The URL can be used to link to this page

07-105926CITY OF Federal April 8, 2008 Bob Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 CITY HALLFILI= Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: RO Bax 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-971 a (253) 835-7000 w av es C i"ffede rat wa y.,a m RE: File #07-105926-00-SE; ENVIRONMENTAL TimEsI{OLD DETERMINATION Highmark East Campus Office Building, 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way S, Federal Way Dear Mr. Fadden: City staff have reviewed the environmental checklist you submitted. We have determined that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. As a result, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to comply with the State Environmental Policy .act (SEPA). A 14-day comment period is required by the SEPA rules (WAC 197-I 1-340). A notice inviting comments will be published in the Federal Way Mirror on April. 9, 2008- At the end of the comment period, the department will determine if the DNS should be withdrawn, modified, or issued as Proposed. All final determinations may be appealed within 14 days following the comment deadline. No licenses, permits, or approvals will be issued until completion of the appeal period. Our decision not to require an EIS does not mean that the license; permit, or approval you are seeking from the City has been granted. Approval or denial of the proposal will be made by the appropriate administrative or legislative body vested with that authority. The environmental record is considered by the decision maker(s) and conditions will be imposed to reduce identified environmental impacts, as long as the conditions are based on adopted and designated City policy. After a final decision has been made on your proposal (i.e., after a permit has been issued or City Council action taken, as applicable), you may, but are not required to, publish a Notice of Action as set forth in RCW 43 21C 075. The Notice of Action sets forth a time period after which no legal challenges regarding the proposal's compliance with SEPA can be made. A copy of the Notice of Action form and copies of RCW 43.21C.080 and WAC 197-11-680 providing instructions for giving this notice are available from the Department of Community Development Services. The City is not responsible for publishing the Notice of Action. However, the City is responsible giving a notice (to parties of record) stating the date for commencing a judicial appeal (including he SEPA portion of that appeal) if your proposal is one for which the City's action on it has a specified time period within which any court appeals must be made. Mr. Fadden April 8, 2008 Page 2 If you need further assistance, feel free to contact Senior Planner Jim Harris at jitn.harris a@cityoffederalway.com or 253-835-2649. Sincerely, Greg Fewins Director of Community Development Services enc: DNS Staff Evaluation of SEPA Checklist Doc I D 44450 07-105926 FILE 41k CITY OF Federal Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING File No. 07-105926-00-SE Related File Numbers: 07-105925-00-UP, 07-105506-00-CN Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: AIong the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Contact: Jim Harris, Senior Planner, 253-835-2649, jim.hanis@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31 C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above recommended deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Greg Fewins Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services Address: 33325 8"' Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Date Issued: April 9, 2008 Signature: Af,� Doc. 1 D 44451 City of . Federal 300ft Notification a; a Way for Parcel 152104-9052 Map Date: October 12th, 2007 City of Federal Way Gis Division P.O. Box 9718 33325 8th Ave S Federal Way Wa 98063 (206) - 835 - 7000 www.cdyoffederaKvay.com Legend k 6,ar L 0-w"Ce B 1 d5 _ Fed e tt l W k 0 King County Tax Parcels = 300ft'otification Area CITY OF Subject Site N Federal Way Parcels to Notify 0 55110 220Feet This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to Hs accuracy U! L� n4' -AST CAMPUS CORPr-'=iA-rE PARK PARCEL ONE .4 LOT J LOT G l -- -- -------------- . WEYERHAEUSER WAY 5- 4;.1. .ri: � •'� _ -- i l l I p 1 0 fi 0 r ■� k ° �i o _ wx o ,J0 C • kv.\ Sti. a i m s� Z wu 4r J F I�� I•—��1 1 I �❑ } I a59e=i n m o m v m r' OyyO mom o VH* 4 m D 43 o q/uil 0&--- Q ; o�- O m eYx Aso { o + HIGHMARK INVESTMENTS LLC ®"ra 1'ne choir cew= c -_ _ , HIGHMARK N N ! ' ,,.,..e, .,�-�am ..w.� •e=e � ' or rcocr+x w.v PREUMINARY OVERALL SITE PLAN CITY OF �. Federal July 21, 2008 Mike Kerby Highmark Investments 3450 South 344th Way, Suite 115 Federal Way, WA 98001 CITY HALL �� 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. ci tyo ffederal wa y. com RE: File #07-105925-00-UP; PROCESS III SITE PLAN APPROVAL Highmark Office Building, 322XX Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Kerby: The City of Federal Way has completed the administrative Process III Site Plan Review and hereby issues approval of the proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with associated parking, landscaping, and other site improvements. The site plan, elevations and - landscaping plan, submitted on June 13, 2008, are hereby approved per the enclosed Findings for Project Approval. Additional requirements may be provided as City departments review the building permits. REVIEW PROCESSES REQUIRED The site is located in an Office Park-1 (OP-1) zoning district. Office use is permitted in this zone subject to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-826 (vested from 1994) and the August 1994 Concomitant Zoning Agreement, and is reviewed through the Process III, Project Approval, process. Project approval does not grant license to begin any type of site work. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION The applicant must substantially complete construction for the development activity within five years after the final decision of the City, or the decision becomes void. An extension may be granted, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-409, through a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development Services (33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718) at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the decision. Any person who received a copy of this decision may appeal this decision. The appeal must be in the form of a letter delivered to the Department of Community Development Services (address above), and be accompanied by the established fee, within 14 calendar days after the effective date of the decision. The effective date of decision is July 24, 2008. The appeal letter must contain a clear reference to the matter being appealed and a statement of the factual findings and conclusions of the Director of Community Development disputed by the person filing the appeal. Mr. Mike Kerby July 21, 2008 Page 2 This decision shall not waive compliance with City of Federal Way codes, policies, and standards relating to this development. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Jim Harris, Senior Planner, at 'im.harris ci offederalwa .cam or 253-835-2649. Sincerely, Greg Fewins, Director Community Development Services enc: Findings for Project Approval Highmark Office 07-105925 Highrark Approved Site Plan by Lance Mueller and Associates, sheet Al.1 dated revised 3/25/08, resubmitted June 13, 2008 Highmark Approved Elevations by Lance Mueller and Associates, sheet A3.1 dated revised 3/25/08, resubmitted June 13, 2008 Highmark Approved Landscape Plans by Lance Mueller and Associates, sheet LL.1, L2.1, L2.2 dated revised 6/6/08, resubmitted June 13, 2008 Highmark Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plans by Talasaea, sheets W1.0 and W1.1, dated 6/3/08, and submitted June 13, 2008 Highmark Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Report by Talasaea, sheets W 1.0 and WI. 1, dated 6/3/08, and submitted June 13, 2008 c: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller & Associates, 130 Lakeside, Suite 250, Seattle, WA 98122 Jim Harris, Senior Planner Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Traffic Analyst Chris Ingham, South King Fire Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Melvin Vanden Berg, 1621 Amherst Drive, Ames, Iowa 50014 07-105925 Doc I D. CITY OF Federal Way FINDINGS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL HIGHMARK OFFICE BUILDING File No: 07-105925-00-UP The following are findings for recommending approval of the proposed Highmark office building located two lots south of South 320'h Street on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, in Federal Way. The subject property is King County tax parcel number 152104-9052. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes construction of a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with associated parking, landscaping, and other site improvements. The site is located in an Office Park-1 (OP-1) zoning district. Office use is permitted in this zone subject to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-826 (vested from 1994) and the August 1994 Concomitant Zoning Agreement (CZA), and is reviewed through the Process III, Project Approval, process. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) designation for the subject site is Office Park. I. The subject site is a 9.24-acre unimproved lot located on the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, two lots south of South 320d' Street in the City of Federal Way. The developable portion of the site was previously graded under a previous development permit from the City of Federal Way. The adjacent uses and zones are' as follows: North: Office building, zoned OP-1 South: Stormwater treatment and detention facility and wetlands, zoned OP-1 West: Weyerhaeuser Way South and office buildings, zoned OP-1 East: Single-family residences, zoned RS 9.6 2. On April 19, 2008, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the proposed action under the State Environmental Policy Act. The appeal period for the DNS expired on May 19, 2008, and no appeals were filed. 3. There are several regulated wetlands and wetland buffers on the subject property. The wetland boundaries and wetland buffers on the property were defined and previously approved by the City in conjunction with previous permit applications to develop the subject property with the Delta Society building in 2001. The wetlands and wetland buffers are depicted on the Boundary Line Adjustment for the subject property, recorded under King County recording number 2001071 l 900005. The City previously approved a wetland buffer averaging plan and buffer enhancement plan and report for the site in conjunction with the Delta Society development applications for the subject property under city file number 01-101632-CO et al. The approved wetland buffer plans were prepared by Talasaea Consultants, titled Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan, Weyerhaeuser East Campus — Parcel 2, Federal Way, Washington, 10-21-01; and associated Wetland Buffer Enhancement Report by Talasaea Weyerhaeuser East Campus — Parcel 2, Federal Way, Washington, 12-10-01. The wetland buffer enhancement was implemented in approximately 2002; however, there has been some mortality of the plants in and around Wetland A directly south of the proposed Northlake Building. In order to evaluate the condition of Wetland A and the Wetland A buffer, Talasaea Consultants prepared a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan for Highmark Office Building, dated June 3, 2008. In summary, the Talasaea plan and report identify the plants that have died in and around Wetland A, and the Talasaea plans and report identify mitigation. As part of the proposal, the applicant is required to implement the recommendations, mitigation, planting and monitoring and contingency as identified in the Talasaea June 3, 2008 report. 4. The site plan, as proposed, implements a new retaining wall along the wetland buffer edge along the southerly -easterly edge of the buildable portion of the site. The retaining wall is shown along the wetland buffer edge as depicted on the approved boundary line adjustment. There is a fire hydrant located within the wetland buffer area, which is proposed to be removed on the engineering plans. No other improvements or land surface modification with the exception of the wetland buffer enhancement is proposed within the wetland or wetland buffer. 5. The proposed building meets the setback requirements of FWCC Section 22-826, including 50-foot front yard setback and 20-foot side and rear yard setbacks. No maximum lot coverage is established. 6. Drainage components of the project must conform to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and City amendments. The stormwater runoff from the site will be treated and detained in the abutting stormwater facility on the subject property, which has been constructed to applicable FWCC standards. Street frontage improvements along the abutting Weyerhaeuser Way South have already been completed. Additional street frontage improvements are not required. This proposal has been reviewed under the City's Transportation Concurrency requirements. The City's Traffic Engineer has conducted a review of the transportation impacts from the proposal and conducted a Transportation Concurrency Analysis for the proposal in accordance with FWCC Chapter 19. The staff report of the Concurrency analysis identifies required mitigation measures for Process III Project Approval, addresses any failures of the City's Level of Service (LOS) standard, and provides for the collection of pro-rata share mitigation towards the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects impacted by the proposed development. The proposal impacts 20 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects on the City's 6-Year TIP. The applicant shall either construct the impacted Transportation Improvement Plan projects identified in the January 21, 2008 Concurrency Decision, or alternatively pay a pro-rata share of $236,577.00 toward the impacted TIP projects prior to issuance of a building permit. On February 1, 2008, the applicant accepted the Transportation Concurrency decision. 9. The parking requirement for the proposed use in the OP-1 zone is one stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area, or 160 parking stalls for the 47,804 square feet of building area. The site plan Findings for Project Approval File No: 07-105925-00-UP/Doc 1.D. 46328 Highmark Office Building Page 2 shows 167 parking stalls proposed, with a maximum of 25 percent compact stalls, which meets applicable FWCC standards. 10. Maximum building height for the proposed use in the OP zone is 35 feet. The approved elevations indicate the buildings will be under the maximum allowable building height. The mechanical screening units are within the allowed height exception for such equipment and are appropriately screened. 11. The trash enclosure proposed in the southwesterly portion of the developable building area meets code requirements in that it is screened with a solid enclosure made of materials that match the buildings. Additionally, landscaping is provided around the enclosure. 12. Site and architectural design is consistent with applicable code provisions and the criteria of the CZA. Pursuant to the applicable code, the project must "embody good design principles that will result in high quality development on the subject property." The site and building are not required to meet the requirements of the FWCC community design guidelines; however, the project incorporates good design principles by meeting a number of provisions from current code in the following ways. Site Design: • FWCC Section 22-1634(d)(1) states primary building entrances should be visible from the right-of-way. The entrance to the building is not oriented to the street; however, the entrance is visible from the street when approaching from the north, which is the primary vehicular access. ■ The entrance to the building is connected to the public sidewalk and to the access driveway and adjacent building to the north by a separate paved route delineated by colored, stamped concrete paving as called for in FWCC Section 22-1634(d)(2). Building Design: • The site design provides foundation landscaping of varying widths along the foundation on all sides of the structure [reference FWCC 22-1635(b)(2)]. • The building includes a canopy over the entrance [reference FWCC 22-1635(b)(3)]. • The building incorporates a stepped roofline. • Glazing, pedestrian lighting, and reveals are utilized to break up blank walls [reference FWCC 22-1635(c)]. • The building incorporates a combination of facade modulation, landscape screening, and pedestrian plazas to meet the facade modulation and screening standards of FWCC. The proposed site layout and building design embodies good design principles and results in a high quality of development. 13. FWCC calls for the following perimeter landscape buffers for the site: A. Five feet of Type III landscaping along the south (1994 FWCC Section 22-1566h(3); B. Ten feet of Type III landscaping along the north (adjacent to the access easement) (1994 FWCC Section 22-1566h(1); C. Fifteen feet of Type I landscaping along the east adjacent to the residential zone (1994 FWCC Section 22-1566h(2); and D. Twenty-five feet of Type III landscaping adjacent to the right-of-way, FWCC Section 22-826 (note 3 1994 Code). Findings for Project Approval File No: 07-105925-00-UP/noe. I D. 4e328 Highmark Office Building Page 3 Landscaping strips meeting the spatial requirements for items A, B, and C above are provided on the site plan. Final review and approval of the planting types and planting densities will occur in conjunction with the building permit. 14. The applicant has requested a landscape modification in a May 14, 2008, letter to Jim Harris requesting to: "relocate 2 to 5 feet of the required 20-foot front yard landscaping required by the annexation agreement to another area within the front yard. The relocated landscaping would be provided between the pedestrian walk and the west face of the building." The site is vested to the 1994 zoning code, which requires the first 25 feet (rather than 20 feet as indicated by the applicant) of the required front yard starting from the street to be landscaped and contain a 3-foot-high berm or 3-foot-high dense, sight obscuring vegetation. So actually, as designed, the applicant needs to have the width of the front perimeter landscape area modified from the required 25 feet, to a minimum of 15 feet. The applicant's request for the landscape modification to allow relocating between 2 to 5 feet (actually 7 to 10 feet) of the required front perimeter landscaping to another area within the front yard, is approved for two out of three different areas along the front perimeter of the site as follows: A. Along that portion of the front yard of the site adjacent to the building, there is a total of at least 25 feet width landscaping (15 — 18 feet adjacent to front property line plus 8 — 10 feet wide planter area adjacent to the building). This design as proposed meets the modification criteria of FWCC 22-1570 (b) and 22-1570(d) as the site grade below the adjacent right-of-way is unique and the foundation landscaping provides more visual benefit and site enhancement than would be provided if the landscaping was implemented at the base of a 4 — 6 foot tall retaining wall between the parking area and right-of-way. A total width of 25 feet of landscaping is provided between the front property line and building. B. Along the northerly portion of the 25-foot-wide front yard (approximately 140-foot northern front yard), the site plan implements between 15 to 18 feet of landscaping in the front yard. The width of the landscape area is between 19 and 22 feet wide; however, a portion of the landscape area is consumed by a retaining wall, and therefore that wall portion (width) is not landscaped. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1570, a modification to allow relocation of between 7 and 10 feet of the required landscape width is approved, by relocating this landscape alea to the rear (east) property line to implement nearly twice the width of required landscaping between the site and the adjacent residential zone. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1570(d), this modification represents a superior site design with unique circumstances of site grade, and adjacency to a residential zone. The site design will be superior, as the width and separation of the site to the residential zone will be double the minimum width required by the FWCC, and the relocation of the perimeter landscaping from the front yard to the rear yard will not result in a reduction of gross perimeter landscape buffer area. C. That portion of the front yard at the southern end of the developed portion of the site (adjacent to the four stand alone parking stalls) shall be'redesigned to provide the code required 25-foot landscape strip between the parking area and front property line. The site design in this area does not warrant a modification to the width of the landscape buffer, as the grade of the site in this area is less severe. Findings for Project Approval File No: 07-105925-00-UP/Doc 1,13. 46328 Highmark Office Building Page 4 Overall, the approved portions of the applicant's request to modify landscaping requirements is consistent with FWCC Section 22-1570 because it is necessary to comply with unique circumstances and because granting the modification results in a superior result than strict compliance with the requirements of the chapter. 15. Per FWCC, 3,674 square feet of parking lot landscaping is required (167 parking stalls X 22 sq ft per stall), and the landscape plan identifies 3,741 square feet of parking lot landscaping is provided on site. Landscaping islands are located at the end of all parking rows. Trees, shrubs, and groundcover are proposed within landscape islands as required by code. 16. There are no significant trees on the developable portion of the site; therefore, no significant trees will be removed. 17. Pedestrian connectivity is shown on the site plan, and will include pedestrian connections to the adjacent building to the north, and to the sidewalk adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Way South. Pedestrian crossings are shown on the site plan with stamped, patterned, colored concrete within the parking and drive aisles. - 18. The proposed site plan application, elevations drawings, landscaping plan, and attachments have been determined to be consistent with the FWCP, with all applicable provisions of the FWCC, the CZA, and with the public health, safety, and welfare. Final construction drawings will be reviewed for compliance with specific regulations and other applicable City requirements. This decision shall not waive compliance with future City of Federal Way codes, policies, and standards relating to this development. Prepared by: Jim Harris, Senior Planner Date: July 20, 2008 Findings for Project Approval File No: 07-105925-00-UP/Doc 1 D. 46328 Highmark Office Building Page 5 FILE CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Highmark East Campus Office Building File No: 07-105926-00-SE Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services City Staff Contact: Senior Planner Jim Harris, 253-835-2649 orjim.harris@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way, no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on April 9, 2008. Doc I D 44904 41k CITY Federalo. Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING File No. 07-105926-00-SE Related File Numbers: 07-105925-004P, 07-105506-00-CN Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Contact: Jim Harris, Senior Planner, 253-835-2649, jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above recommended deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Greg Fewins Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services Address: 33325 8"' Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Date Issued: Apri19.2008 Signature: �� Doc I D. 44451 EAST CAMPUS PARK PARCEL ONE LOT J LOT G ------ --------------- --------------------------------. ------ ------ ---------- km WEYERHAEUSER WAY S- i 1 I _ Ik I _n d- I o D s, _ m � 0 � m µ m z m cca i o 9 � O ` m C m 0 N A m e < ! c I 1 ' f 1 sE�Hs n D 6 O m p5i < a 4 'o rn ^ i r � N1 f � N � � 11 � HIGHMARK INVESTMENTS LLC ce�gu.siuo cpa�l.e[eo c ®— 18 I 0 ICI HIGHMARK cm or fEo[au wnv PRELIMINARY OVERALL SITE PLAN wasHwcrow =•_ . i I M—�-• 1 - � Map Date: October 12th, 2007 City of Federal Way City of '� 300ft Notification a/� Ro.B X197 P.O. Box 9718 for Parcel 152104-9052 F3325 ederal ay We. Ave S, Federal Way We. 96063 Federal Way (208) - 895 - 7000 www.cdyoffederalway.com t tt I I I was INLJ --- f,,r r ..�- i. - - �'-� - • — --/ King County Tax Parcels = 300ft otification Area �'J CiTr of Subject Site -N Federal Way 0 55110 220 This map is IMaMed for use as a graphical representation only. Parcels to Notify Feet The City of FL�de rat Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. 41k CITY Federala. Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ciiyoffederalwciy.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use.Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other was nailed ❑ faxed 2008. Project Name File Number(s) Signature ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on - )6'59d�-sE Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /3/2008 4:53:00 PM 41k FederalOF Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING File No. 07-105926-00-SE Related File Numbers: 07-105925-00-UP, 07-105506-00-CN Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Contact: Jim Harris, Senior Planner, 253-835-2649, jim.hanis@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington Stare Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31 C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above recommended deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Greg Fewins Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services Address: 33325 8`h Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Date Issued: Apri19, 2008_ Signature: c-} Doc I.D. 44451 Map Date: October 12th, 2007 City City of 300ft Notification a. a iv Federal Way G0 Division P.O. Box 9718 h Ave Federal Way for Parcel 152104-9052 (206)- 35-70. Federal Way Wa. 98063 (206) - 835 - 7000 www. c4yoffed eraiwa y. co m r t l f l " 'v I` v - —V y r c - I . . D• L- v v�,� King County Tax Parcels 0 300ft otificatlon Area CITY OF Subject Site N Federal Way 55 110 220 This ma s inlended for use as a a hical re resentahon Parcels to Notify Feet P' �` ° sonly, i � The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to ils accuracy U 1 �./ !1r 4�` £AST CAMPUS CDRPOftATE PARK PARCEL ONE LOT J LOT G --------------------------------------- -- -. WEYERHAEUSER WAY �• IE i f f 1 �ik •' .• � ``� Q � frl ' 1 — + t r�9 I` 0 o Nr �N�-I+' m z }, _C 1.1E --�- � ti+C• �.�• C z-- �! — r n `^..4 •�,�� a y 4' r0 cry �.. f�y`�� ..1 f ._ - - _ j 7F, NZ � r , ac taxn •' r i. �M.T.7 E fr vK. � q� C=7I m tF� o $ $ s"�s 0 ¢0 00 .i o ❑y A= m D -t 3'A a c LI G 3 Y: HIGHMARK INVESTMENTS LLC HIGHMARK ..s.... cm• or FEDEa w PRELIMINARY OVERALL SRE PLAN w•.s+.ciay �-' " r US ARMY CORPS/ENGINEERS DEPT OF ECOLOGY WSDOT ATTN REGULATORY BRANCH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS PO BOX 3755 PO BOX 47703 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SEATTLE WA 98124 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 PO BOX 47331 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7331 RAMON PAZOOKI SNO-KING PLANNING MGR WSDOT SOUTH KING COUNTY PO BOX 330310 SEATTLE WA 98133-9710 JULIE STOFEL WDFW REGION 4 OFFICE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 GARY KRI EDT KING COUNTY TRANSIT DIV ENV PLANNING MS KSC-TR-0431 201 S JACKSON ST SEATTLE WA 98104-3856 KING CO ROADS DIVISION COUNTY ROADS ENGINEER 155 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 FEDERAL WAY DISPOSAL PO BOX 1877 AUBURN WA 98071 CHRIS CARREL FRIENDS OF THE HYLEBOS PO BOX 24971 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 WA STATE DEPT WILDLIFE 600 CAPITOL WAY N OLYMPIA WA 98501-1091 TRAVIS NELSON WDFW PO BOX 73249 PUYALLUP WA 98373 PERRY WEINBERG SOUND TRANSIT 401 S JACKSON ST SEATTLE WA 98104-2826 LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DIST PO BOX 4249 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 COMCAST CABLE STORE 1414 S 324T" ST STE 211 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 BOB FADDEN LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES 130 LAKESIDE STE 250 SEATTLE WA 98122 ATTN SEPA REVIEW PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 1904 3RD AVE STE 105 SEATTLE WA 98101-3317 LARRY FISHER WDFW 1775 12T" AVE NW STE 201 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 LISA DINSMORE LAND US SVC KCDDES 900 OAKESDALE AVE SW RENTON WA 98057-5212 SOUTH KING FIRE & RESCUE 31617 1 ST AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PAT PROUSE QWEST 1600 7T" AVE RM 1206 SEATTLE WA 98121 r FEMA REGION 10 NTH DIV 130 228T" ST SW BOTHELL WA 98021-9796 EPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC 1200 6T" AVE MD-126 SEATTLE WA 98101 RAMON PAZOOKI SNO-KING PLANNING MGR WSDOT SOUTH KING COUNTY PO BOX 330310 SEATTLE WA 98133-9710 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION PO BOX 48343 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8343 JULIE STOFEL WDFW ,REGION 4 OFFICE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK WA 98012 US FISH & WILDLIFE SERVCE 510 DESMOND DR SE #102 LACEY WA 98503 PORT OF TACOMA ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT PO BOX 1837 TACOMA WA 98401-1837 SHIRLEY MARROQUIN KC WASTEWATER TREATMENT MS KSC-NR-0505 201 S JACKSON ST SEATTLE WA 98104-3855 F MY CORPS/ENGINEERS JOE HENRY REGULATORY BRANCH NATURAL RESOURCES CVN SV X 3755 935 POWELL AVE SW LE WA 98124 RENTON WA 98055 DEPT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 l�JAMEY TAYLOR DNR SEPA CENTER �. PO BOX 47015 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7015 WA STATE DEPT WILDLIFE 600 CAPITOL WAY N OLYMPIA WA 98501-1091 t TRAVIS NELSON WDFW PO BOX 73249 PUYALLUP WA 98373 DOH - DIV OF DRINKING WATER ENV DOCUMENTS REVIEWER PO BOX 47822 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7822 PORT OF SEATTLE PO BOX 1209 SEATTLE WA 98111 GARY KRIEDT KING COUNTY TRANSIT DIV ENV PLANNING MS KSC-TR-0431 201 S JACKSON ST SEATTLE WA 98104-3856 LISA DINSMORE 1 "OUTH-KiNd-dOUNTY- LAND US SVC KCDDES REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION 900 OAKESDALE AVE SW 27224 144T" AVE SE RENTON WA 98057-5212 J KENT WA 98042 WSDOT ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS REGULATORY COMPLIANCE PO BOX 47331 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7331 WA NATURAL HERITAGE DNR PO BOX 47014 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7014 RANDY PEARSON WASH STATE PARKS PO BOX 42668 OLYMPIA WA 98504-2668 LARRY FISHER WDFW 1775 12T" AVE NW STE 201` ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ATTN SEPA REVIEW PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENC 1904 3RD AVE STE 105 SEATTLE WA 98101-3317 f,. PSRC GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE WA 98104-1040 PERRY WEINBERG SOUND TRANSIT 401 S JACKSON ST SEATTLE WA 98104-2826 KING COUNTY PARKS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PO BOX 3517 REDMOND WA 98073-3517 KC BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ROD HANSEN SOLID WASTE DIV LEE DORIGAN 810 THIRD AVE STE 608 KING CO DEPT OF NATURAL RES PUBLIC HEALTH SEATTLE/KING SEATTLE WA 98104-1693 201 S JACKSON ST STE 701 401 FIFTH AVE STE 1100 SEATTLE WA 98104-3855 SEATTLE WA 98104 KING CO ROADS DIVISION COUNTY ROADS ENGINEER i 155 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 +; SOUTH KING FIRE & RESCUE 31617 1ST AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 COMCAST CABLE STORE 1414 S 324T" ST STE 211 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 LINDA HAYES PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS 3009 E PORTLAND AVE TACOMA WA 98404 PIERCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT 3629 S "D" ST TACOMA WA 98408 PLANNING & CD DEPT CITY OF AUBURN 25 W MAIN ST AUBURN WA 98001 KENT CITY HALL PLANNING DEPT 220 4T" AVE S KENT WA 98032 NE TAC NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL C/O JAMES COLBURN TACOMA ECONOMIC DEV 747 MARKET ST RM 900 TACOMA WA 98402-3793 CRAIG GIBSON TACOMA PUBLIC UTILITIES PO BOX 11007 TACOMA WA 98411 GERI WALKER FW PS 31405 18T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 3440 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DIST PO BOX 4249 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 FEDERAL WAY DISPOSAL PO BOX 1877 AUBURN WA 98071 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE LAURA MURPHY FISHERIES DIVISION TRIBAL ARCHAEOLOGIST ATTN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172ND AVE SE 39015 172ND AVE SE AUBURN WA 98002 AUBURN WA 98092 PIERCE CO PLNG & LAND SVCS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2401 S 35T" ST TACOMA WA 98409-7460 PIERCE COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 2401 S 35T" ST TACOMA WA 98409 CITY CLERK PACIFIC CITY HALL 100 THIRD AVE SE PACIFIC WA 98047 CITY OF TACOMA BLUS LAND USE ADMINISTRATOR 747 MARKET ST STE 345 TACOMA WA 98402-3769 MARION WEED CHAIR NORTHEAST TACOMA NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL 4735 NE 42ND ST TACOMA WA 98422 CITY OF LAKEWOOD 10510 GRAVELLY LK DR SW STE 206 LAKEWOOD WA 98499-5013 PIERCE CO PLNG & LAND SVCS DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER 2401 S 35T" ST TACOMA WA 98409-7460 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 915 FOURTH NE AUBURN WA 98002 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ALGONA CITY HALL 402 WARDE ST ALGONA WA 98001-8505 JOE ELTRICH TACOMA WATER DIVISION PO BOX 11007 TACOMA WA 98411 HAYES ALEXANDER PLNG CHA NORTHEAST TACOMA NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL 5308 RIDGE DR NE TACOMA WA 98422 CITY OF MILTON 1000 LAUREL ST MILTON WA 98354 CITY OF SEATAC CITY OF DES MOINES CITY OF NORMANDY PARK 4800 S 188T" ST 21630 11T" AVE S 801 SW 174T" ST SEATAC WA 98188 DES MOINES WA 98198 NORMANDY PARK WA 98166 CITY OF BURIEN CITY OF FIFE TERRY LUKENS CITY HALL TH 5411 23RD ST E BELLEVUE COUNCIL OFFICE 415 SW 150 ST FIFE WA 98424 PO BOX 90012 BURIEN WA 98166-1957 BELLEVUE WA 98009-9012 WATER DISTRICT #54 HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT MIDWAY SEWER DISTRICT 922 S 219T" ST PO BOX 3867 PO BOX 3487 DES MOINES WA 98198-6392 KENT WA 98032-0367 KENT WA 98032 WATER DISTRICT #111 COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT PAT PROUSE 27224 144T" AVE SE 18631 SE 300T" 1600QWE7 PL T" AVE RM 120E KENT WA 98042-9058 KENT WA 98042-9208 S EAT SEATTLE WA 98121 LORI KITTREDGE MARY AUSBURN JILL GASTON REALTY SPEC METRO TRANSIT PSE BPA KSC-TR-0413 6905 S 228T" ST SKC-SVC 914 AVE "D" 201 S JACKSON ST KENT WA 98032 SNOHOMISH WA 98290 SEATTLE WA 98104-3856 WASH ENVIRON COUNCIL CHRIS CARREL \ LINDA SHAFFER 615 2ND AVE STE 380 FRIENDS OF THE HYLEBOS l PIERCE TRANSIT SEATTLE WA 98104-2245 PO BOX 24971 PO BOX 99070 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 LAKEWOOD WA 98499-0070 SAM PACE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS FW COMMUNITY COUNCIL SEA/KING CO ASSOC/REALTORS OF SOUTH KING COUNTY PO BOX 4274 29839 154T" AVE SE PO BOX 66037 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 KENT WA 98042-4557 BURIEN WA 9816E MICHAEL FELDMAN WASH STATE OCD ATTN NEWSROOM AVIATION PLANNING SEATAC 901 COLUMBIA ST SW TACOMA NEWS TRIBUNE PO BOX 68727 OLYMPIA WA 98504-8300 1950 S STATE ST SEATTLE WA 98168-0727 TACOMA WA 98405 SEATTLE PI LISA PEMBERTON-BUTLER FEDERAL WAY NEWS 101 ELLIOTT AVE W SEATTLE TIMES NORTH 1400E 1ST AVE S STE B BELLEVUE WA 98004-3748 SEATTLE WA 98121 AVE STE C145 BURIEN WA 98168 BEL FEDERAL WAY MIRROR SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL JOHN KIM 1414 S 324T" ST STE B-210 PO BOX 130 KOREA POST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 KENT WA 98035-0130 28815 PACIFIC HWY S STE 4B FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 HOLLY WILLIAMSON KING THOUNTY ASSESSORS OLYMPIC PIPELINE CO CITY OF EDGEWOOD 500 4 AVE RM 700 2319 LIND AVE IN 2221 MERIDIAN AVE E SEATTLE WA 98104 R 19 LIN WA 98055 EDGEWOOD WA 98371-1010 CRESTVIEW SHORECLUB ASSN MHACC MIRROR LK RESIDENTS ASSN 4817 SW 310T" ST C/O WI TLiIAM HICKS 525 SW 312T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 29219 7 PL S FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 NORTH LAKE COMNTY CLUB 33228 38T" AVE S AUBURN WA 98001 STEEL LK RESIDENTS ASSN 2329 S 304T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 BELLACARINO WOODS HOA 35204 6T" AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 TWIN LAKES HOA 3420 SW 320T" ST # 28 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 KEN SHATOCK GROUSE POINTE HOA 1911 SW CAMPUS DR # 621 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 WEST GREEN CONDO ASSN 432 S 321ST PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 BARCLAY PLACE HOA 1034 SW 334T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 BELLRIDGE TOWNHOMES HOA 1438 S 308T" LN FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MAR CHERI COMNTY CLUB PO BOX 25281 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 KINGSGROVE HOA 2613 S 379TH PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MASTER BUILDERS ASSOC CHERYL PARAS 335 116T" AVE SE PSE CMT HSERVICES DEPT 313O38BELLEVUE WA 98004-6407 TAC S OMA ST ACA WA 98409 V CA REDONDO COMMUNITY CLUB PO BOX 5118 REDONDO WA 98054 BELMOR PARK HOA 2101 S 324T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAMPUS GLEN HOA 32806 6T" PL S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 BROOKLAKE COMNTY CENTER 726 S 356T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 COMCAST - SE PUGET SOUND CONSTRUCTION/ENG MANAGE 4020 AUBURN WAY N AUBURN WA 98002 Revised April 2, 2008 KAEnvironmental Checklists\Agency Mailin List.doc 41�* CITY OF Federal Way DATE: December 10, 2007 TO: file FROM: Janet Shull MEMORANDUM Community Development Services Department SUBJECT: PARTIES OF RECORD: HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING - (07-105926-00-SE) 3600 S. 320TH ST 1. Mel and Connie Vanden Berg 1621 Amherst Drive Ames, Iowa 50014 515-292-5393 1V/11 io 13 Uj 0111 9MCRAIM - - Your Community Newspaper - Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a semi -weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a semi -weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained at the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way L-1381 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 19th day of April, 2008 , and ending on the 19th day of April, 2008, both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $0.00 which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.090 Subscribed to and sworn before me this 15th day of May, 2008. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Federal Way HE�lf""'f J � 1414 SO.324TH STREET, SUITE B210, FEDERALWAY,WA 98003 ■ 253-925-5565 ■ FAX:253-925-5750 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFiCANCE Highmark East Campus Office Building File No: 07-105926-00-SE Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square - foot, two-story office building with site improve- ments including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance'Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyer- haeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Depart- ment of Community Development Services City staff Contact: Senior Planner Jim Harris, 253-835- 2549 or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regula- tions designated as a basis for exercise of sub- stantive authority under the Washington State En viro nmen la I Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.080. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmen- tal Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21CA32(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental check- list and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-344(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 P.M. an May 5, 2008. Unless Modified by the City, this determination will be- come final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above deadline. You may appeal this determina- lfon to Director of Community Development Ser- vices Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way, no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2008. by a writ- ten letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. FWM 1381 Date of Publication: April 19, 2o08. ®R' Cq C14 c CD 00 -00 00 CQ C(' QC Cr\ 00 A E. < CD CD NC) > 00 C) CD C, C)o 00 co C) Co. 00• Do oc 00 00 0� < Ln w �D U) P, �D �D LT - to U) O 0) Z a a0 a F-4 00 Ln �D F- kr) F- F- C*q U) 0 LLJ CY) E z C) Cq en rn ai 2 C) in C:) cq C) Cq Cl I- C) 00 �c CD \0 % m rn Cq �D (D \0 00 rn o 'a 00 L) P4 0 0 r I cu 0 z LU 41) r ,CD o C) —U NE-4 C14 o F--- ea cc - '20 Lf- m 0 2CL �D Q) + un u �D �D < > >� Z Cf) + �D z w P,4� 7 < < CIO C4 Z Z C) + cn �D (D w C/) C/) CD + 0 V.11 P. CD CZ) .?NC) kri rt'l cv, C) W. rf) 00 (,1 2m q c, c;, <5 C) Cl- 4ZN C:7N (Z;N C� V) "-I W) wl kr) tn Ln Ln Lr) "r Ln \0 �o I'D \0 %0 \.o -I;r "D �o• . t C, C) C) N N Ln kr) Ln -n L�2 (�4 -Cq C, 4 le)••N. rLq N c-,) C-4 C,4 in m : r"I CO :C:k �71 N n 'l- Lf) Co 'r- :CO ON] co - - - - - - - - - N. C,4: N NC,) Cf) .J N w z J U) w 0 ¢ r• *k w z J CO U) w w z J z Q w z of w Q a F- N v— O N N 0) CL Page 1 of 2 Jim Harris - RE: Highmark Office SEPA NEEMENF.m-i . - . From: Jim Harris To: Bob Fadden Date: 4/17/2008 1:36 PM Subject: RE: Highmark Office SEPA Thanks Bob. FYI: I had a good conversation with Ann Olson and Bill Shields at Talasea a couple days ago. They should be clear on what to provide for wetland A as written in my March 26, 2008 review letter. I am also working with Kevin Weeks with Quadrant on completion of the outstanding wetland monitoring and maintenance activities related to the sewer line wetland mitigation on the subject property (but this Quadrant sewer line mitigation/monitoring does not cover wetland A). Jim Harris Senior Planner City of Federal Way jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com 253 835-2649 >>> "Bob Fadden" <Bfadden@lmueller.com> 04/17/08 1:26 PM >>> Thank you Jim. As soon as I get the civil drawings back with the revisions I will get you the design review materials so you can finish up that process. So at that process. I hope to have them for Monday so we can keep on schedule and be done by 5/19. :.. -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Harris[mailto:Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:12 PM To: Bob Fadden Cc: Isaac Conlen; Tamara Fix Subject: Highmark Office SEPA e f e c e e g of c e g e 9 e Page 2 of 2 The Federal Way Mirror had a "production error", which resulted in the SEPA determination for your proposal not being published as scheduled on 4-9-08. The City was notified this week that the legal notice was not published, as we had requested. The notice was not in the paper at all. Therefore, in order to avoid a potential procedural error and challenge, we have requested the MDNS be published in the Federal Way Mirror this Saturday April 19, 2008. Due to the new publication date, the SEPA comment period has been revised to expire on May 5, 2008 and the appeal period has been revised to expire on May 19, 2008. Let me know if you have any questions. Jim Harris Senior Planner City of Federal Way jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com 253 835-2649 f e c e e g of c e g e 9 Page 1 of 1 Jim Harris - Highmark Office SEPA From: Jim Harris To: Bfadden@lmueller.com Date: 4/17/2008 1:11 PM Subject: Highmark Office SEPA CC: Isaac Conlen; Tamara Fix :.. The Federal Way Mirror had a "production error", which resulted in the SEPA determination for your proposal not being published as scheduled on 4-9-08. The City was notified this week that the legal notice was not published, as we had requested. The notice was not in the paper at all. Therefore, in order to avoid a potential procedural error and challenge, we have requested the MDNS be published in the Federal Way Mirror this Saturday April 19, 2008. Due to the new publication date, the SEPA comment period has been revised to expire on May 5, 2008 and the appeal period has been revised to expire on May 19, 2008. Let me know if you have any questions. Jim Harris Senior Planner City of Federal Way jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com 253 835-2649 f e c e e g of c e g e 9 e AkCITY OF Federal March 26, 2008 Mr. Bob Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 CITY HALL Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #07-105925-00-UP and #07-105926-00-SE; PLANNING DIVISION TECHNICAL REVIEW Highmark East Campus Office Building, 322XX Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way Dear Mr. Fadden: The following comments represent the Planning Division's technical review of the documents and plans submitted on February 12, 2008, and the associated October 25, 2007, submittal for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and Process III Site Plan Review for the proposed 47,804 square foot two-story, Highmark Office Building at Lot 2 on East Campus Parcel 2, at approximately 322XX Weyerhaeuser Way South. At this time, it appears that we have adequate information for issuance of the SEPA threshold determination and City staff is preparing the SEPA decision for issuance. Once the SEPA determination is issued, the determination will have a 14-day comment period followed by a 14-day appeal period. The City can issue the Process III site plan and design decision following completion of the SEPA appeal period. The following items will need to be adequately addressed and resolved, prior to issuance of the Process III site plan decision. PROCESS III REVIEW COMMENTS A. Planning Division (Jim Harris, 253-835-2649, jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com) 1. Site Plan • Provide details on the plans regarding the type of materials used for the pedestrian crossings in the parking lot and drive aisle. Stamped and/or colored concrete is the preferred method of treatment. Paint striping is not acceptable treatment. The pedestrian connection to the adjacent building to the north must be designed to connect to the existing pedestrian crossing, which is about 2/3 the way across the shared driveway. Provide details on the plans to make this connection. File 407-105925-00-UP Doc. LD.44682 Mr. Bob Fadden Page 2 March 26, 2008 • Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-826 (note 7), the proposed trash facility must be relocated away from the nearby abutting residential uses. The trash enclosure area cannot be located within any required building setback area and cannot be within any required perimeter landscape area. ■ The site plan and engineering plans must identify the top and bottom elevations of all proposed retaining walls (TWBW). The wall along the south and east sides of the proposed building does not identify the bottom elevations. • On plan sheet A 1.1 please identify, "Total Developed Site Area." This developed site area would represent all the developed site area, parking, drive aisles, building footprint, landscape areas, etc. The developed area would essentially be all the area north of the proposed southerly retaining wall. ■ Please confirm the percent (square feet) of rooftop area that is covered by mechanical equipment and associated screening. FWCC Section 22- 1047(2) allows rooftop appurtenances to exceed the building height limit by a maximum of four feet, provided the rooftop appurtenances and equipment do not exceed 10 percent of the building footprint. 2. Landscape Plan ■ In order to meet the Type I solid landscape screen requirements adjacent to a residential zone, additional trees are required in the north/south landscape bed in the northeast corner of the site (east and northeast of the five parking stalls). Specifically, additional trees must be planted in a triangular spaced pattern to achieve a solid screen within five years of planting. ■ City staff is supportive of the intent of the proposed landscape modification as we discussed on the phone on March 20, 2008. In summary, you are requesting to reduce the 25-foot wide front perimeter landscape requirement to allow approximately a 19-foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the front property line, and you are proposing to implement or relocate the six feet of landscaping adjacent to the building fagade. The February 11, 2008, landscape modification request does not detail the spatial requirements and modification; as the modification letter focuses primarily on the grade changes, screening, and retaining walls. Please amend your February 11, 2008, landscape modification request to clarify and address the spatial requirements and modifications identified above. • The remainder of the landscape plan meets applicable FWCC standards. 3. Wetland Buffer Encroachment/Averaging/Mitigation/Monitoring In summary, the subject property has a significant amount of wetlands and wetland buffers. The wetland boundaries and wetland buffers on the property were defined and previously approved by the City in conjunction with permit applications to develop the property with the Delta Society File 407-105925-00-UP Doc. I. D. 44682 Mr. Bob Fadden Page 3 March 26, 2008 Building in 2001, including the Boundary Line Adjustment recorded under King County File No. 20010711900005. The wetlands and wetland buffers must be depicted on the current site plan and engineering plans in accordance with the recorded BLA. The City also approved a wetland buffer averaging and buffer enhancement plan and report for the site in conjunction with the Delta Society development applications for the subject property under City file number 01-101632-CO, et al. The approved wetland buffer plans were prepared by Talasaea Consultants, titled Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan, Weyerhaeuser East Campus — Parcel 2, Federal Way Washington, 10-20-01; and associated Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Report by Talasaea Report titled Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan, Weyerhaeuser East Campus — Parcel 2, Federal Way Washington, 12-10-01. The approved wetland buffer enhancement plan has not been implemented for the site. If you or members of your design team need copies of the previously approved plans or report, let me know and I can get you copies. Based on a recent site visit and review of the current site conditions plan (ESM sheet PP-3), it is evident that land surface modification and grading has occurred within wetland buffers. At a minimum, the northerly buffer of Wetland A has been modified and disturbed. It appears that a portion of previously vegetated wetland buffers have been impacted and disturbed. The following critical areas/wetland issues must be addressed at this time: ■ The applicant shall provide an update to the above referenced wetland plans and report. The update shall address current site conditions and provide appropriate buffer enhancement for what appears to be grading and encroachment into the buffer of Wetland A. The proposed wetland buffer conversion as identified on the site plan is not supported by City staff for the following reasons. First, the averaged wetland buffer limits have been formally defined and approved on the Boundary Line Adjustment recorded under file 01- 100742-SU (King County Record number 20010711900005). Second, the proposed modification would modify and change the averaged wetland buffer and result in an unacceptable reduction in the width of the buffer for Wetland A. The proposed retaining wall plan south of the building must be modified to follow the wetland buffer line as previously approved. • Grading within the wetland buffer as proposed on plan sheet PP-5 of the ESM plans is not permitted. Fine finish grading to accommodate the wetland buffer enhancement would be permissible. Any grading proposed in this area must be addressed by the wetland consult in conjunction with the forthcoming buffer plan update. Grading within wetlands and buffers is only permissible through a Process IV Hearing Examiner review, subject to applicable criteria and FWCC provisions. • Quadrant Corporation is funding post -development monitoring of the wetland buffers on site and south of the site. ESA Adolfson Associates is conducting the monitoring under City file number 01-101725-CO, and the buffer monitoring is still on -going. File U07-105925-00-UP Doe I D. 44682 Mr. Bob Fadden Page 4 March 26, 2008 B. Development Services Division (Sean Wells, 253-835-2731, sears.wells@cityoffederalway.com) Please address the comment in the enclosed March 4, 2008, memo from Sean Wells. C. Traffic Division (Sanjeev Tandle, PE, PTOE, 425-458-6200, sanjeev.tandle@cityoffederalway.com) The Transportation Concurrency Analysis was completed and provided to you on January 24, 2008. Please submit four copies of any revised reports, along with the enclosed resubmittal form. If the information requested above is not submitted within 180 days of the date of this letter, the applications will expire. Please contact me at jim.harris a.cityoffederalway.com, or 253-835-2649 if you have any questions. l look forward to working with you. Sincerely,_ r' P'r Jim Harris Senior Planner Enc: March 4, 2008, Sean Wells Memo Resubmittal Form Sean Wells, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sanjeev Tandle, PE, PTOE File 007-105925-00-UP Doc, I.D. 44682 CITY OF Federal flay DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed k-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2008. Project Name File Number(s) - ce-, S Signature Date y K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 2/14/2008 5:03:00 PM !�k CITY OF ��; Federal Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Highmark East Campus Office Building File No: 07-105926-00-SE Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services City Staff Contact: Senior Planner Jim Harris, 253-835-2649 or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public oplrequest. ��to This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on A1nt43-,4008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way, no later than 5:00 p.m. on sk-�, �, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on April 9, 2008. Correspondenwo44904 5411812008) Tina Piety -Fie: Legals for 4191$� Page 1 From: Teryl Heller <theller@fedwaymirror.com> To: "Tina Piety" <Tina.Piety@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 4/16/2008 1:57 PM Subject: Re: Legals for 4/9/08 Attachments: Part.001 Thank you, Tina, for letting me know. I'll fix the dates and we'll run in Saturday's paper. Teryl Heller Federal Way Mirror 1414 South 324th Street, Suite B210 Federal Way, WA 98003 (phone) 253-925-5565 (fax) 253-925-5750 On Apr 16, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Tina Piety wrote: > Hi Teryl, > Yes, do publish the DNS notices (Highmark East Campus Office Building > and South 320th Place Preliminary Plat) in this Saturday's issue > (4/19/08). > There are two dates in the last paragraph of each notice that needs to > be changed. For each notice, please change the April 23, 2008, date to > May 5, 2008, and the May 7, 2008, date to May 19, 2008. > Thank you, > Tina > >>> Teryl Heller <theller@fedwaymirror.com> 4/16/2008 10:06 AM >>> > Tina: Please see my note to Tamara below ---- can you let whomever needs > to know what happened, and let me know if they'd like to run on the > 19th? Thanks. > Teryl Heller > Federal Way Mirror > 1414 South 324th Street, Suite B210 > Federal Way, WA 98003 > (phone) 253-925-5565 (fax) 253-925-5750 > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Teryl Heller <theller@fedwaymirror.com> > > Date: April 16, 2008 9:48:20 AM PDT > > To: Tamara Fix<Tamara.Fix@cityoffederalway.com> > > Cc: Marcie Shannon <mshannon@fedwaymirror.com>, Rudi Alcott > > <ralcott@fedwaymirror.com> > > Subject: Legals for 4/9/08 > > Hi Tamara: > > I am very sorry to have to tell you that due to a production error, > > your legals did not run on 4/9/08. These were the Highmark East > > Campus Notice of EDNS, and the S. 320th Street Notice of EDNS. > > We can run these in the April 19th issue at no charge to compensate �411812008j Tina Piety - Re: Legafs fvr 41911aL Page 2 ' > > you for our error. We are having a meeting this morning to determine > > a method to make certain that this cannot happen again. > > Please confirm that you would like us to run these in the issue of > the > > 19th. Thank you. > > Teryl Heller > > Federal Way Mirror > > 1414 South 324th Street, Suite B210 > > Federal Way, WA 98003 > > (phone) 253-925-5565 (fax) 253-925-5750 40k CITY Federala. Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ciiyoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 1, r� hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice tECNotice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed P6--mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on r V 2008. Project Name j-L File Number(s) 6 5-9 ) 41 2- 2 S- U Slgna ture Date C/-Y r0 F K:\CD Administration Flies\Declaration of Dlstribufion.doc/Last printed 1/3/2008 4:54:00 PM 40k CITY 40'::tSP OF Federal Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Highmark East Campus Office Building File No: 07-105926-00-SE Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services City Staff Contact: Senior Planner Jim Harris, 253-835-2649 or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.2 1 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2)_ The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way, no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on April 9, 2008. Doc 1.D 44904 (4/41217d8}Tamara Fix - Re: L g otices - 320th & Highmark Page 1 From: Teryl Heller <theller@fedwaymirror.com> To: "Tamara Fix"<Tamara.Fix@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 4/4/2008 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Legal Notices - 320th & Highmark Attachments: 10325953015.doc; 10848650064.d'oc Thanks, Tamara. Will publish both in 4/9/08 edition. Have a good weekend. Teryl Heller Federal Way Mirror 1414 South 324th Street, Suite B210 Federal Way, WA 98003 (phone) 253-925-5565 (fax) 253-925-5750 On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Tamara Fix wrote: 4ik CITY '0'::tttP OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www. c i tvof fe d era lwray.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION i, 0rCVCW l hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance El (DS) and Scoping Notice El Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Anticipated DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed q h io 2008. Project Name File Number(s) Signature ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document ❑ e-mailed and/or 0 posted to or at each of the attached addresses on ', \ Ls - U-r I o6 q 2 oc Date q I OjU R K:\Intern\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc/Last printed 4/10/2008 1:12:00 PM Posting Sites: Federal Way City Hall - 33325 8th Avenue Federal Way Regional Library - 34200 1 St Way South Federal Way 320th Branch Library - 848 South 320th Street Subject Site - KNntem\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc/Last printed 4/10/2008 1:12.:00 PM 41k Federal OF Way NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Highmark East Campus Office Building File No: 07-105926-00-SE Description of Proposal: Proposal to construct a 47,804 square -foot, two-story office building with site improvements including approximately 167 parking stalls. Proponent: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller and Associates Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services City Staff Contact: Senior Planner Jim Harris, 253-835-2649 or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following decision based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above deadline. You may appeal this determination to Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins at the City of Federal Way, no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on April 9, 2008. Doc. 1. D. 44904 1 41k CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST HIGIIMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING Federal Way File Number: 07-105926-00-SE Related File Numbers: 07-105925-00-UP, 07-105506-CN NOTE: The purpose of this Final Staff Evaluation is to provide technical staff evaluation of the proposed action, supplement information contained in the environmental checklist and expanded studies, provide technical information unavailable to the applicant, correct inaccurate information, and recommend measures to the responsible official to mitigate identified environmental impacts if applicable. Technical reports and attachments referenced herein and in the environmental checklist may not be attached to all copies of this evaluation. Copies of reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Jim Hams, Senior Planner, at the City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development Services, 33325 81h Avenue South, Federal Way, Washington, 98063. Phone: 253-835-2649, or jim.harris@cityoffederalway.com. I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The applicant proposes the construction of a two-story 46,000 square -foot office building, with 167 parking stalls, and other associated site improvements on a 3.27-acre site (Exhibit A). II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Highmark East Campus Office Building Owner: Mike Kerby Highmark Investments, 253-874-3939 3450 South 344 h Way, Suite 115 Federal Way, WA 98001 Applicant: Bob Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates, 206-325-2553 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Location: Along the east side of Weyerhaeuser Way South, at approximately 32200 Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA (Exhibit B) King County Tax Parcel Number: 152104-9052 Parcel Size: 3.27 acres (approx 142,441 square feet) Zoning: Office Park-1 (OP) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office Park The following information was submitted as part of the application for development, or information generated by the City of Federal Way (Concurrency Analysis): o SEPA Checklist, dated October 22, 2007, with amendments dated 10-22-2007. o Technical Information Report (TIR) Addendum for Storm Drainage for Northlake and Delta Society Buildings, addendum dated September 14, 2007, prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers. o Preliminary Architectural Site Plan and Accompanying Elevations, by Lance Mueller & Associates for the Highmark Office Building, dated revised 2/11 /08. o Civil Engineering Plans prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, 10/22/2007, sheets PP-2 — PP- 5. o Preliminary Landscape Plans by Lance Mueller & Associates for the Highmark Office Building, dated revised 10/21/07, sheets L1.1, L21, and L2.2. o Concurrency application submitted October 4, 2007, and Concurrency Decision completed January 21, 2008. o Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Checklist. o Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Report, Highmark East Campus Office Building, October 19, 2007, by GeoEngineers. III. BACKGROUND The applicant submitted an application for SEPA and Process III project approval on October 25, 2007. The applications were determined complete on November 19, 2007. A Notice of Application was issued on November 28, 2007. IV. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements of the environmental checklist (Exhibit C), and a response to each: 1) whether city staff concurs or does not concur with the applicant's response to the SEPA checklist item, or 2) city staffs additional comments or clarification to each checklist item. A. BACKGROUND 1-5. Concur with the checklist. 6. The timeframe for construction and site development was provided by the applicant and may or may not be met. 7. Concur with the checklist. 8. The City previously reviewed applications for development of an office building on the subject property in 2001. The 2001 proposal was never constructed and the applicable approvals and reviews have expired, and/or conditions have changed to the extent to warrant a new environmental review. Plans on file from the 2001 permitting that were used as background information for the current proposal are as follows: o Weyerhaeuser Way South East Campus Site, Federal Way, Wetland Delineation and Study Report, by Talasaea Consultants, dated January 2001. 0 Weyerhaeuser East Campus Parcel 2, Federal Way, Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan, by Talasaea Consultants, dated January 2001. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 2 Highmark East Campus Office Building File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/na Ln 44449 o Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan — Overview Plan -Weyerhaeuser East Campus Parcel 2, Federal Way, by Talasaea Consultants, dated 10-20-01, sheets W1.0, W2.0, and W2.1. o Wetland Consultant Review memo, by AAI, dated January 25, 2002. o Boundary Line Adjustment for East Campus Lot 2, recorded under King County number 20010711900005. 9. Some of the permits and approvals referenced on the checklist are not necessarily permits, such as 15-day technical review (which is not applicable for this project) and the City of Federal Way does not have a site development permit. 10-12. The project is construction of a new two-story 46,000 square -foot office building, with 167 parking stalls, and other associated site improvements on a 3.27-acre site. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. The project site is relatively flat, in the location of the proposed parking area and building pad, as the site has been previously graded. b. Concur with the checklist. C. The 1973 King County Soils Survey map lists the soils type as — Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AGB) with soils characterized as gravelly sandy loam, with 0 to 6% slopes. d-e. Concur with the checklist. Compliance with recommendations and design parameters in the Geotechnical Engineering Report will provide sufficient mitigation of soils impacts. f Concur with the checklist. A TESC plan in accordance with City of Federal Way standards will be required for review and approval prior to issuance of any construction permits. g. According to the preliminary site plan, approximately 54 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. City staff analysis finds that approximately 61 percent of the 3.27-acre site would be impervious, based on the figure of impervious are identified on plan sheet pp-2, which identifies 87,800 square feet of impervious area proposed. h. Compliance with local, state, and federal standards will provide sufficient mitigation of potential soils and erosion impacts. Air a. Short-term effects to air quality will occur during construction and paving operations. Longer term impacts, due to vehicle emissions from company vehicles and future employees and visitors, vary in level according to the amount of traffic generated in the future by the proposal. Construction activities, e.g., site preparation work, will contribute to a short-term increase in local suspended particulate levels. Construction activity also contributes to Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 3 Highmark East Campus Office Building File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/noc. im 44449 carbon monoxide levels through the operation of construction machinery, delivery equipment and materials, and worker access to the site by automobile. These activities also involve emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, potentially elevating the level of photochemical oxidants, such as ozone, into the ambient air. b. Off -site sources of emissions are the nearby roadways. Compliance with local, state, and federal air quality standards provides sufficient mitigation of potential impacts. Enhancement of on -site vegetation and landscaping will provide filtering of suspended particulates. 3. Water a. 1. The wetland buffer widths discussed and identified in the SEPA checklist are based on the concomitant zoning agreement (CZA) for the property. The City previously approved a boundary line adjustment for the site, which identifies a 25-foot averaged wetland buffer between wetland A and the proposed new building. The CZA requires a minimum 50-foot setback from the wetland to the building, which the current site plan meets as proposed. There are other wetlands on and adjacent to the site, and the proposed development meets the applicable CZA setbacks from the wetlands. The wetlands and drainage eventually flow into North Lake, downstream from the site. The proposed development is beyond 200 feet from North Lake. 2. There will be clearing and grading activities conducted within 200 feet of the wetland's edge. The applicant must prepare and implement a wetland buffer restoration and monitoring plan for disturbance and filling that has previously occurred along the north side of wetland A. The requested wetland zestoration plan will be reviewed in conjunction with the Process III decision for the project. 3-6. Concur with the checklist. b. 1-2. Concur with the checklist. There are no proposed groundwater withdrawals or discharges associated with development of the site as proposed. C. 1. Stormwater runoff from the site (roof and parking lot runoff) will be connected to an existing storm drainage flow control and water quality treatment system located on site, to the south of the developable portion of the site. Stormwater runoff flow control and water quality treatment systems must meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and city amendments, thus no mitigation is required. 2. Concur with the checklist. d. Concur with the checklist. The project will be designed to meet the 1998 KCSWDM and city amendments to the manual. Compliance with local, state, and federal standards relating to stormwater runoff will provide sufficient mitigation of potential impacts. 4. Plants Concur with the checklist. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 4 Highmark East Campus Office Building File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/noc. in. 44449 b. No significant trees will be removed for development of the building, parking area, and associated site improvements, as there are no significant trees in the developable portion of the site. Concur with the checklist. d. Concur with the checklist. Pursuant to FWCC Chapter 22, Article XVII, all required landscaping shall be installed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO) or final inspection. FWCC Section 22-1564(f) requires that at least 25 percent of new landscaping materials (i.e., plants, trees, and groundcover) consist of drought -tolerant species. All developments are encouraged to include native Pacific Northwest and drought -tolerant plant materials. The City has requested the applicant to provide a plan for restoration of a disturbed wetland buffer on the site. The wetland buffer restoration plan will be reviewed in conjunction with review and decision on the Process III site plan review decision. 5. Animals a-c. The site is adjacent to wetlands, which provides habitat for a variety of birds and mammals. The site is part of the Pacific Flyway Migratory Route. d. The wetlands and wetland buffer areas will continue to provide for wildlife habitat. No impacts to wildlife are expected from development of the site, therefore no mitigation is necessary. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a-c. Concur with the checklist. 7. Environmental Health 1. Concur with the checklist. 2-3. Concur with the checklist. Noise levels resulting from the site are regulated under FWCC Section 22-956, and may not exceed levels established in the Noise Control Act RCW 70.107. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. The site is vacant, with office uses to the north, west, and single-family residences to the east- northeast. The Weyerhaeuser Way South right-of-way is to the west and an ingress/egress easement runs along the north property line. b-g. Concur with the checklist. h. All proposed development must meet applicable critical area regulations for the site as required by the CZA. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Highmark East Campus Office Building Page 5 File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/na. i.n 44449 i. To clarify the response in the checklist, approximately 120 to 175 persons would work in the new office complex. j4. The proposal is not subject to the City's Community Design Guidelines; however, the guidelines are used for guidance in reviewing the projects for compliance with good design principles as required by the CZA. 9. Housing a-c. Concur with the checklist. 10. Aesthetics Concur with the checklist. b. The project would change views from nearby offices and residences, as the site will change from a graded building pad, to an office building and parking area. C. The proposal is not subject to the City's Community Design Guidelines; however, the guidelines are used for guidance in reviewing the project in compliance with good design principles as required by the CZA. The site will also be landscaped in accordance with FWCC standards. 11. Light and Glare a-c. Concur with the checklist. d. In addition, FWCC Section 22-950 prohibits artificial surfaces from producing glare that annoys; injures; endangers the comfort repose, health, or safety of persons; or in any way renders persons insecure in life or in the use of property. 12. Recreation a-c. Northlake fishing access is adjacent to the south end of the site. Concur with the checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a-c. Concur with the checklist. 14. Transportation a-b. Concur with the checklist. C. The proposed office complex would provide 167 new surface parking stalls at the site. d. No improvements to the adjacent roadway are required by this proposal. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 6 Highmark East Campus Office Building File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/n« I.D. 44449 e-f. The City's traffic engineers determined that the proposed office building would generate 99 new PM peak hour trips. These trips generated by the project contribute new trips onto the existing transportation network. g. The applicant submitted a Concurrency application, which has been reviewed by Public Works Department Traffic staff. The Concurrency analysis will provide mitigation measures to be incorporated into conditions of Process III Project Approval, will address any failures of the City's Level of Service (LOS) standard, and will provide for the collection of pro-rata share mitigation towards the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects impacted by the proposed development. The Transportation Concurrency Analysis dated 1/21/08, identifies the impacted TIP projects that must be constructed by the applicant or in lieu of constructing the TIP projects, the applicant may pro-rata shares toward construction of impacted TIP's in the amount of $236,577.00. The following are components of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan supporting the Process III conditions for the development. TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and financially sustainable transportation system with sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and services at an acceptable level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and preservation of new and existing facilities. TP6 Give priority to transportation alternatives that improve mobility in term of people and goods moved for the least cost. TP16 The City's LOS standard shall be E. This is defined herein as a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.00 in accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (1994) operational analysis procedures. At signalized intersections, the analysis shall be conducted using a 120-second cycle length and level of service E is defined as less than 60 seconds of stopped delay per vehicle. Where transit or HOV facilities are provided, the LOS shall be measured by average delay and volume/capacity ratio per person rather than per vehicle. This standard shall be used to identify concurrency needs and mitigation of development impacts. For long- range transportation planning and concurrency analysis, a volume/ capacity ratio of 0.90 or greater will be used to identify locations for the more detailed operational analysis. TP 17 Expand arterial capacity by constructing channelization improvements at intersections when they are an alternative to creating new lanes along a roadway corridor. TP24 Consider safety first in the design of intersection improvements. TP43 Minor capacity projects, placing spot (localized) traffic improvements, will be carried out to extend the capacity of system components. Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 7 Highmark East Campus Office Building File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/n« i n 44449 Compliance with the City's Transportation Concurrency requirements will sufficiently mitigate transportation impacts resulting from the proposal, therefore, no further mitigation is necessary. 15. Public Services a-b. Concur with the checklist. 16. Utilities a-b. Concur with the checklist. V. CONCLUSION Based on staff analysis of the application, the completed SEPA checklist, and applicable City and county regulations and policies, the proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The DNS is based upon impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, exhibits, and supplemental reports as listed, and the above Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Application, and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by the City for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. The City reserves the right to review any further revisions or alterations to the site or the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or nonsignificance of the project at that point in time. Vl. EXHIBITS Exhibit A 8'/2 x 11 inch reduced site plan Exhibit B Vicinity Map Exhibit C SEPA Checklist, dated October 22, 2007 Prepared by: Jim Harris, Senior Planner Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Page 8 Highmark East Campus Office Building File Number: 07-105926-00-SE/n«.I.o.44449 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON OCTOBER 19, 2007 FOR HIGHMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC -GEOEN-GINEERSS Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Report File No. 12571-002-01 October 19, 2007 Prepared for: HighMark Investments, LLC 3450 S 344th Way, Suite 115 Federal Way, Washington 98001 Attention: Mike Kerby and Mark Robison Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. Plaza 600 Building 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98101 Ftit a ah R. Kamsey, EIT G otechnical Engineer r SEAT:\ I Z 1 2571002\0 1 \Finals\ 1257100201R.doc Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official documcnl of record, Copyrighte'2007 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. File No 12577-002-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................................................................................ 3 SITECONDITIONS....................................................................................................................................... 3 SURFACECONDITIONS................................................................................. ............................ 3 SUBSURFACECONDITIONS............................................................................................................3 General.............................................................. .................................................................... ° 3 SoilConditions........................................................................................................................... 4 GroundwaterConditions............................................................................................................ 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. 4 GENERAL........................................................................................................................................... 4 EARTHQUAKEENGINEERING.........................................................................................................5 FOUNDATIONSUPPORT..................................................................................................................5 LATERALRESISTANCE...................................................------...............................---- ....................... 6 BELOW GRADE AND RETAINING WALLS....................................................................................... 6 FLOORSLAB SUPPORT.....................................................,..-----..............................--......................6 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................ 7 FootingDrainage ......................................... ........................ ..................................................... 7 WallDrainage............................................................................................................................ 7 Other Drainage Considerations................................................................................................. 7 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK........................................................................................ 7 General................................................................................................................... 7 Temporary and Permanent Slopes.......................................................................................... 7 Subgrade Preparation ....... --- ................................................................................................. 8 StructuralFill.............................................................................................................................8 Sedimentation and Erosion Control...........................................................................................8 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................ 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A — Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use File No. 12571-002-01 Page l GEoENGINEERS October 19, 2007 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON FOR HIGHMARK INVESTMENTS, LLC INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed development of Lot 1 on Parcel 2 at the East Campus Corporate Park in Federal Way, Washington. The site is shown on the attached Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Our services have been completed in general accordance with the scope presented in our revised proposal dated October 11, 2007. Our services were formally authorizT.d by Mike Kerby on October 12, 2007. Our understanding of the project is based on discussions between Mike Kerby and Mark Robison of Highmark Investments LLC and Dave Cook of GeoEngineers on October 4, 2007. We also reviewed information provided by Highmark Investments LLC including the following: • Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated October 17, 2000 • A site plan prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers dated March 30, 2001 • Preliminary plans for a site study prepared by Collins Woerman dated January 23, 2003 • Plans prepared by Rushforth Taylor Construction dated August 31, 2007. • Site plan provided by Bob Faddin of Lance Mueller Associates on October 11, 2007. We understand you are in the process of Master Planning with the City of Federal Way and development plans are preliminary at this time. We also understand the preliminary development plans consist of a two-story office building measuring about 220 feet in the east -west direction and 120 to 160 feet in the north -south direction. The lowest finish floor will be at Elevation 429.5 feet to meet existing grades along the north side of the building. The ground surface to the south of the building footprint is at about Elevation 414 to 420 feet adjacent to a wetland area near the southeast comer of the property. A low Keystone block wall is planned along the south side of the site to transition from existing grades to the proposed finished floor elevation of the new building. We expect that additional explorations will be completed during final design to identify areas of existing fill that extend below the planned foundation depth. This will allow the final design to include foundations with high allowable bearing pressures in the north portion of the building (dense native soil) and lower allowable bearing pressures in the south portion of the building (fill soil). SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical services is to review existing information available at the site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed building, site retaining walls and parking areas. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following tasks: 1. Review site plans and subsurface information provided by HighMark Investments, LLC. 2. Describe the site conditions and soils encountered in the explorations completed in 2000. File No. 12571-002-01 Page I GEOENGINEERS.0 October 19, 2007 3. Complete engineering analyses, as required, and provide recommendations to address the geotechnical issues on the project. These analyses and recommendations include: ■ Soil bearing pressure and settlement for shallow foundations for the building and site retaining walls; ■ Active and passive soil pressures for cast -in -place below -grade and retaining walls. ■ Sliding resistance for foundation elements; ■ Drainage requirements including foundation drainage and underslab drainage; ■ Geotechnical seismic input in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 building code; and, ■ Considerations for construction, including the potential impacts of shallow groundwater levels to excavations and foundations. 8. Develop recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, including stripping and removal+of unsuitable material, subgrade preparation and backfill placement and compaction. This includes evaluating the effects of weather and construction equipment on the site soils, recommendations for subgrade preparation and pavement to support the anticipated vehicle loads. 9. Prepare a report presenting our conclusions and recommendations along with supporting field data and laboratory data. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is generally situated in an area that is a mix of undeveloped land, residential and commercial uses. The site is bordered by the Washington Education Association Building and S 320t" Street to the north, Weyerhaeuser Way S to the west, a stormwater detention pond and vacant property to the south, and residences and vacant property to the east. The site is currently vacant and moderately vegetated with shrubs, small deciduous trees and grass. Based on the site plan completed by Lance Muller & Associates, the site slopes gently from about Elevation 442 feet near the northwest corner towards the south and east to between Elevation 415 feet near the northeast corner, Elevation 412 feet at the wetland near the southeast comer, and Elevation 424 feet near the southwest corner. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General We reviewed the "Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington" by the United States Geological Survey dated 2005. The soils mapped in the project vicinity are glacial till associated with the Vashon Glaciation. Glacial till is generally very dense beneath a thin weathered zone near the surface and consists of a mixture of silt, sand and gravel. Subsurfaci conditions were evaluated on the site as part of a study completed for Lot 1 and Lot 2 (parcel to the north of the site) by Geotech Consultants, Inc. in 2000. The study included five test pits in the proposed building area as shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. Soil Conditions We reviewed the five test pits completed within the general building area to develop our conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. Subsurface conditions generally encountered in the test pits consisted of topsoil overlying loose to medium dense fill to depths of up to 5 feet, overlying dense to very dense glacial till. Topsoil and organic soils were observed to depths of about 12 inches in the test pits; File No. 12571-002-01 Page 2 GEOENGINEERS October 19, 2007 however, site grading has been completed by others to remove this upper soil layer and place additional fill for initial site development. The underlying fill generally consisted of sand and gravel with various amounts of silt. The glacial till generally consisted of medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel. Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater was encountered in two of the test pits at depths of between 4 and 5 feet below the ground surface. The groundwater appeared to be perched on the underlying glacial till. Groundwater conditions are expected to vary seasonally and with fluctuations in rainfall duration and intensity. We expect minor amounts of perched groundwater seepage may be present in excavations completed during the wet winter months at the contact between the overlying fill and the underlying glacial till and the contractor should be prepared to handle it. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The geotechnical study completed in October 2000 included five test pits in the general building area. The test pit logs indicate medium dense to dense glacially consolidated soils are present below fill that extends to depths of 1 to 3 feet, with fill in the northwest portion of the site extending to a depth of about 5 feet. These test pits therefore confirm that soils capable of supporting the anticipated foundation loads are present within the general depths anticipated for foundations. However, no tests pits were completed along the south side of the proposed building near the wetland. Soft and loose soils could be present to greater depths in this area. We therefore recommend that additional explorations be completed during final design along the south side of the building to evaluate the existing fill thickness and depth to suitable foundation support for the planned building. In our opinion the proposed development may be satisfactorily constructed with shallow foundations supported on the dense to very dense glacial till or structural fill or controlled density fill placed on these soils. Based on our current project understanding, we anticipate that footings for the planned building will extend below the fill on the north side of the site; however they will not likely extend below the fill on the south side of the site. Where fill is encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, we recommend over -excavating to dense native soils and replacing it with compacted structural fill or controlled density fill. The following sections of this report present our conclusions and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspect of the proposed development. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING GeoEnginelers evaluated the site for seismic hazards including liquefaction and lateral spreading. Our evaluation indicates that the site does not have liquefiable soils present and therefore also has a low risk of liquefaction -induced ground disturbance. We recommend the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) parameters for Site Class, peak ground acceleration, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1-second period spectral response acceleration (S1), and Seismic Coefficients FA and Fv presented in the table below. These values are based on the 2002 USGS seismic hazard maps. File No. 12571-002-01 Page 3 GEOENGINEER5.0 October 19. 2007 2006 IBC Parameter Recommended Value Site Class C Peak Ground Acceleration (percent g) 55.7 Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, SS (percent g) 123.1 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S, (percent g) 41.9 Seismic Coefficient, FA Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.0 1.38 Note: The above spectral response accelerations are based on data from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. FOUNDATION SUPPORT 0 We recommend that the new building be supported on conventional shallow spread footings. If fill is encountered at the subgrade elevation (likely on the south side of the building), we recommend over - excavating to dense native soils and replacing it with compacted structural fill or controlled density fill. The zone of structural fill should extend beyond the face of the footings for a distance equal to the thickness of fill placed. The structural fill pad shall be completed as discussed below in the Structural Fill section. If controlled density fill is used, the zone of controlled density fill should extend 1 foot beyond the face of the footings. It may be necessary during wet weather to place crushed rock on the footing subgrade to protect it until the footing can be formed and poured. We recommend minimum widths of 18 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively for the building. The depth of embedment for all exterior footings should be at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Interior footings should be founded at least 12 inches below adjacent grade. For foundations supported directly on the dense to very dense glacial till, or on controlled density fill extending down to these soils, an allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used. For foundations supported on structural fill an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used. This value applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. We estimate that total footing settlements should be in the range '/z to 1 inch on comparably loaded footings. In addition, we estimate that maximum post construction settlements will be less than '/z inch and differential settlements will be less than'/4 inch over a 25-foot length of continuous wall footing. We expect most of the footing settlements will occur as loads are applied. Loose or disturbed soils not removed from footing excavations prior to placing concrete will result in additional settlement. We recommend that the footing excavations be examined by a representative of our firm prior to forming footings or placing structural steel. It may be necessary to place a layer of lean concrete, controlled density fill or crushed rock on the footing subgrade to protect it until the footing can be formed and poured if work is completed during periods of wet weather. LATERAL RESISTANCE Passive resistance contributed by shallow foundation elements such as below grade walls and shallow footings should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a base friction value of 0.35. The above values incorporate a factor of safety of at least 1.5. These values are not applicable if the face of the foundation is located above site slopes that are within a distance of three times the depth of the foundation. File No. 12571-002-01 Page 4 GEOENGINEERS . October 19, 2007 BELOW GRADE AND RETAINING WALLS We expect that some building walls may support earth loads and that retaining walls may be used for site grade transitions (this will be evaluated during final design). Lateral earth pressures for design of unrestrained foundation walls or retaining walls should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Walls are assumed to be unrestrained if top movement during backfilling is more than H/1000, where H is the wall height. This value assumes the adjacent ground surface is near level (flatter than 3H:IV), the wall backfill is compacted as recommended above, wall drainage is provided and that the wall is free to rotate outward at the top. If the walls will be restrained from rotation at the top, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf. Surcharge loads should also be included, as necessary. Compaction to between 90 and 92 percent of MDD will be needed where the wall backfill supports structural elements such as floor slabs, sidewalks, stairs, or driveways. Imported structural fill will be required where backfill behind the walls will be supporting floor slabs above. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within 5 feet of retaining walls to avoid overstressing the walls. Hand - operated equipment should be used in this area. Wall drainage should be provided as discussed below in the Drainage Considerations section. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT To provide satisfactory support for the on -grade floor slab for the new building, we recommend that the slab subgrade soils be properly prepared prior to construction of the slab. As discussed in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report, the subgrade soils, if disturbed by construction activities should be re - compacted, if possible, or excavated and replaced with structural fill to provide firm support of the floor slab. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, we recommend that an appropriate capillary break and vapor retarder be installed below the floor slab to reduce the risk of moisture migration through the on -grade floor slab. We therefore recommend that floor slabs be constructed on a gravel layer to provide uniform support, and act as a capillary break. The gravel layer should consist of at least 4 inches of clean crushed gravel with a maximum size of 3/4 inches and negligible sand or silt. We also recommend that a vapor retarder, such as heavy-duty plastic sheeting, should be installed between the slab and the gravel layer to reduce the risk of moisture migration through the slab. A 2-inch thickness of medium sand may be placed over the vapor retarder to protect it during construction and to aid in uniform curing of the concrete, upon discretion of the contractor. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Footing Drainage 1 A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed around the perimeter of the footings of the proposed building. The subsurface drainage system should include a 4-inch diameter rigid, perforated, smooth -walled polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain pipe installed at the base of the exterior wall footing and bottom of the zone of wall drainage sand and gravel. The drain pipe should be surrounded by at least a 6-inch thickness of free -draining sand and gravel wrapped in a non -woven geotextile such as Mirafi 140N (or approved equivalent) to prevent fine soil from migrating into the drain material. The drain pipe should be connected by a tight -line system sloped to drain to an appropriate disposal point. The drain pipe should include clean -outs to access the pipe if maintenance is required. File No. 12571-002-01 Page 5 GMENGINEER� October 19, 2007 Wall Drainage The recommended equivalent fluid densities presented above in the Below Grade and Retaining Walls section assumes a free -draining condition behind the walls. This may be achieved by placing a 12 inch wide zone of medium to coarse sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fines against the walls. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed at the bottom of the drainage zone behind the walls. This subsurface drainage system should be as described above for Footing Drainage. Other Drainage Considerations The finished ground surface adjacent to the proposed building should be sloped so that surface runoff flows away from the structure and away from the wetland area at the south end of the site. Roof drains should be tightlined to an appropriate discharge point and should not be connected to the footing drains. 6 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK General We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be completed during the normally dry season of the year (generally July through September) if practicable, as the erosion potential of the on -site soils is increased during extended periods of wet weather. Based on the subsurface conditions observed in the test pits, we would expect stripping of up to 12 inches will be required across the site to remove loose topsoil and organic soils. However, past site grading likely removed most of the upper topsoil and stripping depths should be only a few inches. Temporary and Permanent Slopes All temporary cut slopes must comply with the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor performing the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent improvements. For planning purposes, we recommend that cut slopes for temporary excavations be sloped no steeper than 1-1/2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) in the overlying fill soil and no steeper that 1H:1V in the dense to very dense glacial till. If groundwater seepage is encountered during excavation, flatter slopes may be required. The final configuration for temporary excavation slopes should be evaluated during construction, as it is a function of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and the contractor's approach to excavation. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 211:1 V. Permanent slopes should be planted or hydroseeded as soon as practicable after grading. We recommend that all fill be placed as structural fill, as described above. Subgradq Preparation We recommend that the soil exposed at subgrade elevation within footing areas (shallow foundations) for the proposed building be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition before footing formwork or reinforcing steel are placed in footing areas. We also recommend that all subgrade soils be evaluated by a representative of GeoEngineers before the commencement of any of these activities to identify any soft or unsuitable subgrade soils. Any soft or unsuitable subgrade soils that are observed during this evaluation should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. File No. 12571-002-01 Page 6 GMENGINEERS-0 October 19, 2007 Structural Fill All fill placed to support footings, sidewalks and pavements should be placed as structural fill. On -site excavated soil consisting of sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel may be considered for use as structural fill depending on the natural moisture content. The excavated soil may need to be conditioned to the proper moisture content in order to achieve adequate compaction. Imported structural fill may be necessary to support foundations, fill areas where unsuitable on -site soil is removed and to achieve grade when needed for supporting sidewalks, stairs or other structural elements if work is done during periods of wet weather. Imported structural fill should consist of generally well graded sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) by weight relative to the fraction passing the 3/a-inch sieve. Soil containing rocks larger than about 4 inches in size or debris such as organic soils, roots, wood, asphalt and concrete fragments should be excluded from structural fill. Structural fill should generally be placed in loose lifts not exceeding about 8 to 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill placed in the building area to support footings should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-1557 test method. Pavement area fill, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of MDD, except for the upper 2 feet below finished subgrade surface, which should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD. Structural fill to support sidewalks should be placed after the subgrade is evaluated and be compacted to at least 90 percent of MDD. We recommend that a representative from GeoEngineers, Inc. be present during structural fill placement to observe the work and perform in -place density tests to evaluate whether or not the specified compaction is being achieved. Sedimentation and Erosion Control In our opinion, the erosion potential of the undisturbed on -site soils is low to moderate. The amount and potential impacts of erosion are in part a function of the time of year construction occurs. Wet weather construction will increase the amount and extent of erosion. Effective erosion controls during and after construction are necessary. These should include proper control of surface water runoff to prevent uncontrolled, concentrated surface water runoff over exposed areas and minimizing the time of exposure in the areas stripped during construction through prompt revegetation. Effective erosion and sedimentation controls during construction may consist of interceptor swales and straw bale barriers to prevent water from flowing off site. Completion of initial clearing and grading activities during the drier months and limiting the disturbance of existing ground surface and vegetation where possible will also reduce the risks of erosion. Any material stockpiles should be covered during wet weather to prevent erosion and soil loss. All areas disturbed during construction should be seeded and planted as soon as practical to reduce the potential for erosion. Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the City of Federal Way. File No. 12571-002-01 Page 7 GEOENGINEERS October 19, 2007 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of HighMark Investments LLC and their authorized agents for the proposed development of at the HighMark East Campus Office Building in Federal Way, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. • Please refer to the attachment titled Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use for additional information pertaining to use of this report. File No. 12571-002-01 Page 8 GEOENGINEERS October 19, 2007 N r % i STM Lam' r ST LPM `^ MLLSUr ARr I I PCRZA 71 Iw yl S alry 1' rw • rune 1S5 ; s 31ilhPL 5� COUER CAIMAY » 'L9jr7 ; CFNIFY 43 320 x ST A a" vuL4x FFArR41 � rnae6@ jjjF a ' •IAC 743 ;< Y[AIL(I Fwr W PO • N 2 3'S � •Q T Yri TMi .jel4 R� f S N K u, Nh lk FL `^ S 304111 P ST S 3Gp I ST r V ��y x. 0. ✓R IS ST it �2 s S c X n P LTC p%, 4 l• .a .n �, { V1 N T 5 { F S 31Gn1 STin II w 1 Ar N L iNn, sr i s Slit v c itin S 31 sT . � # u 95 ti6Si'• 21 N L ]ihM1l R r �, S si t; F i ;IPTh ST S 3 I 5T Vc w w S rr A 20TH STb SITE ¢ � i. r S 31P}F Se s r:r. s x „ 9 anRi ST r vrn •, � S 32711p � Aq1 QI A Wni K YL S L B ! if z S 3.7g111 � sT L11e r. s awLY I,M NAf7rAClN st all g ` rrl� Sr C 1• ax Q� �.r % 7 ..q .,#writ = � v S 333 _ srft E ,1 " <s = a $I ST SE 338PlI ST � ♦lfN s 330FI1 D S 336TFI i tt La S 3'vT11 ST S 3961{ S7 j ��ST ➢� p $ Hu1N 4 }Lln S m 3401,11 ST ., Y Y F 1^ a st J•Sp , 4F ti S n 342M6 ST 344TP ST �� RFt V t]Llp S a447)1 » 3426 1:4�:E 4 x ' •.'� y,v �yl„� S 3 .5 Si Q� f 9 wE S 2000 0 2000 Feet Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS - This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Vicinity Map HighMark East Campus Office Building Federal Way, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure 1 9 m 12 m m� Lb2 o = - c tS a� O ` E m D d v a o gom eyifpc C � m � O 0y 7 Mm LL a u E CL N N n E a c tL O1 �� E M N iC 0 � W � y € $ o i� m S m N Z 'c >, S. W N `o'E5 m @ E �ZSii m a mrn2, $ 'G l0 D Z W mm„ oa4m rn O U^ w O��E oN 8 m co Z,�N WigE� Km.=N GEoENGINEERS ATTACHMENT REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE ATTACHMENT A REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' This attachment provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HighMark Investments, LLC and their authorized agents for the proposed development of at the HighMark East Campus Office Building in Federal Way, Washington. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS This report has been prepared for the proposed development of Lot 1 on Parcel 2 of the East Campus Corporate Park in Federal Way, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: • not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure; • eldvation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. File No. 12571-002-01 Page A -I GEOENGINEERS October 19, 2007 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre -bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing lonstruction observation. DO NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. File No. 12571-002-01 Page A-2 GEOENGINEERS.0 October 19, 2007 GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre -bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. e CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on -site personnel and to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. File No. 12571-002-01 Page A-3 GEOENGINEER5.0 October 19, 2007 T �05 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 01 Evaluation For Agency Use Only A. BACKGROUND C 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: HIGHMARK EAST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING �j 50PU (LMA #07-076) VJ ` p 2. Name of applicant: Lance Mueller & Associates/Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Ph: (206) 325-2553 Contact Person: Bob Fadden 4. Date checklist prepared: October 12, 2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction in late March 2008 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain/ Tenant improvement within the building. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A MDNS for a proposed prior development file #01- 100740-00-SE was issued. Environmental reports for this site are included in that file. This proposal only increases the building area through the construction of a two story building. An amended storm water study has been prepared for this project that demonstrates conformance. This project is also subject to the terms of the Annexation Agreement. As such, it has different buffer averaging, buffer widths, and building setback standards than the Federal Way Ordinance. In addition, for this property it RECEIVED specifies a reduced development setback to residential properties. OCT 2 5 2007 Page 1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT, 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None that we are aware of at this time. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1. Mitigated Determination of Non Significance 2. Traffic Concurrency 3. DRC approval through Process III 4. Grading Permit 5. Site Development Permit 6. Building Permit 7. Mechanical Permit 8. Electrical Permit 9. Plumbing Permit 10. Lake Haven Sewer & Water Connection Permit 11. NPDES — D.O.E. 12. HPA — D.O.F. & W 13. Foundation Permit 14, Engineering Site Development 15, 15 Day Technical Review 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. See attached Narrative. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the i range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See attached existing conditions drawing, site survey, vicinity map, site plan. Legal Description: LOT 1 OF CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BLA NO. 01-1 00742-OOSU �Or, Page 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site has been previously graded so it is generally level within the development area. At the edge of the development area it slopes up or down to the adjoining areas at between 5% and 15%. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The site was not used for farm land in recent times. Soils consist of gravelly sand silt and silty gravelly sand. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site has been previously graded. The site grading design is based on cut and fill and will require about 550 yard of import from an approved off site borrow. The new grading is necessary to reshape the site into the current development configuration. Overall there will be about 7,800 yards of fill of which 7,250 yards will be onsite materials. Other import will consist of sub base material under the building pad (900 c.y.), sub base material under the paving (2,000 c.y.) and top soil soil for landscaping (1,500 c.y.). f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. During grading, prior to landscaping being placed and the building constructed, erosion could occur. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 54% Page 3 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: During construction the contractor will take temporary measures to control erosion according to TECSP approved by the City. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. L� C. During construction, emissions from vehicles, equipment and power tools could occur along with dust from areas not yet paved or landscaped. After construction, emission from vehicles and gas heating will occur. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply to vehicle and equipment emission standards, provide dust abatement when needed, and utilize HVAC equipment that meets clean air standards. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. Thr6e existing wetlands are on the site and a park storm water treatment pond is within 200 feet of the site. As part of the prior BLA buffer averaging was approved that established the minimum buffer of 25' for wetlan and a minimum buffer of 50' to wetland C & ❑ for development o I f his site. M Page 4 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. Three existing wetlands are on the site and a park storm water treatment pond is within 200 feet of the site. As part of the prior BLA buffer averaging was approved that established the minimum buffer of 25' for wetland A and a minimum buffer of 50' to wetland C & D for development on this site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Construction activities will occur within 200 feet of wetland A, C & D that consist of utilities, grading, landscaping, building construction and buffer planting. Prior to this application, grading work was done that redirected the site runoff into catch basins. This interrupted the surface water runoff to wetland "A". As part of this work, the buffer will be re -graded so that the run off from that area will flow to wetland `A" and restore some of the original flow that went to that area. In addition, the lawn area south of the building will be graded so that it's run off will drain into the wetland A. Restoring the run off that has been interrupted by the filling and grading will enhance the quality of the wetland. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 1►C 2T 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year Floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No ® 7-1 5925 RESUBMITTED FEB 0 7 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. None C. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Water will be collected from pervious surfaces and discharged into the existing underground drainage system. This system currently flows into the park water quality and detention system. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. This site and the adjoining sites storm run off flows to a storm water treatment and detention facility that is located south of this property. This facility was constructed as part of a prior land use action. This site under a prior permit had an underground storm water collection system installed. This system currently collects surface run off and will be modified slightly to accommodate the current development plans. The surface water runoff from the proposed development is being collected in the existing storm drainage system and routed to the existing water quality and detention facility located south of the site. This storm water pond was sized to accommodate this development and provides both detention and treatment. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation Invasive Blackberries S Weeds b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered The project area is not vegetated except with grass, scrub trees, blackberries, and Scotch Broom. It was previously graded to about 25 feet beyond the average buffer line. See LMA sheet A.1 for current location. Some of the steep slope area in the buffer has been planted with bushes and evergreen trees. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None observed. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site was previously graded, which removed all vegetation to about 25 feet beyond the average buffer. The applicant, in addition to the on site landscaping, proposes planting native plants in the buffers after grading where applicable. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, Heron, Eagle, Songbirds, others; Mammals: Deer, Bear, Elk, Beaver, other; Fish: Bass, Salmon, Trout, Herring, Shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Pacific Flyway — The general migration path for fowl in the Puget Sound. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide habitat enhancement at wetland buffers. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for lighting convenience outlets and cooling. Gas will be used for heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Conform to State Energy Code. This Code includes extensive conservation requirements that regulate energy consumption and heat loss/gain. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 2M 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Aid car, police, and fire protection. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise from construction equipment, construction activities, and vehicles during the building process. After completion, noise from HVAC equipment and vehicles will occur. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. The building has sufficient distance to other sites and the street that no measures will be needed. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Office, single family residential, storm water facilities, wetlands, and buffers. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No C. Describe any structures on the site. Only underground utilities, manholes, and catch basins. d. Will any existing structures be demolished? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? OP-1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Corporate Park g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? Yes — See BLA and LMA sheet A-1.1. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 120 to 175 most likely. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None displaced. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with community design guide lines. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 35 feet maximum. Principal materials are painted concrete, glass, and metal siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Comply with the spirit community design standard for landscaping and building design. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Glare: Vehicle head lights and site lighting. No glare from building is expected since the glazing is non reflective. This could occur from dusk to dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Site lighting fixtures will be shielded to limit the affects to the site. Light from headlights will be screened by the low planting. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? North Lake Fishing area is located south of the site. Access to the lake from Weyerhaeuser Way is about 300 feet south of this site. Walking on public side walks and paths is the principal opportunity available. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Provide information to tenants about City recreational facilities nearby. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, describe. None b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Does not apply. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Weyerhaeuser Way and So. 320th are main streets that serve the site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — Within a 1/4 mile. Metro Route 181 at So. 3201" and Pierce Transit Route 501 at So. 336th St. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 168 new cars. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Transpo has requested that the City prepare a traffic scoping sheet in their "Trip Generation & Distribution" report. See attached. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Pay City trip mitigation fee. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Normal aid car, police, and fire protection. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. As a result of the development additional tax revenues will result that will pay for the costs of public services. The taxes include but are not limited to property taxes, mitigation fees, sales taxes, fire district and utility district levies, public bonds for facility development, 8 & O taxes, etc. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural qas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Water & Sewer - Lake Haven Phone - Qwest Refuse - City Contract Provider (Allied Waste) Gas - Puget Energy Electricity - Puget Energy Cable - Comcast C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its lexAaLn. Signature: Date Submitted: �ku qk t HIGHMARK-E-CAMPUS.CHK Page 14 CITY OF � Federal January 29, 2008 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com Mr. Bob Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 L) Seattle, WA 98122 Re: Permits #07-105925-00-UP & #07-105926-00-SE PUBLIC WORKS TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS Highmark East Campus Office Building; 3600 South 320t" Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Fadden: Enclosed please find SEPA and technical review comments prepared by Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sean Wells, P.E., of the Public Works Department. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments, please contact Mr. Wells directly at sears..wclls ti%%c_i_°atTederalwa .com, or 253-835-2731. Please note, response to the SEPA-related comments is necessary prior to the City issuing a SEPA decision for your project. However, SEPA issuance is not dependent upon your response to the technical review comments for the land use Process III decision. If you have any questions regarding the review process, please contact me at ianet.shulILd)gi ofTedei.alwav com, or 253- 835-2644. Sincerely, l n r Ja ct Shull, AICP Senior Planner Enc: January 25, 2008, Memorandum from Sean Wells re: SEPA Review January 25, 2008, Memorandum from Sean Wells re: Technical Comments c: Sean Wells, P.E., Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Scott Sproul, Acting Assistant Building Official Sanjeev Tandle, Parametrix Chris Ingham, South King Fire and Rescue Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Permit#07-105925-00-UP Doe LD 43906