (page 12 of 376) – This indicates Type B soil not Type C as shown in Model
Program.
Core Requirement No. 5 (page 17 of 376) – There will be only one (1) Stabilized Construction
Entrance so remove the plural.
Core Requirement No. 6 (page 17 of 376) – The City will not own or maintain the proposed
stormwater vault.
Section 4.2 (pages 31, 32 of 376) – 0.45-acres is proposed for by-pass due to site slopes. We do
not see any corresponding area proposed for over detention to compensate for the by-pass. Change
in condition from forested to till grass is not mitigation.
WWHM Model (page 39 of 375) – The soils Map indicates Type B soils but the model is using
Type C soils. Correct.
WWHM Model (page 40 of 376) – Again the Soils Map indicates type B soils and model is
assuming Type C soil. Correct.
WWHM Model (page 41 of 376) – see above comment.
WWHM Model (page 56 of 376) – This indicates the site as “Flat”, under what definition are you
qualifying this site as flat?
SEPA Checklist Comments
A. Background
Item 8 – Several items on the Environmental Information list was not included in the SEPA
checklist file (see mark-up).
Item 10 – A Public Works Administrative Decision will be required for the cast-in-place
retaining wall. Currently the design fails to provide a maintenance road at the bottom of the
wall (A Public Works requirement).
9 Doc ID 82787
B. Environmental Elements
1. Earth e. – If approved the back fill material within right-of-way (ROW) or future ROW
must be crushed surfacing.
The last paragraph of this section has a repeated statement.
2. Water a. 1) – Isn’t “Y” identified as an NG Stream?
3. Water a. 2) – Again you call stream Y a drainage.
4. Water a. 4) – Clarify whether you will or will not relocate the existing storm drainage
discharge as part of your work.
5. Water a. 6) – Stormwater will be discharged to mimic PRE-DEVELOPMENT flows not
existing.
6. Water c. 3) – Statement does not address proposed re-direction of existing stormwater
discharge.
7. Water d. – Again stormwater release must meet PRE-DEVLOPMENT flows not existing
as stated.
7 Environmental Health b. 3) – Hours of construction within right-of-way will be 8:30 am
to 3 p.m. Hours of construction on-site will be in accordance with the City’s Noise
Ordinance.
8 Land and Shoreline Use h. – Again Stream Y has been left off of list. Why?
9 Housing a. – Please provide your definition of “middle income”.
PUBLIC WORKS – TRAFFIC SERVICES DIVISION
Jason Kennedy, 253-835-2744, Jason.Kennedy@cityoffederalway.com
The Public Works Traffic Division provides the following technical review comments at this time:
Plans Comments:
1. Provide the conceptual illumination plan for roadway lighting on Road A using Public
Works Development Standards Drawing 3-38. The illumination plan shall be designed
by a professional engineer for streets with noticeable horizontal or vertical curvature, or if
greater spacing is desired. The street design plan will need to be submitted as part of the
engineering plan submittal.
10 Doc ID 82787
2. Provide plans for east/west trail generally following the alignment as outlined in the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian and bicycle access shall be provided in 20 feet of
dedicated right-of-way. Paved width shall be 12 feet. Provide pedestrian scale lighting
for the ped/bike path per FWRC 18.55.070. The trail shall be constructed as part of the
development proposal.
3. Provide intersection sight distance analysis for both intersections (22nd Ave SW @ Road
A, Road A @ 21st Ave SW) and depict on the plan.
4. Road A shall be a Type “W” Local street, consisting of a 28-foot street with curb and
gutter, four-foot planter strips with street trees, five-foot sidewalks and street lights in a
52-foot right-of-way (ROW). The cul-de-sac terminus bulb shall have a cross-section
Type “Z” with 90-foot diameter pavement, 5-foot sidewalk, 3-foot utility strip and street
lights in a 106-feet of ROW. Show correct cross-section in plans. Per City development
standards, the planter strip width includes the 6-inch curb. The utility strip needs to be 3-
feet. A street modification is need to deviate from Type W.
5. Show driveway widths and placement for each lot.
6. Offsite improvements for safe walking may be required pending comments from the
school district.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – BUILDING DIVISION
Scott Sproul, 253-835-2633, scott.sproul@ciytoffederalway.com
No comments at this time.
LAKEHAVEN WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
Brian Asbury, 253-946-5407, BAsbury@lakehaven.org
Lakehaven issued water & sewer Certificates of Availability for the site/project on 5/21/22.
South. However, no other application has been submitted to Lakehaven that is necessary to be
able to determine the applicant’s specific requirements for connection to Lakehaven’s water
and/or sewer systems to serve the subject property. As previously noted, applicant will need to
submit an application for either Developer Pre-Design Meeting or Developer Extension
Agreement for Lakehaven to formally commence the water and/or sewer plan review process.
Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes
separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays
in overall project development.
The following additional comments are carried forward from the 2022 pre-application meeting
summary as they are still relevant and applicable to the submitted preliminary plat application:
11 Doc ID 82787
GENERAL
• All Lakehaven Development Engineering related application forms, and associated
standards information, can be accessed at Lakehaven’s Development Engineering web
pages (http://www.lakehaven.org/204/Development-Engineering).
• All comments herein are valid for one (1) year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted
and Lakehaven’s current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development
proposal(s) or Lakehaven’s regulations and policies may affect the above comments
accordingly.
WATER
• Lakehaven issued a Water Certificate of Availability for the proposed project/property on
5/13/22; Certificate is valid for one-year from date of issuance.
• A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct new water
distribution system facilities for the proposed development. Additional detail and/or design
requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by completing & submitting a separate
application to Lakehaven for either a Developer Pre-Design Meeting or a DE Agreement.
Lakehaven encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes
separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays
in overall project development.
• All water service connection stubs (all components except the service meter) must be installed
& approved by Lakehaven, prior to subdivision approval & recording.
• A water service connection application submitted separately to Lakehaven is required for each
new service connection to the water distribution system, in accordance with standards defined
in Lakehaven’s current ‘Fees and Charges Resolution’. The associated DE Agreement must
achieve a point of either Substantial Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven,
prior to activating any new domestic or irrigation water service connection(s).
• Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven water service connection
fees/charges/deposits (2022 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be
determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Connection
charges are separate from any DE fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for
service.
o Water Service/Meter Installation, 1” preliminary sizes: $560.30 fee (each).
Actual size TBD by Lakehaven based on UPC plumbing fixture count.
o Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water: $5,097.65 per Equivalent Residential Units (ERU).
SEWER
• Lakehaven issued a Sewer Certificate of Availability for the proposed
project/property on 5/13/22; Certificate is valid for one-year from date of
issuance.
• A Lakehaven Developer Extension (DE) Agreement will be required to construct
new sanitary sewer system facilities necessary for the proposed development.
Additional detail and/or design requirements can be obtained from Lakehaven by
completing & submitting a separate application to Lakehaven for either a
Developer Pre-Design Meeting or a Developer Extension Agreement. Lakehaven
encourages owners/developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes
separately to Lakehaven, and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase
12 Doc ID 82787
to avoid delays in overall project development.
• All sewer service connection stubs (main-to-lot) must be installed & approved by
Lakehaven, prior to subdivision approval & recording.
• The associated DE Agreement must achieve a point of either Substantial
Completion or Acceptance, as determined by Lakehaven prior to activating any
new sewer service connection(s).
• Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service
connection fees/charges/deposits (2021 schedule) will be as follows. Actual
connection charges will be determined upon submittal of service connection
application(s) to Lakehaven. Charges-Payable-in-Lieu-of-Extension (CPILOE),
are assessable against the property for sewer facilities previously constructed that
provide direct benefit to the property. If a DE Agreement is required, CPILOE
charges are due prior to & as a condition of scheduling the Lakehaven
preconstruction meeting. Connection charges are separate from any DE
fees/charges/deposits & are due at the time of application for service.
o Sewer Service Connection Permit: $441.78 fee (each).
o Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Sewer: $5,039.47 per ERU.
o CPILOE (ULID 17 [30” trunk] & ULID 22 [8” main]: $49,672.51.
SOUTH KING FIRE AND RESCUE
Sean Nichols, 253-946-7242, Sean.Nichols@southkingfire.org
Water Supply:
Fire Flow:
A Certificate of Water Availability including a hydraulic fire flow model shall be requested from the
water district and provided at the time of building permit application.
Fire Hydrants:
Fire hydrants shall be in service prior to and during the time of construction.
Emergency Access:
Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all requirements of Fire Access Policy 10.006
(attached).
Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction.
Fire Sprinkler System:
All home are subject to an NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This will depend on where the house is
located on the site, the size of the structure and available fire flow.
13 Doc ID 82787
APPLICATION STATUS
As of today, the review period (‘clock’) for the project has stopped. The review period will begin
again within 14 days of a complete resubmittal of items requested/corrected. When resubmitting
requested information, please provide a written response to each of the above-referenced
comment from all departments and agencies and include a completed “Resubmittal Information
Form” (enclosed). Resubmit electronically thru the permit center portal.
Please be aware that this review does not preclude the city from requesting additional
information related to any aspect of the preliminary plat. Note that as a result of redesigning
and/or revising the plans, other city and agency comments and conditions may result in a
request for additional or revised information.
Pursuant to FWRC 18.05.080, if an applicant fails to provide additional information to the city
within 180 days of being notified by mail that such information is requested, the application shall
be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decision
with respect to such an application.
Please note, the original plan review fee collected at submittal of your permit covers the initial
review and one resubmittal. Commencing September 1, 2021, the city has begun charging
applicants for any additional staff time necessary to complete each review following the first
resubmittal.
The FWRC can be reviewed in its entirety at http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/federalway/
If you have any questions regarding this letter or your development project, please contact me at
253-835-2646, or evan.lewis@cityoffederalway.com.
Sincerely,
Evan Lewis
Senior Planner
evan.lewis@cityoffederalway.com
253-835-2646
cc:
Cole Elliott, Public Works Development Services Manager
Jason Kennedy, Senior Traffic Engineer
Scott Sproul, Building Official
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Sean Nichols, South King Fire & Rescue