Loading...
13-103506-SEBEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: High Point Mixed Use Process IV FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF No. 13-103506-00-SE and 13-103505-UP LAW AND DECISION INTRODUCTION Lisa Boehm -Brady, along with several dozen other appellants who reside adjacent to the project site, appeal the issuance of a mitigated determination of nonsignif cane "MDNS" and Process III permit approval of a mixed use redevelopment of the former Federal Way Public Schools transportation facility located at 1066 South 320`" Street. The MDNS and Process III approval are sustained with the addition of several SEPA mitigation measures and Process III conditions. For the most part, the proposal Federal Way has adopted very detclearly complies with all applicable development standards. ailed development standards, so a staff finding of copice (if accurate) leaves little room for differences of opinionmlan. The appellants were faced with very difficult appeals for this reason. Due to the comprehensiveness of the City's standards, it is also not surprising that the most significant and complicated issue of the application was whether existing regulations prohibited the exercise of some discretion in located along the northern property linepreserving the Laurel trees . The City has detailed tree retention and perimeter landscaping requirements that one could reasonably argue preclude the imposition of any additional standards to buffer adjoining uses. However, the intent of the City Council in adopting those tree retention and landscaping requirements is paramount in determining whether those regulations can operate to prohibit a condition that requires retention of an existing vegetated buffer that is far superior to what would be installed under the City's landscaping requirements. Given the City's comprehensive plan policies that stronly encourage the protection of the City's neighborhoods, it is reasonable to conclude that the City Council did of intend its regulations to preclude a vegetative buffer retention requirement. Given those same comprehensive plan policies, it is likely that the City's perimeter buffer requirements along residential areas are based on the maximum that could be reasonably required for new landscaping. Planting new 16-25 foot trees cannot be reasonably required of an applicant. Retaining existing trees of that height, however, is eminently reasonable. The conditions of approval require retention of the Laurel trees within the 11.25 to 15 foot buffers located along the northern property line. A second major point of contention has been the City requirement to provide a pedest connection o 13" Ave. There is some merit to the contention that this connection detracts from rian the preservation of neighborhood character as encouraged by the comprehensive plan. However, the comprehensive plan, also encourages pedestrian connectivity. More important the ' The applicant's arborist report references the Laurel trees as shrubs. Laurel trees and Laurel shrubs are used interchangeably in this decision. Process IV Decision -- 1 ce connection facilitates safer walking conditions for childereinki �aadve Se pacts associated with safety benefits of the required connection outweigh th the proposal and the condition requiring the connection will be kept in place. The appellants were also concerned about the generation f corequ re ated dustapplduing ant 0 remediation of the project site. Applicable regulationsY implement a dust control plan. To remove any doubt toon � implement a dust control plane, a condition of athat added to the Process III approval that requires the applicantp assures that no contaminated dust will adversely affect neighboring properties. This plan will be subject to third party review. Other issues raised by the appellants are not subject to much legal disof the pute. Most significant not those issues are the appellants' assertions that the bulk an compatible with their neighborhood and also that rthefa roads he type o� use proposed ande proposal are not City The City Council has zoned the subject property Council has also adopted level of service standardsb he City Council, state met by the roads aw is the proposal Once those policy choices have been enact clear that those choices cannot be revisited during permit review. into law w Mitigation measures such as the retention of the Laurel can be imposed to enhance compatibility, pect ofthe ptheepropasalcannot are be denied on the basis of building size or road congestion if those consistent with the zoning map and adopted level of service standards. ORAL TESTIMONY A summary of the testimony is included as AttachmentA to f he decision. Thethis decision. esummary does been excised from this decision in order to reduce the length not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law and iisonly prepared �� econvenience so by the reader. Any persons wishing to have a copy of the summary sending a request to albrechtslaw mail.com. EXHIBITS The exhibit lists admitted into the record include the commencement of the hthose eibits identified in earing.1Thelexhibit submitted by each of the hearing, parties prior lists are identified as follows: 1. Applicant's Final Exhibit List, dated July 24, 2014 (Applicant Exhibits Denoted by "H"). 2. City of Federal Way's Exhibit and Witness List, dated July 22, 2014 (City Exhibits Denoted by "FW"). 3. City of Federal Way's SuppbmittedlExhibit List, b Leah BaehmatBrady byed July 5emails dated July 25, 2014 4. Exhibits A 1 through A26 s Y Exhibit A2 was excluded from the to all hearing. (Appellant Exhibits Denoted by "'All). record. Exhibits Al I and A17 do not exist. 5. Ex. A27 — four comment letters submitted. by Leah Boehm -Brady 6. Ex. FW 15 — Title Report 7. Ex. H23 — 7/31/14 email from Bill Lynn proposing revised buffer language. Process IV Decision -- 2 8. Ex. H24 — 7/31/14 email from examiner re -opening hearing. 9. Ex. FW16 --Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, dated July 23, 2014 along with motion to dismiss and reply to motion to dismiss from the City, the applicant's joinder in the dismissal motion and the appellants' response to the motion. 10. Ex. FW 17 — Prehearing Order dated July 13, 2014. 11. Ex. FW 18 — July 21, 2014 staff report FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant/Appellants. The applicant is Devco. The Appellants are Leah Boehm -Brady in addition to 52 other appellants for the SEPA appeal and 45 other appellants for the Process III appeal. 39 of the 46 appellants for the Process III appeal were dismissed by Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing in the above -captioned matter, dated July 23, 2014. See Ex. FW16. 2. Hearing. A prehearing conference was held on the application on July 11, 2014. The public hearing on the application was held at 1:00 p.m. at Federal Way City Hall on July 28, 2014. The hearing was initially left open through July 29, 2014 in order to provide the City with an opportunity to submit the title report for the property. The hearing was re -opened by consent of the hearing parties on July 31, 2014 to consider a proposed condition regarding the northern perimeter buffer. The record was left open through August 1, 2014 in order to provide the appellants an opportunity to respond to the proposed language. No response was provided. Substantive: 3. Proposal and Appeal. The applicant proposes to redevelop the former Federal Way Public Schools bus storage facility (commonly known as the bus barn) located at 1066 S 320th St into a mixed use multi -family facility. The development will be composed of 15 buildings three to six stories in height. The buildings will accommodate 300 dwelling units and 27,337 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space. The site will be accessed by two access points from 3201h St. The primary access point will be an extension of 11 `h Pl. S., which will curve near the center of the development and end with a stub road at the northeastern corner of the site. The 1 Ith Pl. S. extension is part of a planned "Ring Road", designed to improve traffic circulation in the downtown area of Federal Way as depicted and planned in Map VII-5 of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. The project site is 9.84 acres in area and the majority of the site is paved. Historic use of the site as a transportation facility has resulted in contaminated soils caused by underground storage tanks, hydraulic vehicle hoists, and exterior chemical storage. Site investigations have found impacts to soil at concentrations exceeding Model Toxic Control Act ("MTCA") clean up levels. The applicant has prepared a Phase I Environmental Assessment as required by MTCA. The mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued for the proposal requires the applicant to prepare a clean-up plan consistent with state regulations, subject to third party review. Process IV Decision -- 3 The project site adjoins a single-family neighborhood located to the north zoned R7.2. The neighborhood is currently buffered from the bus barn site by a greenbelt of Laurel and other trees about 20 feet deep. The Laurel trees form a completely site obscuring screen with most of the trees at heights of 16-25 feet. Pursuant to Federal Way height standards, the four buildings proposed within 100 feet of the neighborhood are less than 40 feet tall. The development was reviewed as a Process III project by the City. The City approved the Process III application by decision dated June 4, 2014. An MDNS for the proposal was issued on March 28, 2014. Deviations were approved for the proposal as well, including in relevant part: (1) the perimeter landscaping for the northern perimeter of the proposal was reduced from 15 feet to 11.25 feet; (2) the number of required parking spaces were reduced from 586 parking spaces to 517 parking space; (3) the front yard setback for four of the buildings was reduced; (4) street frontage requirements for I Ith Pl. S. were modified; and (5) frontage improvements to S. 3201h St. were waived. The appellants filed an appeal of the MDNS on May 1, 2014. The appellants filed an appeal of the Process III approval on June 19, 2014. The MDNS appeal was based exclusively on the adequacy of the proposed clean up measures for the contaminated soils of the site. The Process III appeal contested the compatibility of the bulk and scale of the site with the adjoining neighborhood, asserted the deviations should not have been approved, asserted the proposal is not served by and adequate road system, expressed concern over the generation of contaminated dust during remediation, advocated for the retention of the trees along the northern perimeter and requested the elimination of a pedestrian access point to 13 Ave. S. The following Findings of Fact address each of the appeal issues individually. 4. Hazardous Waste Removal. The proposed remediation of the project site, as mitigated by the MDNS, will not result in any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Further the City has made a prima facie showing that it has based its MDNS upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. As the location of a school district bus barn, the property has been found to contain numerous hazardous wastes, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene. The applicant will remediate the site prior to any development. The MDNS for the proposal requires the applicant to fund third party review of the applicant's remediation plan prior to the issuance of any grading permit and then to fund additional third party review of the completed remediation prior to the issuance of any further permits for development of the site. The third party reviewer will be tasked with verifying that the clean-up effort is consistent with applicable state remediation statutes and regulations. In their SEPA appeal, the appellants challenge the accuracy of the "initial data" used to evaluate the hazardous waste of the site. The appellants do not identify where this "initial data" came from. It appears that the information was taken from the Phase I review and Interim Action Work Plan, Ex. FW6. The environmental checklist notes that this information was considered in making the threshold determination. See Ex. H5, p.2. Process IV Decision -- 4 In their appeal the primary assertions by the appellants are as follows: (1) the soil testing was done before removal of the impervious surfaces and it is likely that additional contaminants that haven't yet been discovered are located below those surfaces; (2) the applicant has too much self-interest to objectively do its own clean-up plan; and (3) the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") should review the clean-up. At the outset is should be noted that the appellants presented virtually no credible evidence to support any of their assertions. As noted in the Conclusions of Law below, the hearing examiner must give substantial weight to the determination of the SEPA responsible official. This creates a fairly high bar for the appellants to overcome if they wish to prevail. With this standard of review, the appellants would likely have to present very compelling expert testimony to rebut any expert testimony provided by the applicant and/or city. The applicant presented expert testimony at the hearing that the clean-up efforts would be adequate. The city presented the testimony of an expert third party reviewer that the clean-up would be adequate. In response the appellants only provided written hearsay statements in their SEPA appeal, Ex. FW2, from Greg Wingard. Mr. Wingard works with King County Councilmember Larry Phillips in some undefined capacity in directing environmental remediation. Mr. Wingard was not present at the hearing and his comments were not subject to cross-examination. There is no information in the record as to what information Mr. Wingard reviewed before allegedly making the comment referenced in the SEPA appeal that "the contamination to the property its question is likely worse than what the initial data has shown". Mr. Wingard may have formulated a well -qualified and well justified opinion on the adequacy of the "initial data", but without any cross-examination and any information on exactly what that "initial data" he reviewed, his comments have virtually no probative value. Despite the absence of any evidence substantiating any deficiencies in the proposed clean-up efforts, the appellants do raise a troubling issue regarding the potential for undscovered i contaminants located below impervious surfaces. When the examiner asked the applicant's expert, Thomas Morin, about this issue, he simply responded that it was very unlikely that any additional contaminants would be discovered. This is not very reassuring testimony. An explanation of exactly why additional contamination was unlikely to be found would have been much more to the point. However, the 595 page Phase I review, FWd, includes a detailed series of soil borings and other subsurface testing procedures designed to ensure the elimination of all data gaps_ The city's third party reviewer, .Ion Sondergaard, concluded that the applicant has sufficient data to determine the location of all contaminated soils except for one area. Mr. Sondergaard concluded that the proposed remediation plan meets industry standards for this type of activity, and, in the end, it would meet the state requirements for cleanup of the soil and water at the site. The one portion of the project area still needing investigation (called a "data gap" in the remediation documentation) is located at the southwest corner of the project site. Additional evaluation of this area prior to any development, as recommended by Mr. So t S to ard, will a required as an additional SEPA mitigation measure. Mr. Sondergaard's other recommendations, listed in his written report, F7, will also be added to the SEPA mitigation measures. The other issues raised in the SEPA appeal are not compelling. The self-interest of the applicant in preparing its own remediation plan is not a concern for two reasons: (1) the applicant can incur substantial liability if it fails to properly clean up the site; and more importantly, (2) the Process IV Decision -- 5 applicant's actions will be subject to third party review. This third party review will be more intense than any kind of oversight the appellants could hope to get from DOE, which is very rd, but likely none. DOE may have some involvement in dealing wi th hazardous contaminated to trigger any as testified by Mr. Morin, the subject property is waste at Hanfo not Yletter from DOE DOE oversight prior to the issuance of a No Further Action the repmed at on satisfies DOE concluding that the remediation is complete and, apparently, standards). Even if DOE did exercise some oversight authoer DOE to do it. r over this he e of of remediation, n, t to hearing examiner has n efforts t rity ope ruade them to get involved. contact DOE themselves For the reasons stated above, it is determined that the impacts.posed Thehind partyi� view replan qulired by the not create any probable significant adverse environmental imp City provides strong assurance that the project site will be remediated accordinggis s oae applicable state regulations. The appellants have provided ent information to vidence to the contrary. it the environmental that the SEPA responsible official had sufficient impacts of the proposal for purposes of issuing the MDNSS• responsiblea59offi ial Pto hase I review e document., FW6, provided enough information for the Sreview. that compliance with state remediation standards could be assured by third party The desire of the appellants to have access to clean up Conclusions of Law belowaentation is aalSEPA beyond the scope of the SEPA appeal. As outlined in the C appeal is based upon whether the SEPA responsible official ro osal creates probable,uate orsignificant, the environmental impacts of a proposal and whether to evaluate the proposalts is not adverse environmental impacts. The public availability e awi are hawe�e�nhat any relevant to either of these legal issues. The appellants should remediation documents filed with the City are subject toot publicse statutes, rider the has a dutgt to State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCNV. Under promptly respond to any requests for public documents within its possession, unless those documents are statutorily exempt from disclosure. The appidocuts are aments are fiencouraged to with the see if the city would be willing to notify them of when new remediation. City. Such notification is not required by state law and would depend upon whether the City has the resources to provide this type of notice as a policy matter. atibilitY. In Page 1 of their Process III appeal, the appellants assert that the bulk 5 , Come and scale of the proposal is not compatible with their single-family neig neighborhoomitigated, tigate , the proposal is not significantly incompatible with the adjoining Aesthetics is the greatest issue of concern in regards to co psin atibility. The proposed three to six ch greater scale then theg le -family homes weed by the story buildings are clearly at a mu appellants. However, several regulatory measures and catedtfrom these relatively large that pp adjoining neighborhood is adequately screened and separ buildings. Retention of the 16-25 foot high Laurel vegetative bbu if r� aeating a detailed complete ns 1 Fact No. 7 and Conclusion of Law No. 7, should go a long y barrier to the proposed buildings, at least to the homes im tattons on bmeditely adjoining the uiidi g height in the boundary of the property. The City Council has also placed CC-F district next to residential zones. Nate S of FWRC 19.230.060 provides that structures on Process IV Decision -- 6 property that adjoins a residential zone shall be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the property line; the height of structures shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation when located between 20 ft. and 40 ft. from the adjacent residentially zoned property line; and shall not exceed 40 ft. above average building elevation when located between 40 ft. and 100 ft. from the property line. These height restrictions are a legislative determination of acceptable building heights next to residential zones. The proposal complies with these height limits. There is nothing in the record that suggests anything unusual about the subject application that merits additional protection from aesthetic impacts. The applicants also assert that the waiver of frontage, setback and landscaping requirements creates design incompatibilities by bringing buildings closer to the property line and facilitating increases in density. There is nothing in the record that suggests any adverse aesthetic or other impacts associated with the authorized modifications. As the applicants have not pursued their arguments on these issues and there is no evidence supporting their position, the findings and conclusions of the staff report on the frontage waiver Section IV(1)(b)(buffer) and Section IV(2)(e) are adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. Regarding the 3.75 reduction in perimeter landscaping on the north side of the property, the conditions of approval added by this appeal decision will require retention of the Laurel trees, which will likely provide an impenetrable visual barrier. The 3.75 buffer reduction should not reduce the effectiveness of this barrier. As to other compatibility issues, the appellants have raised every adverse impact that reasonably could be associated with compatibility for this project, i.e. aesthetics (the adequacy of the buffer), traffic and parking. As determined in other Findings of Fact herein, the proposal is adequately mitigated for all of these impacts. Nothing in the record suggests that the project would create any significantly adverse amount of noise, odor or vibration. Consequently, it must be determined that the proposal does not create any significant adverse compatibility issues. 6. Project Design. At page 1 and pages 5-6 of their Process III appeal, the appellants assert the project design is not consistent with comprehensive plan policies or standards. It is determined that no design standards or comprehensive plan policies are violated by the proposal. The appellants have not cited to any City design standard or comprehensive plan design policy that is violated by the proposal and no such violation is evident from the record. Item No. 6 of the Process III decision, Ex. FW9, provides detailed findings on how applicable design standards have been met by the proposal. The appellants have not contested any of these findings. 7. Northern Vegetative Buffer. Page 2 of the Process III appeal asserts that removal of the existing vegetation along the northern perimeter is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. This portion of the appeal is sustained and retention of the Laurel trees will be required as a condition of approval. Retention of the northern vegetative buffer is the most significant issue of this application. The appellants raise valid concerns on the compatibility of the proposed high density development with their single-family neighborhood. Complete retention of the vegetative buffer would have 2 The height of the buildings and deviations to setbacks and the like are not considered design issues and are handled separately under the preceding Finding of Fact as a compatibility issue. 11 Process IV Decision -- 7 gone a long way in buffering and mitigating against the compatibility issues. It is unfortunate that the applicant has not made a greater effort to retain this buffer. As noted in the arborists report prepared by the applicant, Ex. H4, there are a large number of Laurel "shrubs" 16 to 32 feet tall located at the northern 20 feet of the subject property that provide a complete screen up to 24 and 32 feet high in some places. Ex. H4, p. 5. According to the report, in places the foliage is so dense it obscures all vision through it and the Laurel provides "an impenetrable screen" to the neighborhood to the north. The foliage is located between a 6-foot tall chain link fence and the north property line. The chain link fence runs parallel to and 20 feet south of the north property line. The applicant prepared an arborist report that assessed the health of 263 trees within the vegetative buffer. See Ex. H4. The report concluded that 23 of the trees were dead, dying or in poor condition and need to be removed for safety. The report did not identify why the 26 trees were selected for evaluation and it is unclear if other trees are also present in the vegetative buffer. The applicants had a bonsai artist inspect a portion of the vegetative buffer from the back yards of three residences abutting the north property line of the proposal. The bonsai artist is not an arborist, but he does have 40 years of experience in working with a wide range of tree species, excluding large tree specimens, and evaluating insect and disease problems for trees. The bonsai artist essentially found some trees to be healthy and others not to be healthy. Ex. A3. The applicant's arborist was more qualified to do a tree assessment and his survey of the vegetated area was more comprehensive than that of the bonsai artist. For these reasons, the arborist's conclusions on the health of the trees and their need for removal is the most compelling and they are taken as verities. Despite the greater reliance on the findings of the applicant's arborist, it should be noted that there's nothing in the record to suggest that the arborist and bonsai artist actually disagree on the health of any particular tree. The bonsai artist's main comments about healthy trees were focused upon "Cherry Laurel". The Laurel "trees" are characterized as "shrubs" in the arborist report. Although this is a curious designation for plants that the arborist noted were as high as 32 feet, the Laurel "trees" or "shrubs" were not included in the 26 trees that the arborist evaluated for health. In point of fact the applicant's arborist found the "English Laurel" to be in good to very good condition. The arborist comments about the Laurel plants creating an "impenetrable" visual barrier with the majority of the plants being 16 to 25 feet tall establishes the significance of these Laurel plants as a visual buffer to the applicant's multistory buildings to the south. That 16 to 25 foot impenetrable visual barrier (at some points reaching 32 feet in height) is located just 100 feet from the residences to the north of the property line, See Ex. FW11 Such a high visual barrier should serve to block most of the view of the applicant's buildings from adjoining residences. Retention of the Laurel trees would be far superior to the six foot fence and six foot trees proposed by the applicant for the buffer area. At least for the amount of time it would take for the applicant's proposed trees to form a 16 to 25 foot "impenetrable" barrier, retention of the s The 26 trees evaluated in the arborist report do not include any of the Laurel trees of the site — the arborist designated the Laurels as shrubs rather than trees. Process IV Decision -- 8 Laurel trees would serve as a far more effective visual barrier to the multi -story buildings proposed by the applicant. 8. Location of Trees. At p. 2 of the Process III appeal the appellants assert that some of the trees proposed to be removed are located on their property. During the hearing the appellants also referenced a "Sewer Plan and Profile", Ex. A15, that they assert establishes that a sewer easement is located within the tree removal area along the northern perimeter. The ALTA property survey, Ex. H2 and title report, Ex. FW6, do not suggest that the trees that will be removed will be taken from any adjoining property. The sewer easement on the "Sewer Plan" submitted by the appellants appears to be located on the adjoining residential property and not on the project site. None of the evidence in the record suggests that there will be any taking of trees off of private property or that the proposed tree removal will occur within a sewer easement. 9. Pa_ irk' . In pages 3-4 of the Process III appeal, the appellants contest reductions in parking standards authorized by the City. The city and applicant have presented expert testimony that establishes that the number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant and authorized by the City is sufficient to meet the parking demand created by the proposal. The applicant's presented no expert testimony or compelling evidence to contest the findings of the applicant and city. The amount of proposed parking is found to be adequate to meet the parking demand of the proposal. Without the application of any waivers or reductions, City code would require 5864 stalls. The applicant requested a reduction to 503 spaces. Under the currently proposed 300 dwelling units and 18,4405 square feet or retail commercial space, the City of Federal Way Director of the Department of Community Development ("Director"), authorized a reduction to 517 parking spaces. See Ex. H14. This reduction was authorized by the reduction of parking spaces for the proposal's multi -family use from the required 1.7 per dwelling unit to 1.51 per dwelling unit. For the proposal's ground floor commercial uses, the Director allowed the reduction from the required 1 space per 300sf of gross floor area to 1 space per 316sf of gross floor area. See Ex. H14. As with most other impacts assessed for this project, the adequacy of mitigation is set by City Code. For parking, the City Council has authorized a site specific analysis of parking impacts under Use Zone Chart Special Regulation #17, which authorizes reductions in parking requirements pursuant to a parking study that documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses. For this application the applicant prepared a parking study showing the parking demand created by nine comparable multi -family sites in King County and Snohomish County. The applicant also applied parking generation data from the 4`h Edition of Parking Generation, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE"). The average parking demand established from both the ITE manual and the comparable parking site study was well below the 503 parking stalls proposed by the applicant. See Ex. FW10. However, the City rejected the applicant's reliance upon average numbers and instead required parking 4 This figure is taken from the applicant's parking study, Ex. FW 10. As noted in the next footnote, the applicant's parking study may have been based upon a greater number of dwelling units than was finally approved by the City. 5 This figure was taken from the applicant's parking study. Ex. FW10. Since the parking plan notes that the proposal involves 308 dwelling units and only 300 dwelling units were authorized in the final Process III approval, it is unclear if the amount of commercial space referenced in the report is what was finally approved. Process IV Decision -- 9 demand to be based upon the much more conservative 85th percentile of parking demand. This is why the applicant's request for 503 spaces was denied and the reduction was only authorized to 517 spaces. The City's conservative approach was further augmented by the applicant's transportation demand management plan, which would reduce reliance upon single -occupant vehicle use by the addition of on -site design features (such as showers for bicycle commuters), an on -site trip reduction coordinator for vanpooling/carpooling services, reduced transit passes for residents, and an on -site commuter center. The only evidence on parking demand presented by the applicants to contest the parking demand data presented in the applicant's parking study is an assertion made during the hearing that parking demand is 1.82 stalls per apartment unit. This figure was based upon census data. The appellants presented no expert evaluation or justification as to why this 1.82 figure is the most appropriate for the parking demand evaluation of the proposal. The appellants did not dispute that the comparable sites used for the applicant's parking studies were suitable for the project site. As detailed in the applicant's parking study, given that the comparable sites were located in similar suburban areas and that the multifamily buildings had similar numbers of bedrooms per dwelling units, it is determined that the applicant did use appropriate comparable sites and these sites do serve as the basis for accurate and compelling parking demand estimates for the proposal. The applicants also contested some facets of the demand management plan proposed by the applicant. Even if the beneficial impacts of the demand management plan are discounted in their entirety, the applicant's studies still establish that the number of parking stalls authorized by the City is sufficient to meet parking demand. Given the thorough and credible parking analysis prepared by the applicant and the expert and conservative review conducted by the City's traffic engineers, it is determined that the 1.51 parking spaces/dwelling unit and one parking space/316 square feet of retail space authorized by the Director is sufficient to accommodate the parking demand created by the proposal. Associated with the parking issue is the appellant's contention that the inadequate parking will cause persons to park within their neighborhood on 317`h Ave. Given that the applicant has established that they are phroviding sufficient parking to meet demand, it is determined that parking overflow onto 317t will likely not occur. 10. Hazardous Waste Dust Control. At page 4 of their Process III appeal the appellants raise concerns about hazardous waste dust control. The City's third party hazardous waste reviewer, Jon Sondergaard, testified that the applicant's health and safety plan will include provisions to provide for adequate dust control. The conditions of approval will specifically require that the applicant prepare a dust control plan, subject to third party review, that protects neighboring properties from contaminated dust. As conditioned, it is determined that the proposal will not generate any contaminated dust that could be harmful to adjoining property owners. 11. Pedestrian Facilities. The appellants assert that the walking conditions along 320th street are dangerous and therefore the proposal is not consistent with public health, safety and welfare. As noted in the staff report, existing conditions along the frontage on South 3201h Street include vertical curb and gutter, a 6' planter strip, and a 5' sidewalk with decorative streetlights. The sidewalk and planter strip provide pedestrians with approximately 11 feet of buffer from motor vehicles travelling on South 3201h Street. A pedestrian connection to 13th street from the project site, as recommended by the Federal Way School District, will enable children walking to and Process IV Decision -- 10 from school to avoid walking along South 3201h Street. As noted in the school access analysis prepared by the applicant, Ex. FW12, the route to neighboring schools through the 131h Street connection does not have sidewalks and crosswalks in all necessary areas, but the route does take students through a quiet residential neighborhood subject to local access road residential speed limits. Given these factors, there are no pedestrian hazards created by the project that rise to the level of a public safety concern. 12. Adequacy of Roads. At page 5 of their Process III appeal the appellants contend that the streets for the proposal are not adequate because the Ring Road depicted in the City's Comprehensive Plan should be completed prior to approval of the proposal. It is concluded that the surrounding road system is consistent with the City adopted level of service ("LOS") standards and is therefore adequate. The legislative standard for road adequacy is LOS. The City has determined that the proposal will not violate the City's adopted LOS standard of E (adopted in Comprehensive Plan Policy TP 16) and has issued a determination to that effect. See Ex. FW13. The appellants do not dispute this finding and offer no evidence to the contrary. 13. Access. The appellants contend that vehicular access to the proposal is not adequate. Access is determined to be adequate as it meets City design and LOS standards. As noted in the staff report, the project will have two access points onto South 3201h Street. Access to the subject property is via the extension of 11 th Place South from the South 320th Street intersection, which staff have determined will operate at LOS C with VIC of 0.83; and a private right -in and right - out driveway east of IIth Place South which staff have determined will operate at LOS C. As previously noted, the City's adopted LOS is E. See Comprehensive Plan Policy TP16. The proposed two access points on South 3201h Street meet FWRC 19.135.280 requirements for separation of intersections and driveways. The appellants did not identify any adopted City intersection requirements that are violated by the proposal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: FWRC 19.65.120(3) provides that appeals of Process III decisions are processed as Process IV actions. FWRC 14.10.060(1) provides that appeals of SEPA threshold determinations shall be processed as Process IV actions. Chapter 19.70 FWRC provides that the hearing examiner shall hold hearings and issue final decisions on Process IV appeals. SEPA APPEAL 2. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each ground for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. Process IV Decision -- 11 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). In addition, FWRC 19.70.120 provides that the applicant has the burden of proof and must establish its factual assertions by a preponderance of evidence. FWRC 19.70.120 also requires that the hearing examiner shall give great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own properly promulgated regulations, matters within its expertise, and procedural determinations. B. Adequacy of Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 595 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, III Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a Process IV Decision -- 12 prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 3. MDNS Sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposed hazardous waste remediation will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts and the SEPA responsible official had information that was reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of the proposal. Both standards for a SEPA appeal have been met, so issuance of the MDNS is sustained. PROCESS III APPEAL 4. Review Criteria. Most of the review criteria that apply to a SEPA appeal also apply to a Process III appeal. FWRC 19.70.120 provides that the applicant has the burden of proof and must establish its factual assertions by a preponderance of evidence. FWRC 19.70.120 also requires that the hearing examiner shall give great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own properly promulgated regulations, matters within its expertise, and prc,cedural determinations. The criteria for Process III approval are governed by FWRC 19.65.100(2). Those criteria are quoted below in italics and the appeal issues pertinent to each criterion are addressed in corresponding Conclusions of Law. FWRC 19.65.100(2): Decisional criteria. The director shall use the criteria listed in this subsection and the provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application. (a) The director may approve the [Process III] application only if 0) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 5. Cam atibili The bulk and scale of the proposed development does not creat e an incompatibility with the adjoining single-family neighborhood that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. At the hearing Laura Johnson presented a well -researched list of comprehensive plan policies and an overview of City incorporation history showing that Federal Way makes the preservation of neighborhoods a priority. All of her points were accurate. Unfortunately for the appellants the legally determinative point to be made is that the City Council adopted the CC-F designation for the property in the Comprehensive Plan Designations map, Map II-1. The map designation authorizes the uses of the CC-F zone, including those proposed by the applicant. RCW 36.70B.030(2) dictates that existing regulations are determinative on the issue of type of land use, density and adequacy of public services. The zoning and underlying comprehensive plan CC-F designation authorizes "types of land use" that include those proposed by the applicant. RCW 36.70B.030(3) prohibits those policy choices from being reconsidered during permit review. A basic rule of statutory construction also comes into play. When there is a conflict between statutes of general applicability and statutes that apply more specifically, the specific statute applies. Walker V. Wenatchee Valley Truck and Auto Outlet, Inc., 155 Wn. App. 199 (2010). Ms. Johnson cited numerous comprehensive plan policies that apply to residential neighborhoods in general_ These provisions arguably conflict with the City Council's determination that CC-F uses are authorized at Process IV Decision -- 13 the proposed location. Since the Council's designation applies generallyspecifically ped apply too the applicant's s property, that designation supersedes any conflicting p Given the limitations outlined above, it is clear that whether multi -story mixed use issue buildings that can re appropriate for the project site cannot be considered. The only compatibility considered during project review is whether the ads'erse f Fact NotsS,aused there by nabuildings have been significant ad verse adequately mitigated. As determined in Finding v compatibility impacts created by the proposal as conditioned. 6. Proiect Des�n• As determined in Finding of Fact with the comigrehenof sive planhe s The apal 1plicanrs features, building materials and the like) is consistent p cite general comprehensive plan policies about preservation veeplanor the City'sand tdevelopment rection of egulations neighborhoods, but there is nothing in the comprehensive that dictate any particular design beyond those evaluated b specific toff in toned roc ss III deci objectively hen dealing with subjective issues such as project design, only administered can be legally enforced. See Anderson anthat has b v. Isaquah, � n alWn.a ed, o4praje t)des gn applicants have cited no specif c design policy or sdard cannot be addressed. 7. Northern V e etative Suffer. The appellants assert that mr �ons thatvegetative ncourage protection northern boundary of the property violates comprehensi e plan p�i and preservation of the City's single-family neighborhoods. argument trees of thesustained. vegetat�e buffer e City's single-family comprehensive plan policies do dictate that the Laurel should be retained in order to mitigate against the incompatibilities of the proposed multi -story buildings. The authority to impose a Laurel tree retention requirement cfuth FWWRC autcase or zes the is a difficult imi positional of issue. the First, it must be determined whether any part condition. Second., it must be determined if addressing tree retention is precluded by standards that already regulate tree retention and buffering. The authority for imposing the condition can be found in FWRC ondit n9.6S .1`00(3),reasonablyhich necessary lto authorizes the director in Process III review to imp eliminate or minipnize any undesirable effects ofgraning the not aesthetically compatible with ned in Finding i i g of Fact No. 7, the construction of multi -story buildings family neighborhoods — an undesirable effect of granting the application. The retention of the Laurel buffer provides a visually impenetrable buffer that mitigates against this incompatibility. Imposition of the retention requirement is also necessary for a finding ofacompw ice t the es revsew thaa specifically FWRC 19.65.100(2)( )(i), requires criteria for Process III applications, sp Y Process III proposal must be consistent with the Federal ln rdComprehensive �� mrahntarri theleharac erlof existing res that the City's land use regulations be strictly enforced single family neighborhoods. LUP 15 requires the protection an of sitdential e character areas that impacts o adjacent non-residential uses. LUP20 requires the preservation residential development (including tree retention) Authorizing �e removal gues such as clustering, of the Laurel vegetation planned unit developments and lot size averaging would be inconsistent with all of these comprehensive plan policies since it would replace a 16-25 Process IV Decision -- 14 foot impenetrable visual barrier to buildings three to six stories in height with a visual barrier that initially will only be six feet in height. The Laurel trees are necessary for the protection of the residential character of the adjoining neighborhood. The Laurel trees are necessary to protect the adjoining neighborhood from the visual impacts of the comparably tall buildings proposed by the applicant. Retention of the Laurel trees would also provide a green belt of existing mature vegetation that would enhance both the proposal and the adjoining neighborhood. The replacement of the Laurel trees with Type I landscaping would not effectively achieve any of the objectives promoted by LUP 14, 15 or 20. The applicant and City argue that retention of the Laurel trees cannot be required because tree retention and buffering is already extensively addressed in other City regulations. Especially given the subjective nature of assessing the adequacy of visual buffering, existing regulations would serve as a determinative standard for buffer adequacy if those regulations were intended to cover the situation at hand . However, the City's perimeter landscaping and tree retention standards were likely not intended to supplant the preservation of a mature vegetative buffer composed of Laurel trees 16 to 25 feet high. The applicable perimeter landscaping standard at issue is FWRC 19.125.060(7), which requires a 15 foot Type I landscaping along City Center development property lines that abut adjoining residentially zoned property. That perimeter landscaping requirement does not require the planting of any vegetation reaching the heights of the existing Laurel trees. Given the strong comprehensive plan policies encouraging the protection and preservation of residential character, it is fairly clear that the City Council would have required landscaping involving fully mature trees to buffer against multi -story mixed use structures if it were reasonable to do so. However that type of landscaping cannot be planted at a reasonable price. In this situation the trees are already there and they can be reasonably required to be retained. The existence of a tall, existing vegetative buffer was most likely not considered by the Council when it adopted its perimeter landscaping standards. The natural vegetative buffer of the subject property presents a unique and unanticipated opportunity for preservation of residential character that the regulations were not designed to address. Similar reasoning attaches to the applicability of the City's tree retention standards. FWRC 19.120.030(14) provides that tree removal in the CC-F zone is exempt from the tree retention requirements of Chapter 19.120 FWRC. One of the purposes of these tree retention requirements is to provide visual screening. See FWRC 19.120.010(4)(g). However, as reasoned above for landscape perimeter requirements, the Council likely did not intend tree retention requirements and exemptions to prevent taking advantage of well -developed vegetative buffers that already exist. It is concluded that the FWRC 19.120.030(14) tree retention exemption for CC-F properties does not preclude the City from requiring the preservation of an already existing vegetative buffer that serves to protect neighborhood character as encouraged by applicable comprehensive plan policies and, by extension, as required by extension the Process III review criteria. Given the conclusion that the Laurel should be preserved, an associated issue is how much of the Laurel should be preserved. The applicant's arborist report suggests that the vegetative buffer is 20 feet wide. It is somewhat unclear whether the entire 20 feet is necessary for the Laurels to continue to serve as an impenetrable visual buffer. However, the arborist report assessed the Laurels from the standpoint of a proposed vegetative buffer that is 10 to 15 feet wide and concluded that "[t]hey have a high potential to be retained, if their bases are located in the proposed new buffer". Given the Process IV Decision -- 15 arborists repeated references to the effective screening properties of the Laurel, his conclusions that they can be viably retained in 10-15 foot buffers, and the dense canopy created by the Laurels as depicted in the aerial photograph of the arborist report, it appears more likely than not that the buffer widths proposed by the applicant would provide for adequate screening in conjunction with retention of the Laurel. Effort should also be made to minimize disruption of the expectations created by the City's regulatory framework. In most cases the applicant would only be required to install the 15 foot wide Type I landscaping. The developer designed its site plan upon the reasonable expectation that the 15 foot buffer would apply in this case. Given all of the factors in this paragraph, Laurel retention will be limited to the Type 1 buffer width. A final outstanding issue related to retention of the Laurel is whether the 25% reduction in the northeastern buffer width to 11.25 feet is still justified. One compelling factor for staff in approving the reduction was the proposed solid wood fence. Staff reasoned that the fence would allow for immediate full site obstruction as the Type I landscaping grew into place. With retention of the Laurel, the immediate full site obstruction will likely exist with or without the fence. However, if the 25% reduction is not authorized, the applicant cannot be made to install the fence. In addition to providing visual screening, the fence will prevent trespass from inhabitants of the mixed -use development into the adjoining single-family properties. This is likely to be an important benefit to the neighbors. Further, the arborists conclusions related to retention of the Laurel applied for a buffer width ranging from 10 to 15 feet, which encompasses the 25% width reduction. In order to retain the fence, the proposed 11.25 width along the eastern side of the northern vegetative buffer will be authorized. 8. Location of Trees. In their Process III appeal addressing comprehensive plan consistency, the appellants assert that the trees proposed to be removed are located on the adjoining private property. It is not immediately apparent what relevancy this issue has to comprehensive plan consistency. Regardless, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8, the preponderance of evidence in the record establishes that the trees will only be removed from the project site and not from adjoining property. Ultimately, the hearing examiner has no jurisdiction to resolve trespass claims. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). If the appellants wish to pursue a trespass claim they will have to seek redress in superior court. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(ii): It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; 9. Parking. The appellants contend that the proposed number of parking stalls is not consistent with City Code provisions. It is concluded that the 517 parking stalls allowed for the project is authorized by Title 19 FWRC. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 9, the total number of parking stalls required for the proposal by FWRC 19.220.010 and 19.250.040 is 586. However, note 17 to FWRC 19.230.060 authorizes this amount of parking to be reduced pursuant to the terms of FWRC 19.130.020(3). FWRC 19.130.020(3)(d) allows parking to be reduced if a parking study is prepared pursuant to FWRC 19.130.080(2), which in turn provides that a decrease in parking may be authorized "if a thorough parking study documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses." As determined in Finding of Fact No. 9, the applicant has prepared a thorough parking study that justifies the reduction of required parking from 1.7 parking stalls per dwelling unit to 1.51 per Process IV Decision -- 16 dwelling unit and 1 parking space per 300sf of gross retail floor area to 1 space per 316sf of gross retail floor area. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(iii): It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; 10. Remediation Dust Control. The appellants assert that the applicant's remediation activities may generate contaminated dust that would be inconsistent with public health, safety and welfare. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 10, hazardous waste regulations require a dust control plan to be implemented by the applicant. To remove any doubt on the issue, a condition of approval is added to the Process III approval that requires the applicant to implement a dust control plan that assures that no contaminated dust will adversely affect neighboring properties. This plan will be subject to third party review. As conditioned, remediation dust will not create any threat to public health, safety or welfare. 11. Pedestrian Facilities. The appellants assert that the proposal is not consistent with public health, safety and welfare because it will contribute pedestrian traffic to S. 3201h St., which the appellants claim is not safe for pedestrians. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 11, S. 320'h St. is not unsafe for pedestrian traffic. For the reasons outlined in Finding of Fact No. 11, the walking conditions associated with the proposal are consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(iv): The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; 12. Adequacy of Roads. The proposal is served by adequate roads and the completion of the Ring Road is not necessary and cannot be required of the applicant. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 12, the proposal meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As noted previously, RCW 36.70B.030(2) dictates that existing regulations are determinative on the issue of type of land use, density and adequacy of public services. The LOS standard adopted by the City is determinative on the adequacy of roads. The adequacy of the roads cannot be reevaluated during project review. It should also be noted that the proposal includes development of the Ring Road for the portion that crosses the project site, along with a stub at the northeastern end of the project site to allow for future development. The applicant cannot be legally required to make any more improvements for the Ring Road development. The courts consider it to be an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. As testified by the City's traffic engineer during the hearing, the applicant could not be made to complete the Ring Road connections without exceeding its proportionate share funding responsibility. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(v): The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration; and 13. Access. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 13, the street access for the property is adequate. There is also nothing in the record to suggest that there is any more suitable location for access. The Process IV Decision -- 17 appellants assert that more optimal access can be made by completing the Ring Road, but as previously noted, a requirement for the applicant to complete the Ring Road would violate his constitutional rights. Given the constitutional limitations on what can be required of the applicant, the only feasible access points are along 3201h. Given that one of the access points serves as an extension of the Ring Road as well as 1 lch Pl. and the second access point is separated from the Ring Road access point at a distance dictated by City standards, it is concluded that the proposed access is at an optimal location and configuration. (vi) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated. 14. Traffic Safety. The appellants assert at page 6 of their Process III appeal that the traffic safety impacts are not adequately mitigated because no improvements are required to S. 320" St. The appellants have provided no evidence to support this position and no safety hazards are evident in the record. The findings and conclusions of the staff report at Section IV(6) are adopted by this reference on this issue. Given the rigorous review of City staff, the detailed transportation design and performance standards adopted by the City and the absence of any evidence of unsafe conditions, it is concluded that traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation along S. 3201h St. are adequately mitigated. DECISION The MDNS and Process III approval are sustained with the following modifications: 1. The MDNS is modified to add the following mitigation measure: The recommendations of the AESI report, Ex. FW7, shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading permit for remediation. 2. The following conditions are added to the Process III approval: A. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for remediation, the applicant shall prepare a dust control plan that ensures that contaminated dust will not adversely affect neighboring properties during remediation of the property. The plan shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. B. The Laurel trees/shrubs located within the proposed landscape buffer along the northern property line shall be retained. Specific Laurel trees/shrubs may be removed if the applicant demonstrates by an arborist report that site grading will damage the roots of the tree(s) and thereby make the tree(s) unsafe, or if the trees are already unsafe. If root or other damage or disease precludes the retention of a significant number of trees, the applicant shall have an arborist evaluate whether increasing the buffer width from 11.5 feet to 15 feet will enable the retention of a larger number of trees that will in turn create a materially more effective screening for adjoining properties. The landscape buffer will be increased to 15 feet if the arborist concludes that increasing the buffer will be materially beneficial in screening the adjoining Process IV Decision -- 18 L properties. The arborist analysis required by this condition shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. The proposed fence will not be required if the landscaping width is increased to 15 feet. Dated this 151h day of August, 2014. r ��ii �.Olbrechta Hearing Examiner, City of Federal Way APPEAL FWRC 19.70.260 Judicial Review: The final decision of the city in granting or denying an application or an appeal under this chapter [Chapter 19.70 FWRC] may be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW in the King County superior court. The land use petition must be filed within 21 calendar days after the final land use decision of the city... Change in Valuation Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Process IV Decision -- 19 Attachment A Summary of Testimony for High Point Appeals, File No. No. 13-103506-00-SE and 13-103505-UP Note: This summary is provided for the convenience of the reader only. No assurances are made as to accuracy or completeness. No findings of fact or conclusions of law are made in this summary and the summary does not represent any finding on the importance or lack thereof of any testimony presented. Appellant Testimony Leah Boehm -Brady stated that she is fighting to save her neighborhood which is one of the oldest in Federal Way. Image A9, a photo from 1964, shows the area that is under attack by the High Point project. The neighborhood has been in the city 50 years. Neighbors believe that their health is in danger, and the cleanup plan is not adequate. Federal Way became a city because people wanted local control to prevent projects like the one that is the subject of this appeal. The neighborhood has changed little in the last 50 years. This is the first time the Comprehensive Plan has been tested and the first appeal that Federal Way has had in a long time. The proposal should have never been approved as mistakes were made by the planners and directors. Multiple variances have been granted that hurt the neighborhood. The code has been incorrectly interpreted and applied. The apartment complex is being placed next to a small neighborhood and, if not modified, will have buildings twice as high as all neighboring properties. Ms. Boehm -Brady claims it is arbitrary and capricious to place the biggest apartment complex in Federal Way next to her small neighborhood. The city is allowing all trees to be removed as part of the project. Image A18 image is a photo of a neighbor's backyard which shows how strong the Laurel tree barrier is on the property. A plant expert went with her to her neighbors' backyards to look at the Laurel barrier and found it to be strong and healthy. The developer is not planning to save any of this vegetation. The neighborhood was barely notified as only one sign was posted in the whole area. This is a quiet safe neighborhood with no crime, and this proposal will let strangers in to the area with no protection. The traffic impacts are unacceptable, and, most notably, there is only one narrow two-lane road entering the complex. Public health and safety is not protected under these traffic circumstances. The school district wants to open a road into the neighborhood because of this development to allow children to walk the back streets. Image A10 is the map concept plan which shows the property zoned with planned roads. However, the city will not put in these roads. Instead, it will put in a cul-de-sac. On 320th, the public library west of the development has a public walkway which is more appropriate for children to walk. The neighbor would rather have that walkway than a road punched into the neighborhood. This is a contaminated property. She had to dig for the information as it was hard to get a hold of it from the city. The Federal Way review memo, attachment 7, is the first time that the city had an independent analysis of what was happening on this property. This followed the determination of nonsignificance which was dated March 28, 2014. Ms. Boehm -Brady questioned why was this done without an independent assessment. The number one goal is to see that the property is cleaned up based on raw data from the Department of Ecology, rather than a third party department. According to Ms. Boehm -Brady, the appellants paid an independent consultant to review the SEPA determination by the city. This consultant, Greg Wingard, was unable to attend the hearing; however, many of his concerns with the SEPA determination were also found in the Federal Way review letter dated June 12. Mark Brady testified that many of the neighbors first heard of the proposed project from the Federal Way Mirror. Notification is only required for those within 300ft of the project. The only way to learn more about the project was through a public disclosure request. A4 is a memo dated February 28, 2014 that he found through a public disclosure request. The memo notes that part of the subject area is on the Department of Ecology's contaminated sites list and cleanup was mandated. The DOE noted that funding was available and sent the letter (A4) to the Federal Way School District. To the appellants' knowledge, Federal Way and the DOE have never discussed the proposed project. The public disclosure request also revealed over 600 pages concerning the cleanup. The city planning department has no expertise in contamination so the appellants looked elsewhere for knowledge. The appellants hired an environmental analyst, Greg Wingard, to review the site. The appellants contend that the removal of buildings on the site that were used for vehicle maintenance will reveal undiscovered contamination. This contention comes from FW6, the Interim Work Plan. Page 7 of FW6 notes that area 3 is within the footprint of the vehicle maintenance building and represents potential soil and/or groundwater impacts. FW6 says that it is likely leakage has occurred in this area. FW6 adds that the samples taken were inadequate due to the boring techniques being improper because of budget constraints. Pages 24 and 25 of FW6 notes that the site will need periodic monitoring via monitoring wells. The location of the wells and monitoring will be determined after excavation of the subject property based on accessibility, according to FW6. The appellants find this unacceptable. Instead, a public agency needs to decide when cleanup is complete and monitoring is finished. No building should be done on the site until this determination is made. Page 23 of the FW6 notes that if contaminated soil is found during excavation activities, the excavation will be terminated at the area of the contaminated soil and that soil will be left in place. Page 23 also says that the continuation of excavation of this soil will be based upon site specific conditions and personal judgment. This language is far too open-ended and allows a third -party to make decisions for the site. Figure 5 of page 58 of FW6 shows contaminated soil mere feet from neighboring properties. The appellants would like the DOE to have oversight of the project, not a third -party. The DOE's involvement will ensure an open process and prevent issues that arise when the city and applicant plan simply with each other. Public access to information regarding this proposal is vital. The appellants believe the health, safety, and welfare of the public is at risk because of this project because of inadequate cleanup on this project. A third -party cleanup does not provide the responsibility to the community in the same way a public agency does. This project will house hundreds of people and there are hundreds more living by, thus public access to information about their safety is very important. The DOE needs to be reviewing this project in order to ensure openness and transparency. Under questioning by the hearing examiner, in regard to the DOE's adequate resources for thorough oversight of projects, Mr. Brady stated that the appellants would have access to the DOE because it is a public agency to ensure the project was being properly handled. The DOE allows for public participation plans and allows neighbors to ask questions and receive answers. Additionally, the DOE has many resources because it is such a large agency and has an extensive network. Michael Barclay testified that he reviewed FW6 to see where contaminants were found on the subject site and what the level of contamination was in these areas. He searched the internet to find out if the contaminants were carcinogenic. Some of the contaminants have never been studied as to their effects and some have been found to be carcinogenic but the long-term effects are unknown. The contaminants need to be pulled out to avoid long-term health issues for the neighbors. Ms. Boehm -Brady stated the FW7 is a memo dated June 12, 2014 from Associated Earth Sciences. The memo identifies data gaps in the sampling of the area. The memo supports the appellants feeling that there will be newly discovered contaminants found once the buildings on - site are removed. The memo notes that there are "likely" various contaminants, but they do not know what will be found once the buildings are removed. The memo also says there may be more contaminations in the down gradient. The previous sampling was not conclusive because of access issues. On page 4, notes the monitoring plan, which the appellants approve except that they would like DOE oversight added. The appellants worry that developers will begin construction without proper review in order to save money. Under questioning by Mr. Lind, in regard to the condition of the site, Ms. Boehm -Brady noted that she understands the property was contaminated by Federal Way School District. She understands that the School District will not clean up the site and that the site will need a development plan to be cleaned -up. She understands that FW7 is the first stage of the independent third -party review. She agrees with the conclusions of FW7, but objects to the DNS being made before the FW7 report. FW7 shows the first time that the third -party reviewed the site. The appellants believe the third -party review should have been done before the SEPA review. The use of the word "likely" in FW7 prompts the need for public agency review. With public agency review, the appellants will have access to data regarding the cleanup process. Currently, the process is very difficult because of the public disclosure requests and obscure information. Laura Johnson stated that Federal Way incorporated in February, 1990. One of the primary reasons Federal Way incorporated was to ensure local control over how many apartments were constructed in the area. According to the Seattle Times in February, 1990, nearly every candidate called for restrictions on development especially apartment construction. In her reading of the Comprehensive Plan, she understands that the city intends to keep the neighborhoods intact and livable except for the variances which appear to be for the benefit of developers. The Comprehensive Plan calls for standards that maintain neighborhood character and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Federal Way is known for its quality single- family neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan calls for compatibility throughout. The subject site is not single-family, but instead city -frame. A10 shows the city -frame zone area. The Comprehensive Plan calls for the city -frame zone to match character and appearance of surrounding areas. New developments are meant to be compatible with the community's needs and preferences. The appellants believe this project fails to meet this goal. The size and scope of this development does not match the community. The site is only 10 acres, and there are only entrances for vehicles on S 320th. In a revised application from February, the applicants increased their occupancy numbers from 460 to 708 people. The average household size, based on the 2010 census, is 2.67 people. With 300 apartments, that equates to 801 residents which is nearly 100 more than the original project documents. The average number of vehicles is 1.82 which results in 546 vehicles for the proposal. There are not that many parking spaces planned. Cars will not be able to park on surrounding streets so they will potentially go to surrounding neighborhoods. The space needs to be redesigned with more open space, appropriately sized buildings, and more parking. She showed images of the city in 1995 and the potential city for 2025. The future image shows buildings that do not exceed four stories and do not adjoin residential neighborhoods. City frame allows for a variety of uses with mixed -use development that compliments the surrounding areas. The project has 4-6 story buildings which do not compliment the surrounding areas. The removal of mature vegetation and an access way to 317th do not protect the single-family neighborhood. The site plan proposal shows very little open space. She did not see any parks except for a small play structure. There are no other city - frame developed areas abutting single-family neighborhoods without a main road dividing the two areas. There are also no city -frame areas that have such large buildings which abut smaller residential areas. In 1990, the city changed guidelines to create incentives to build desired development types like duplexes and townhouses. The proposal shows access into and out of the development only on 317th. Traffic is difficult in the area now, and this project will exacerbate the problem. The Comprehensive Plan's proposed street network shows a road connecting through the bus barn property and meeting up with the road behind Best Buy, 14th Avenue S. There are no plans for the developer to follow through with this road. The proposed walkway would only encourage on -street parking on 317th. This is in violation of land use plan 33 which calls for on -street parking only where it will not cause public safety concerns. If this road does not get connected to the 14th, there will be approximately 500 more cars on 320th. These traffic impacts are unacceptable. The developer needs to scale back the plan in order to lessen the impacts on 320th. The infrastructure within the city area needs to be made to the best use according to the Comprehensive Plan. By eliminating the road to 14th Avenue, this goal is not to improve livability within the city grid area, the city must complete the street network and existing streets need to be retro-fitted. Rowhouses, townhouses, condos, and mid -rise residential are considered appropriate for the city center, according to the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, these types of development should be appropriate for the city frame area. The Plan notes that the core and frame areas are complimentary. In regard to ensuring diversity, she agrees that mixed - use multi -family development is diverse; however, the city has other options for diversity such as cottages, small shops, or a senior center. There are already lots of apartments in the city. High Point should go in the downtown area, not in the proposed location. The Growth Management Act says the city must consider infrastructure and access to services and low-income jobs when considering affordable housing proposals. Under questioning by Kim Pratt, in regard to the bus barn moving, Ms. Johnson noted that she believes the School District said the congestion on 320th was a factor in its decision to move the bus barn to a new location. It was not the only factor considered. In regard to the pedestrian pathway, it will be connected to the public right-of-way at 13th Avenue S. Ms. Boehm -Brady noted that in Ms. Johnson's testimony the number she use from the 2010 census, if correct, would indicate that all of the city's studies and calculations would be wrong. She believes that the departures were incorrectly applied to the city and the director who made these calculations is no longer with the city. For example, the departures of plantings and change in buffers will limit the enjoyment of outdoor activity in the future. In particular, she is concerned with the departure for parking requirements and stated that reducing the number of parking spaces is a "poor bargain." Marcia Sillicani testified that she lives in the neighborhood and first heard about the development from someone who came onto a property to perform a survey. The neighbors met with representatives from the city to find out about the development and were told about the "high-rise." Originally they planned on putting the dumpsters for the complex directly behind her home. The lack of sidewalks, increased parking, and increased pedestrian traffic are of concern to her. She stated that according to the U.S. government, 70 percent of people who live in Federal Way apartments are below the poverty level. She believes that Federal Way is already taxed in its care for those living below the poverty level and she believes this complex will bring more people in need into the area. She also noted that the new bus barn facility is smaller than the old one, so she questions the statement of need for a larger facility. Under questioning regarding her statement that 70 percent of apartment dwellers in Federal Way live below poverty level, Ms. Johnson noted that she had obtained this information online from the U.S. Department of Census and she believed it was from the latest census in 2010; however, she had no documentation with her to provide as evidence to this statement. With regard to Ms. Johnson's statement that the new bus barn was of smaller size than the old one, she stated that she obtained this information by looking at the new bus site. Caroline Miller testified that she was a 50 year resident of Federal Way and lived in the neighborhood for 39 years. Her back yard is adjacent to the development. With regard to the greenbelt, much of it is natural and the Laurel hedge was planted by the school district to provide a visual barrier. She stated that having greenbelts are an historical and international practice. Their purpose is to provide for wildlife, ecology, and there are animals in their greenbelt. They are requesting that all of the vegetation possible be left alone by the developer. Ms. Boehm -Brady presented Exhibit A3, letter from Mr. Wingard the bonsai expert. She read from the letter, which stated that, although he is not a professional arborist, it is his personal opinion that upon his inspection of some lots and their trees, it appeared to him that most of the Cherry Laurel appeared to be healthy. He believed that removing the mature plantings and replacing them with a fence and smaller plantings would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. If the need for removal is due to a safety hazard, there should be further documentation of the disease and issues with the trees provided by an arborist. In Exhibit A9, the aerial shot demonstrates that this buffer has existed for 50 years. Tracy Fischin spoke regarding exhibit A15, and stated that in this exhibit her house was number seven and she had lived there for 20 years. One of her reasons to move there was that there is an easement or greenbelt behind her house. She would not have moved here if she knew that this privacy would be removed. Her children used to play there and she has seen much wildlife. She is concerned with the wildlife if this greenbelt is removed. She does want not want to look at a 6ft story building in her back year yard and experience the noise of the parking lot. Ms. Boehm -Brady noted that with regard to this Exhibit A15, there is a notation along the easement that says "10 foot permanent easement." Regarding Exhibit A15, under questioning, Ms. Boehm -Brady stated that it was obtained by Ms. Fischin from the sewer department but she did not know if the easement noted was a sewer easement or not. Bruce Snyder testified that he was a resident of the neighborhood for 24 years. He noted that he moved into the neighborhood because it was a quiet neighborhood. He walks the greenbelt and has come across numerous animals including various birds, including protected species, as well as raccoons, possums and coyotes. He does not want these animals run off and believes that the greenbelt should stay. He wants a buffer between his neighborhood and the apartments. He is concerned with the storm water retention ponds that are part of the development plan and believes that they will be polluted. Under questioning by the hearing examiner, Mr. Snyder said he would be testifying regarding the SEPA appeal. Mr. Syder added that, with regard to poisons, he walked through an area of the development and noted a strong smell of gasoline. He believes that the cleanup of the area prior to building could require going to a greater depth than indicated. Jeanne Epp has lived in the neighborhood for 52 years, she and her husband are both teachers in the area. With regard to safety in the neighborhood, she believes the project will compromise safety and privacy in the neighborhood. The apartment will be looking down into the houses and a 6ft fence is not an adequate buffer. There will be full parking lot and overflow parking along public roads. The increased traffic will be detrimental to children walking to school, and she has particular concern regarding Eighth Avenue. She is concerned with the impact to the local elementary school which is already overcrowded. She believes that the city allowed the variances because they affect a smaller, less wealthy neighborhood. Ms. Boehm -Brady noted that with regard to Process III appeal, she wanted to reiterate that they believed that this fence was in an inadequate buffer. This is the only place in the city frame that they are using this 6ft fence where it abuts a single-family neighborhood. She stated that the proposal isn't consistent with public health safety and welfare. Grading and dozing should be modified to be above the regular expectations. They are happy about the two-phase grading proposal. They would like this to be required and not something that can be bargained away. Jack Hunden, under questioning by Ms. Epp, noted that he had built approximately 13 affordable housing developments in the state of Washington, which contain approximately 3000 units and currently house 6000 to 7000 people. With regard to the units in Federal Way, there would be 1300 to 1400 people with approximately 60 percent reserved for residents earning below median area income. Mr. Hunden stated that there would be approximately 700 to 800 people in the proposed development. When asked to extrapolate on the amenities to be provided at High Point he noted that there would be a business and computer center, a basketball court, swimming pool and spa, but did not know offhand what the square footage per person for recreational use would be. Under questioning by Mr. Lind, Mr. Hunden noted that he took pride in his work and that their intention was to provide the best housing possible. He noted that they retain and own all of the projects that they have built themselves. Ms. Boehm -Brady, questioned Mr. Hunden's stated number of residents in the proposed property, citing a web published interview that he gave to the Washington State Housing Finance Commission which indicated that his properties house "larger than typical families." Jennifer Wojciechowski has property which backs to the development. She noted that there are no sidewalks and that children from the new complex will be walking to school on these streets. She would like this safety concern addressed by the city. Under questioning by the hearing examiner. Boehm -Brady said school impacts were not within the appeal documents, but Ms. Wojciechowski was talking about public safety. Applicant Testimony Michael Read stated that he is an engineer with Transportation Engineering Northwest. He is a registered professional civil engineer in Washington and Oregon specializing in traffic analysis, working for both cities and private property owners. He performed a portion of the traffic analysis and performed the review of the analysis for the City of Federal Way. His firm's conclusions were accepted by the city. They analyze the way that the traffic and traffic patterns would connect with adjacent city streets. The access and egress points for the subject property are roadway connections, one is at the 20th Ave. signal the other is along 320th. As part of the project a public roadway would be built through the site, connected to an intersection, and become a public road. They considered additional access points to the development. They do not add additional access unless code requires it or they feel that additional access is warranted. Because there were two access points, the need to add more was not triggered in the study. With regard to a new road connecting to the northeast corner of the site, he noted that there is no need to accommodate additional access. They evaluated the connection of a future public through road as an accommodation of additional build -outs in the zones that are planned for future redevelopment. Their conclusion is that what is currently being proposed is acceptable and sufficient. They also conducted the parking analysis for the proposal and prepared a report that was submitted to the city. The most recent is dated May 14, 2014, Exhibit H9. In this parking analysis they looked at three basic criteria: First, they looked at what is required by code under the city's ordinances, looking at both apartments and the proposed retail space. Second, they looked at methods of estimating what demand would be generated. They utilized a parking generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation based on number of housing units and square feet of commercial developments; these numbers are used by the profession to estimate parking demand. Based on those national published rates, they determined that this was below the proposed on -site parking by approximately 60 parking stalls. Third, they used a number of studies that they have conducted themselves for that particular owner/developer, based on their apartment complexes and similar suburban communities and identified the parking rates and requirements. Those findings were applied to the proposed units for the project. They concluded that the ratio proposed by the developer was more than adequate and there were additional stalls available. They also conducted a safe -walk analysis which is required by the school district. This would determine how they would serve residents who required access to schools in the system. They identified primary and secondary routes to be utilized by students to access the site for students who are too close to be bussed. These identified walking routes where sidewalks and crosswalks were present. He noted that he had not seen the school district plan, but the school district makes a decision based on the report provided. Exhibit H10 is the report that they provided. With regard to safety concerns on 320th, they did not identify any vehicle or safety issues at the 320 intersection. Based on his recollection they did not discount current traffic rates on the site. Under questioning by Ms. Pratt, Mr. Read stated that there would be extension of lanes through the site so there would be separate turn lanes entering the site. In addition there would be modifications that would allow for channeling an approach to these lanes and also additions of sidewalk. Mr. Read noted that census data is typically used for more dense urban environments where there are typically lower vehicle ownership rate. In this case. they did not look at census data for parking rates. They did use data from the Right Size Parking model which is based on numbers from King County. This report utilizes census data in its analysis. Under questioning by Ms. Boehm -Brady, Mr. Read noted that when they determined the potential safe walk routes they identified that there was no need to cross a major intersection until they got to 317th and 81h; a stop control intersection will be required here. They identified 317th and 13th, given the requirement to have a pedestrian connection, as secondary routes. Even though they have no sidewalks there is limited traffic on these streets. With regard to the use of suburban sites as the basis for their data, Mr. Read noted that the suburban definition most accurately fit this area. Mr. Read stated that there is no specific population assumption in this study but that these numbers are inherent in the rates themselves. As an example, he noted that the 476 unit complex of Creston point in a suburban location and King County, this proposal has a similar housing mix and their numbers are all based on the number of unit not based on population. To clarify, Mr. Read stated that he did not make any statement regarding signage about the presence of children. Their role is to identify walking routes and the school district makes other determinations. He noted that a sign would not impact traffic. Only a school zone would impact traffic in an area like that. He stated that given the presence of the intersection and a trip distribution standpoint they did not note significant level of distribution that would use 8 h street. Eight is not a direct route and since most trip numbers predict a different pattern of use, they do not see a huge demand. Thomas Morin, President and principal geologist of Environmental Partners in Issaquah, Washington stated that his firm is a consulting firm specializing in investigation and remediation of development properties, working largely for private companies. They work on both large and small projects and throughout the 50 states and Canada. Environmental Partners was retained by the applicant prior to them purchasing the property to learn whether the property was contaminated or likely to be contaminated. After this determination, they moved to determine to the level of contamination and how the contamination may be removed are mediated. It is in the purchasers' and the lenders' interest to have that property be as clean as possible. There is no interest for a property owner or developer in utilizing of property that is not clean. He identifies this property as a classic "brown field." It is a property where the owner had the resources to have the property cleaned up. It is typical in the State of Washington for unused undeveloped properties to remain unclean until they are developed. States and localities do not have the resources and the funding to clean up all contaminated properties. In this case the interested buyer took on the responsibility of the owner with regard to cleaning contamination. For this project Environmental Partners provided a plan for cleanup prior to the owner purchasing the property. They provided an evaluation (Phase 1), August 15 2013, Exhibit H 18, and subsequently an interim action work plan (Phase 2), October 21, 2013, Exhibit H19. The sequence of events for determining contamination is locating the specific areas where the contamination exists. They go to the areas of known contamination and excavate from the center outward both laterally and vertically, taking out samples submitting them to state certified labs. The remediation for this site needs to reach what is known as Method A, so that it can be utilized for unrestricted land -use, a level determined by the state. They will be removing groundwater to remove dissolved contaminants and this groundwater will be treated per state requirements. Contaminated soil will go to one or two sites that are allowed to receive this type of contaminated material. After they finish the excavation they will insert sample wells so they can continuously demonstrate that contamination is not present. They will also be able to treat residual contamination. This plan is similar to what they have done for similar contaminated properties. AESI is the city's independent consultant who will be the city's technical consultant in reviewing the work done by Environmental Planners. The report will then be provided to the Department of Ecology. The estimated cost is between $600,000 and $700,000 based on preliminary findings. In response to questioning by the hearing examiner, Mr. Morin noted that no DOE review is required during the interim phases. The property will be enrolled in the DOE voluntary cleanup program that allows fee for service review on environmental documents by DOE. This voluntary cleanup plan is relatively slow and timely comments are not typically provided. The applicants want a no further action ("NFA") determination. They hope that the city's review by AESI will provide assurance that their work is up to standard and they will eventually receive the DOE approval. In order to get NFA they need to demonstrate compliance with cleanup levels in all areas of soil and water. All documents and data will be available in the public record. With regard to impervious surfaces, there is a possibility that some unknown or unforeseen contamination may be discovered during site work. The owner is required to comply with the cleanup requirements. They are not collecting soil samples during construction because there is no need. If something unusual is found during construction there is a requirement that they inform the environmental group for testing and disposal. When questioned by Ms. Pratt regarding public participation process, Mr. Morin noted that all DOE data is accessible to the public so interested citizens can access the files at any time. When questioned by Mr. Brady, Mr. Morin noted that his plan is as good as or better than anything that DOE would require. They have a good relationship and reputation with DOE. Mr. Morin noted that the property is a classic brownfield. It is a contaminated property for which the owner had no resources to clean it up. Absent a transaction and a cleanup driven by the free market the property would not have been cleaned up. In Washington State the vast majority of contaminated property are remediated in this manner. The Department of Ecology does not have the resources and the funding to directly cleanup property and they barely have funding to clean up the most contaminated property. And they never do it directly themselves, they have property owners enter into specific legal requirements which are termed `agreed orders,' `consent decree orders' or `enforcing orders.' This property is like 95% of the properties in the state of Washington where an interested buyer takes on the environmental liability of the seller, in this case the Federal Way School District. Mr. Hunden needed to know how much it would take to get this done and needed very thorough due diligence in advance of that. Once due diligence was completed Mr. Morin's firm had to prepare a plan on how to clean it up in order to acquire an NFA. Mr. Morin noted that there's a standard called ASTM 81567-13. That's them standard by which the initial investigation of a property is performed to determine whether it is or is not likely to contain recognized environmental issues. Every property that is loaned on gets an ASTM standard in Phase 1. Mr. Morin stated his firm did that and determined that additional investigation was needed, the Phase 2 environmental assessment. There was some existing data prior to his work indicating where that contamination was or where it was suspected to be. He did some additional work on the front end in the first part of Phase 2 to try to identify additional areas of the property where contamination could potentially be based on historical site issue usage and investigative notes. And then he further investigated the areas where prior contamination was done to be located." Mr. Morin testified that what the plan basically does is that after the buildings are scrubbed for the site, his firm will go in to areas of known contamination and work from the center outward and the excavations will continue laterally and vertically. As that progresses his firm will collect samples along the edges of that contamination at intervals as indicated in the plan. Those samples are submitted to a state certified laboratory and those results are compared to the cleanup levels that apply to this site. The cleanup levels being used for this site are what's called MTCA Method A - Model Toxic Control Act, Method A for unrestricted land -use. This is land - use that is suitable for residential exposure, juvenile use. It assumes children are playing on the site, eating 100 g of soil a day, inhaling the vapors, all those sorts of things. That is a level that is set by Washington State and is very conservative estimation. Mr. Marin noted that the clean-up plan for the site similar to something that he has implemented on many other project. The clean-up levels to be used are the most restricted clean-up levels available in the State of Washington, the MTCA Method A levels for soil and groundwater. Regarding public participation, Mr. Marin explained that sort of plan is reserved for sites that are under an `agreed order' or a `consent decree' so at certain key points in those kinds of site — that's the kind of site where the state has looked at the contamination; they've done something called a "site hazard assessment" and they've ranked the site based on how contaminated it is. And if its highly contaminated — there's a system called the Washington ranking method and they rank sites from 1 to 5. And if your site is ranked 1 based on all these considerations and it's in the worst of the worst sites in Washington. Ecology currently has a huge stack of 1 sites and maybe half of those sites actually get public resources where they move that site into `agreed order. If you're in an `agreed order' site (ranked 1), during certain points in that agreed order process there is a requirement for public comment on certain documents and if Ecology gets ten comments on one of those public documents then they have a public meeting and then they have to address those comments. The project site is not ranked a 1 and would probably qualify as a 3, 4 or 5. Mr. Morin stated that in his experience, there is not a way to get the DOE involved to a higher level. Under cross-examination, Mr. Morin stated that the testing of soil around and under impervious areas will be tested based on their identification as being in contaminated areas and there is data that will point to these areas. With regard to containing contaminants, there are requirements for dust control, and there are health and safety plans in place regarding air exposure for on -site workers. He does not anticipate unsafe exposure for surrounding areas. While a memo from AESI referenced by Ms. Boehm -Brady suggests a need for further documentation of the SW area, Mr. Morin stated that he believed that Environmental Partners have adequately documented the contamination of the SW area. Regarding the process of determining compliance to receive NFA, Mr. Morin explained that the source of groundwater contamination will be removed first, and there will be low residual that may comply to clean up level. They will then install infiltration galleries and begin construction. Monitor wells will be installed and monitored for four quarters. If data indicates continued contamination, they will continue remediation. With regard to beginning construction prior to receiving an NFA, there is no regulatory pre -construction requirement for an NFA. There are many options for protecting the occupants of a building. The soil will have been cleaned to a very deep depth underneath the buildings. There is no drinking of the groundwater. It is safe to build prior to receiving the NFA. With regard to the example of the Laurel Lakes development, where a cleanup was unsuccessful and the buildings were contaminated, Mr. Morin stated that the initial cleanup was not consistent with current laws of Washington, and contamination was found at the sale of the building under current laws. Current clean up levels are highly protective. He noted that having the NFA does not lower the risk; it is a piece of paper. Risk is lowered by performing the remediation. The NFA is a paper that certifies that what you did was okay. Environmental Partners is saying this is our plan to remediate, and AESI is saying that they believe that this plan will likely lead to an NFA. In response to Ms. Boehm-Brady's statement of concern with the variety of contaminants and carcinogens on the property, Mr. Morin stated that the only one known as a proven human carcinogen is benzene. There are different cleanup levels for different contaminants. He is not saying there is no risk. With the absence of this developer this site will not be cleaned up. In response to the hearing examiner's question regarding the safety of those who live in the area, Mr. Morin stated that currently they are not acutely exposed to this contamination, and it is not going anywhere. He also commented that there is not enough groundwater to render it a potable source. When questioned by Ms. Boehm -Brady regarding independent remedial action financing by the DOE, he stated that this would go through the school district and he cannot speak for them or to what they may have done. He noted that typically it is necessary to apply for grants and compete with sites that are highly contaminated. City Testimony Matt Herrera, city planner and community development, stated that he acted as project manager for the DNS and application processes. The following items were not part of the appeal that were brought up by the appellant in this hearing: First, the inadequacy of public notice. This was provided by mail to all properties within 300ft of the subject property. There was a publish notice in the Federal Way Mirror and signs are posted in the neighborhood. When the determination of nonsignificance was issued another notice was issued in the same way. An optional meeting was held at the request of the developer where city staff were available to respond to questions. The neighborhood meeting was held in January 2014 at the local elementary school. Both the developer and city staff were available. Both these meetings were voluntary but not required by code. Second, with regard to the adequacy of open space, this was not part of appeal. Open space on the property does meet code, which is 100 ft.2 of usable space per dwelling unit. This equals 30,000 ft.z of usable open space and the applicant has provided over 30,000 ft.'. Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, Mr. Herrera responded that the city staff looked at the neighboring plat and at the topographic and boundary surveys provided by the applicant and found no easement on the subject property that benefited the neighbors to the north. The 20ft easement that was shown on the survey by the appellants today and the 1 Oft permanent easement appear to Mr. Herrera that they are on a neighbor's property and not the subject property. Under questioning by Ms. Platt, Mr. Herrera stated that AESI is the city's contracted independent reviewer for this project. They do not have on -staff people with this type of expertise as other cities might so they contract out. They require the developer to pay for these third party independent reviewers, but they act as an extension of city staff. The document could not be provided prior to the DNS because it was a requirement of the DNS. The DNS was needed to require this. Cleanup levels to method A are required and under tank storage cleanup is required before the city would sign off on any other building or grading permits. Regarding discussion of plan policies, midrise buildings are considered between three and seven or eight stories, and this is what the applicant has proposed, according to Mr. Herrera. This meets the zoning code as part of the city plan. With regard to the plantings in trees that will go in behind the 6 foot wooden fence, Type 1 landscaping consists of tall evergreen shrubs, evergreen trees and groundcover, and will be back by a six-foot fence. The purpose of Type 1 landscaping is to provide a visual buffer. There is a 25% departure in the plan, which is allowed by code. The required trees taller than 6 feet and the wood fence will provide an immediate barrier between the subject property and the neighbors. Typically, this code requires no fence and 3ft tall trees, allowing a three year time frame for the visual barrier to be realized. With regard to public record requests policy, the files are available at the permit center desk, and there is no paperwork involved in order to access the paper and read it. This is for a typical project that is undergoing review. When looking for records that may not be regularly available, email for example, the request is taken in they have their IT department do a search and a copy is provided. If it is a completed older closed project, sometimes these are not available on -site. With regard to the DNS, there are two phases of grading and clearing. First, the grading and clearing and then, remediation work. These two phases cannot be "bargained away: as the decision contains these two phases. Upon question from Mr. Lind, Mr. Herrera stated that with regard to the role of staff working on this report, analysis and decisions are made by engineering and public works, and the traffic division of public works reviewed traffic impact analysis. He stated that the distance between the north property line and the nearest building on the subject property is approximately 80ft and those buildings within 100ft of the property line are limited to 40ft in height. With regard to the pedestrian connection to the northeast, the subject came up at the neighborhood meeting, and this requirement comes from the traffic policy in the Comprehensive Plan. When questioned by Ms. Boehm -Brady, Mr. Herrera noted that he was not present at the neighborhood meeting where the pedestrian connection was discussed. He stated that the decisions for the departures for the buffer and plantings were made by the director as provided by code. With regard to parking on public roads, he did not recall making a remark to Ms. Boehm -Brady concerning people parking on public roads. Part of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide flexibility and parking standards. Code allows the director to reduce parking standards by 20 percent. Based on a parking study that determine fewer spaces were needed, a 13.9% reduction was made. He stated that in apartment areas there are not the typical setbacks as you do in suburban areas. These departures intentionally bring the buildings close to the street but they are well within the required setbacks. Mr. Herrera stated that the departure modification allowed the buildings to be closer to the streets. In regard to 3b, some single-family residents did request the pedestrian walkway at an informal neighborhood meeting held last year. Under cross-examination by Ms. Johnson, in regard to the plantings in the back, Mr. Herrera testified that the city frame zone does not require trees to be saved under the tree retention ordinance. The arborist said the trees are dead or dying. Additionally, the grading on the site will impact the trees because the digging cuts into the root systems. The applicant will be required to put in landscaping along the perimeters. It is likely the number of trees planted will come close to meeting the tree density for other zones. Along the northern border, the city will require more mature trees to be planted. Under cross-examination by Ms. Boehm -Brady, in regard to the DNS, the law requires the city to issue a DNS, but the city used substantive authority to attach conditions to the determination. The DNS says an EIS is not required for this project. The previous planning director who issued the departure modifications did not testify; however, the planning director's decision was based on the recommendation of Mr. Herrera. High Point will be responsible for maintaining the fences. In regard to the environmental checklist population number, he does not recall how many documents he looked at for this application. The number of people living at High Point has no bearing on the zoning regulations. Density is handled by dimensional and bulk limitations, not number of people. The school impact fees are handled by the school district, and that fee is paid during the building permit process. The fee is based on the number of units, not population. Under cross-examination by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Herrera said the trees are on the northside of the existing fence. No work is going to be authorized offsite of the subject property. The fence on the High Point property now is 20ft south of the property line. In order to remove trees off the property, the applicant would have to get a construction easement. Neighbors would have to sign -off on this type of easement. The property has been surveyed several times. There are topographic and boundary surveys (Exhibit 1­12). The A15 easement appeared to be on the residential properties. There is nothing on the title report in regard to the easement. The boundary survey was done in the late 1980s. The topographic survey was completed more recently. The boundary lines will be marked prior to construction. Isaac Conlen, planning manager, stated that the discussion regarding pedestrian walkway occurred over a year ago. The neighborhood meeting had 10-12 people which the city did not take to be a representation of the whole neighborhood. Every person at the meeting had a strong objection to a vehicular connection being made to the neighborhood. A young woman at the meeting commented that she liked to walk from her neighborhood to the Safeway across the street. The consensus of the group was that the pedestrian walkway would be an improvement. No one objected to the suggestion at that meeting. In regard to the variances, the decisions are made via a collaborative process. Mr. Conlen discussed the issues with Mr. Herrera and brought the issues to the previous planning director. The planning director makes the final decision. The Comprehensive Plan encourages pedestrian walkways of this sort. Jon Sondergaard, senior principal AESI, testified that he has a Bachelor's degree in geology from Washington State University and has as Masters in geology from Western University. He has been practicing in the Puget Sound area for the past 34 years. He was contacted by Matt Herrera from the city to act as a third -party reviewer for the project. Exhibit H22 is the geotechnical consult authorization form. The form authorizes him to provide review at various stages throughout the remedial action at the site. It also calls for his firm to review the assessment documents which he has done. He provided a memo with his comments on the assessment documents. He is scheduled to perform site visits throughout the remedial process. He will review the testing documentation as well. Exhibit FW7 is his review memo of the assessment documents. It provides a summary of the phase 1 environmental site assessment and the interim action plan. The memo gave conclusions and recommendations based on review of these documents. In general, he believed they met the industry standards for this type of activity, and, in the end, it would meet the state requirements for cleanup of soil and water at the site. In regard to items 1-4 of page 2, these items are a summary of data gaps from the studies he reviewed. In most cases, he believes the data gaps have been satisfied, except for the gradient southwest of the contaminant area. This one gap should be filled prior to the permit being issued. Items 1-5 of page 4 of FW7 are his comments and recommendations for the project. The city can decide how these items will be addressed. In regard to dust control, the primary exposure is through airborne dust. In any grading activity, there is a concern with dust. The issue of dust will be handled in the applicant's health and safety plan. He agreed with the applicant's expert in regard to how cleanup should be conducted. There is no regulatory requirement to get a NFA. The Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) provides two pathways to cleanup the site: independent remedial action or enforcement action via DOE identification. In enforcement action, DOE uses legal means to force people to do cleanup. The applicant is choosing the first path and is using a method consistent with MTCA. The NFA will always follow the cleanup, thus it does not matter if you enter early or late. Under cross-examination by Ms. Boehm -Brady, Mr. Sondergaard said he does not know exactly what the city will require in regard to dust control. Typically, in remedial situations, cities require some sort of dust control action in the health and safety plan. The summary groups some of the data gaps together so there are 11, but divided only 4 sections. The planned remedial action is very flexible. The most common form of dust control is the application of water. If there was excess water, the applicant will have to collect and treat it. MTCA requires that any contamination on the site be reported to the state and then cleaned. The DOE has many sites and reviews the site list every five years. The A4 letter does not mean this site is any worse than other contaminated sites. Sarady Long, senior transportation planning engineer, stated that, as part of the development, the applicant is required to build frontage improvements. These improvements include areas through the subdivision and along 320th Street. There is a provision in the Code that allows the Public Works Director to modify or waive further improvements. The first modification was along 1 lth SW, the future ring road, north of the building area. The adopted Comp Plan for the road is a type F. That is a two-lane, 36ft road with a 60ft right-of-way. Normally, when a project is within a city frame, there is no requirement for a planter strip. The Public Works Director asked that the street be modified to a 44ft road with three -lanes and an 8ft sidewalk for east -west and 12ft for north -south. The modification request results in 4ft more buffer. On S 320th street, the Comp Plan called for an additional lane, curb, gutter, and planter strip. The applicant requested a modification of the cross-section which the Public Works Director granted. A similar request was granted to the King County Library. In regard to improvements, the applicant is required to construct the internal ring road. For any additional off -site improvements, the city must demonstrate a need or nexus of some kind. As part of the nexus analysis, the road must go through a concurrency analysis to verify if there is actual capacity in terms of flow and infrastructure to accommodate people post build -out. There is no level service failure under the Code based on the concurrency analysis. The capacity cannot exceed 1.0 and have a level of service E. He used the pm hours for the analysis. The evening rush hour is higher than the am peak 99 percent of the time. The total volume for the pm peak was 5,000. In regard to the ring road, based on the concurrency analysis, the intersection of 1 lth and 320th will function properly with a level service of C. The three -lane will provide adequate service based on the analysis. In regard to the pedestrian connection, this connection is a code requirement (FWC 18.55.070). This ensures people do not take long routes to reach certain areas. The Comprehensive Plan asks that the city extend walkways to provide access to services and recreational activities. The proposed walkway will provide access to a shopping center. Federal Way School District reviewed the walking route and determined that the connection is needed for a safe school pedestrian route. The applicant may request a modification for the connection, but it would be hard to modify this section because of the Comp Plan and school request. The ring road will reach the northeast corner of the property. Also, the applicant will modify the signal to remove the split -face. There will be additional access to the west. Most of the traffic will utilize 320th when people return from work. The city will require an off -site traffic mitigation fee. The amount will be approximately 390,000 dollars. This money can be used on any projects listed on the six -year TIP. The city must demonstrate a nexus between the development and service failure in order to require the applicant to do something. There is no guarantee the applicant will construct an avenue extension if the service is failing because the applicant can propose an additional lane instead of avenue extension. Under questioning by the hearing examiner, Mr. Long said that there is no nexus because the applicant is not violating level of service. In regard to proportionality, requiring the developer to pay the entire cost of the ring road would exceed their proportion. The north portion alone exceeds 4 million dollars. The ring road is on the 20-year CIP plan. Unless another intersection fails, the ring road may be added to the six -year TIP list. If the ring road is added to the TIP list, the applicant would just pay their portion of the fee and would not be responsible for constructing the connection. Under cross-examination by Ms. Boehm -Brady, in regard to people exiting High Point, Mr. Long said that during the peak pm hours, sixty percent of traffic will be inbound. The majority of the exiting traffic will be going east. Most will be heading toward the retail portion of the area. In regard to the pedestrian connection, the school district has different criteria for safe walking routes than the city. He is unsure of the school district criteria. He does not know any other place where city frame abuts city scape. Under cross-examination by Ms. Johnson, in regard to the level of service, Mr. Long testified that the addition of cars from the new project will not trigger the mitigation threshold. The level of service at 320th with the project is level E. The city has done the level of service analysis. In regard to future problems, the city is required to perform traffic analysis every two years during rush hour. The city also identifies projects every year by law for service review. The city cannot require a pull-out lane if it is not warranted. Under questioning by Ms. Epp, Mr. Long said he is unaware of another planned pedestrian connection on 320th. There are another two walkways planned near 1st Avenue and one on 348th. Pedestrian walkways are very expensive. There is not rational nexus to require other proposed improvements because most of the traffic goes west. Mr. Rick Perez, traffic engineer, stated that the city went through a process several years ago to identify possible pedestrian crossings on major streets. One of these identified pathways was the one near the library at 320th. The city has explored a site near 5th Avenue S as a different location, but that location is expensive to implement because of the grading of the sidewalk. The funding for the pathway program was cut in the last budget cycle so there are no resources. Under questioning by Ms. Boehm -Brady, in regard to the ring road narrowing, Mr. Perez testified that the ring road narrows when approaching the roundabout, but that is the only place it does not have two side lanes and a center turn lane. Other than that area, the city is requiring a left -turn lane at the driveway approaching 1 lth. The city will require enough pavement for the left -turn lane. There will be on -street parking in the interim until the bike lanes are created. He is not sure if on -street parking will disappear once the construction finishes. On -street parking spaces are not included in the proposed 501 stalls. The parking spaces were reviewed thoroughly, and the city is confident that the site will not have a parking issue. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Lind testified that the appellants have the burden of proof for both appeals, and the city staff is given great deference. City staff is recognized to have expertise. In regard to the SEPA appeal, the proposal is a benefit to the environment, not a negative impact. There has been no testimony regarding impacts of the proposal that are probable and significant. The appellants believe the process should be different, but this does not authorize the relief they seek. The appellants provided no evidence or expertise, and they only stated possible concerns. Under the Regulatory Reform Act, the city cannot decide something outside of what the rules say. The city only applies the rules. The Growth Management Act resulted in the city having extensive and thorough regulations. This project must comply with many rules. It does not matter that this is the only location where city -frame abuts single-family residences because the zoning code has already been approved through a proper process. The Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, but it is a guidance document. The design regulations are the rules that have to be followed. The Comprehensive Plan says that the method for protecting single-family residences is design regulations. The proposed setbacks are much greater than those required by the Code. The project is at or below the height limits as well. In regard to the north property line, the School District put the fence 20ft inside the property line. The trees beyond the fence are still on the subject property. Exhibit H12 is a surveyed line which shows by number the trees. A lot of the vegetation does lie on the neighboring properties as well. The city has met the requirements of the Code. In regard to tree retention, the Code at 19.120.030 exempts CCF and CC from tree retention. The site grading will damage the roots of existing trees. New trees will be healthier and more beneficial in the long-term. In regard to the easement, the easement is 20ft on the northside of the property line. Typically, a sewer easement is 20ft in width, and the line is in the center. The fence should not interfere with the sewer line. Appellant Rebuttal Ms. Boehm -Brady testified that a previous planning director approved departures for this site that did not meet code standards. These departures harm the neighborhood by reducing buffers and setbacks. The quality of life for current residents and new will be diminished. The DNS should have been done after the independent consultant. The proposal does have impacts such as the possible carcinogenic contaminants. The buffer zone contains 35ft Laurel on the applicant's property. There is no reason to remove this Laurel. Ms. Johnson stated that the appellants are not opposed to developing the subject site. However, the planned development does not fit well with the Comprehensive Plan or the cityscape area. A5 shows the aerial high -density on 312th. The image depicts high -density apartments that fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. A14 is the Comprehensive Plan and shows the phasing document. A14's map shows the city plans to develop 14th Avenue and create the ring road. The planned apartments do not help diversify housing choice. Cluster cottages would work well on the subject site, but high rises do not. Yes, the Comprehensive Plan said almost 8 percent of housing is overcrowded; however, affordable housing is often where the overcrowding stems from because of people doubling up in the apartments. The project should be scaled down or moved to another location. Marsha Sillicani, stated that keeping mature landscape is far better than removing trees and planting new ones. The character of Federal Way needs to be protected. If people would like urban, they can live in Seattle. City Rebuttal Ms. Pratt stated that, in regards to SEPA, the experts noted that there will be an independent review done on the site. This type of review is more thorough than DOE, and DOE only gets involved for specific aspects of projects like consent decrees. The issues raised in the SEPA appeal only spoke to cleanup issues. The city believes that the DNS mitigates for any adverse impacts as written, but the city will add to the permitting requirements the five conditions on page four of the AEIS report. The appellants are mistaken in believing they will get a more public process from the DOE. The project will not qualify for a public participation program with DOE. The current process is adequate to provide public information. In regard to the easement, Exhibit H2 is an ALTA survey which should have shown if there were any easements in the area. The city will get a title report, however, to ensure there is no easement. In regard to trees, H4 is an exhibit created by an arborist looking at the trees item by item attempting to see if any of them could be saved. In regard to the bulk and scale of the project, the proposal went through design review which is outlined in the staff report. The design review requires many things to ensure the project does not look bulky. The city cannot dictate what goes on the site except through the design regulations, zoning, and Comprehensive Plan. The city does not own the site because it cannot require anything more than it already has. Appellant Rebuttal In regard to the arborist report, Ms. Boehm -Brady stated that the arborist was hired by the developer, and the review was not independent. There are living, and thriving, trees based on the appellants review and overhead pictures. There is Laurel hedge that can be retained. In regard to DOE review, the DOE memo says that the Department has a strong commitment to work with individuals to obtain prompt and effective investigations/cleanups. It is a public agency dedicated to fixing issues. CITY OF - F Federal Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER Highpoint Mixed Use Agency Decision Appeals Federal Way File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP APPEAL HEARING July 28, 2014 — 1:00pm City Council Chambers Federal Way City Hall — 33325 8`h Avenue South Report Prepared by: Matthew Herrera, AICP - Senior Planner Report Date: July 21, 2014 I. PROJECT INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND Name of Project: Highpoint Mixed Use City File No(s): 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP Summary of Proposal: Applicant proposes redevelopment of the former Federal Way Public Schools transportation facility to include 300 multi -family housing units and 26,095 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space. Additional improvements include surface parking, stormwater control/treatment, common outdoor open space, public streets and landscaping. Site Location: The subject property is a single tax parcel identified by the King County Assessor as 082104-9188, approximately 9.84 acres in size and located at 1066 South 320`h Street. Applicant: Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Designations: Key Dates: City Staff Representative: Jack Hunden, Devco Inc., 11100 Main St., Suite 301, Bellevue, WA 98004 City Center -Frame (CC-F) (Exhibit FWI ) -- CP 3_ — 7 I Subject Property y iviasier Lana use appilcatlon Augusi 6, Lu1.9 Vicinity Map Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued March 28, 2014 DNS appeal filed May 1, 2014 (Exhibit FW2) Use Process III decision issued June 4, 2014 Use Process III appeal filed June 19, 2014 (Exhibit FW3) Prehearing Conference held July 10, 2014 Notice of Appeal Hearing issued July 11, 2014 (Exhibit FW4) Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner — 253-835-2638 II. SCOPE OF AGENCY APPEAL Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.70.125, the scope of agency decision appeals is limited to the errors of law raised or the specific factual findings and conclusions disputed in the notice of appeal. The Hearing Examiner may only consider evidence, testimony, or comments relating to errors of law raised or the disputed findings and conclusions. The examiner shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision being appealed based on the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 2 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 III. DNS APPEAL — BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED ERRORS Background — The city's Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed land use action (Exhibit FW5) as it was determined the proposal would not cause significant adverse impact on the environment. The Responsible Official used substantive authority granted under State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to condition the threshold determination and land use decision in order to mitigate probable adverse impacts that were not perceived to be significant. The DNS condition requires the applicant to remediate contaminated soils and remove the existing underground storage tanks prior to constructing the proposed mixed use development. In order for the city to issue site development and building permit, the applicant is required to choose from the following two options: (1) provide a copy of the No Further Action opinion from the Washington State Department of Ecology under the Voluntary Cleanup Program; or (2) pay the full cost for the city's environmental remediation consultant to perform peer review of the applicant's cleanup documents and verify satisfactory cleanup is performed. The DNS condition is concise and results in no site development activities on the subject property until the cleanup is completed. This condition requires the applicant to remove all of the existing buildings on the site and perform small scale grading and excavation in areas that are contaminated or believed to be contaminated with post -cleanup performance testing to follow. The DNS condition was attached to the DNS and land use decision in order to minimize any potential impacts that may be exacerbated due to site development permits issued by the city. When a typical non -contaminated site is developed, the entire site is graded and excavated at once to accommodate infrastructure and building foundations. The DNS condition will require a two - phased grading package. The first will remediate soil and groundwater contamination and the second will continue the site development in its entirety only after confirmation that appropriate site cleanup has been completed. This condition will provide additional assurance that site work pursuant to a city issued permit will not cause further environmental harm such as unintentionally moving or removing any soils that should otherwise be analyzed and remediated as required under the Washington State Model Toxic Control Act and/or Underground Storage Tank removal regulations. Environmental site assessment, subsurface investigation and work plan documents have been prepared by credentialed professionals. Review of those documents has been performed by independent city -contracted credentialed professionals. Post cleanup performance testing is a component of the remediation plan and included in the environmental record. The documentation for this review, as with all city reviews, is open and transparent via the established public records review process. 1. Appellant alleges the contamination on the subject property is likely worse than shown on the environmental assessment documents. City Response (1) Appellant provides no factual evidence of the likelihood the contamination is worse than what was found during the environmental assessment and subsurface investigation prepared by Environmental Partners Inc. (EPI) (Exhibit FW6). The current assessment identifies previous site assessments/investigations and areas with known or likely contamination. Those areas are Highpoint Mixed Use Page 3 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 identified as Areas 1-4 in the assessment and include: areas of former and current underground storage tanks, the area within the footprint of the maintenance building, and an open air area used for chemical storage. If additional contamination on the subject property is identified, the conditions incorporated into the DNS allow the city to withhold the issuance of site development permits until any needed additional cleanup is completed and performance testing for cleanup adequacy is performed. The cleanup plan includes the removal of all structures on the site prior to soil remediation and performance testing. No confirmed impacts to soil or groundwater under the maintenance building were available due to the inability to test beneath the existing structure. The Interim Action Work Plan refers to EPIs past experience with similar projects and presumes the hydraulic hoists that are located in the maintenance building will have likely leaked and impacted soil with the possibility of impacting groundwater as well. The plan outlines a strategy to test the soils beneath the maintenance building following its removal. If impacts are identified, the applicant will be required to assess the extent of the impacts and perform the appropriate cleanup of any contaminated soil and groundwater. 2. Appellant alleges contamination and cleanup documents and the city's review of those documents is inadequate. City Response (2) Appellant provides no factual evidence that the EPI site assessment, subsurface investigation and interim action work plan documents are inconsistent or do not meet applicable federal, state or local regulatory requirements. Documents provided by the applicant were prepared by professional geologists licensed by the State of Washington as indicated on each EPI report. Review by the city's third party consultant Associated Earth Science Incorporated (AESI) (Exhibit FW7) is not a `passive' or developer biased review as claimed by the appellant. The peer review provided by AESI is credible, independent third party review which is needed as the city does not have the staff skill set to perform such a review. The review of the applicant's documents was performed by a professional geologist licensed in the State of Washington. AESI's review, which is summarized in the June 12, 2014, technical memorandum, has indicated the proposed remedial action is: feasible; consistent with industry best management practices for similar actions; and will likely result in remediation of soil and groundwater at the site. 3. Appellant alleges that resampling and testing for contamination is needed following the removal of existing buildings. City Response (3) As indicated in the interim action work plan document, initial testing and post cleanup performance testing will take place following the removal of the maintenance building. All four contaminated areas will be followed up with post cleanup performance testing to ensure soils and groundwater have been adequately remediated. The city's third party consultant, AESI, has been retained to perform site visits during the site remediation and will review post cleanup documentation for efficacy. The city will not authorize site development permits until the cleanup is completed, tested, and verified by the city's consulting reviewer AESI. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 4 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 IV. USE PROCESS III — ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED ERRORS AND DISPUTED FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS 1. The Proiect is Consistent %vith the Comprehensive Plan Ia. Appellant alleges the proposed buildings are out of scale with existing surrounding area, do not integrate into local architecture, and is an arbitrary and capricious design. City Response (1 a) The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan policies and Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) development regulations require a transition from single-family zoning to zoning that allows more uses and greater density. This transition is achieved via setbacks from the adjacent zone, step-down heights, and perimeter landscaping. These attributes are described in more detail in sections of this report that follow. The Vision Statement for the City Center element foresees the area as a compact, walkable urban center with pedestrian oriented streetscapes in contrast to what exists in the City Center Planning Area today. - The comprehensive plan and FWRC Zoning and Development regulate how the property will be redeveloped in the future to meet the goals and policies of the City Center -Frame zone. As the City Center Planning Area redevelops, the CC-F frame zone will provide a transition zone between the City Center -Core and lower density neighborhoods outside the CC-F. As indicated in site and landscape plan sheets (Exhibit FW8), the transition provided by the Highpoint proposal will include a building setback of approximately 80 feet from the single-family residential zone and Type I landscaping screen ranging in width from 11.25 feet to 15 feet backed by a solid board fence. Additionally, buildings are limited to 40 feet in height within 100 horizontal feet of the neighboring single-family zone. The applicant was required to design the buildings utilizing the FWRC Chapter 19.115 Community Design Guidelines. Administrative design review of the buildings and site plan was conducted by city staff. The design was found to be consistent with those guidelines per the Statement of Findings companion document included with the Use Process III decision (Exhibit FW9). lb. Appellant alleges departures (termed `variances' by the appellant) from buffer, planting, and parking negatively affects adjacent single-family residential neighborhood. City Response (1 b) Use Zone Chart 19.230.060 — Special Regulations (1) & (17) provide the Director of Community Development authority to modify setback, landscaping, and parking space minimum quantity requirements. Buffer The Director allowed the reduction of required 20-foot front yards for buildings A, G, J, and L as it meets the above -referenced Use Zone Chart Special Regulation #1 criteria for consistency with the comprehensive plan policies for the CC-F zone, applicable design guidelines, and adequacy of street utilities and infrastructure to support the development. The result of this reduction places the buildings closer to the public sidewalk. This close interface between the public realm and private space provide a pedestrian -oriented urban design consistent with City Center Planning Area and CC-F zone goals/policies within Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan such as CCG5; CCG9; CCP18; CCP19; CCP22; CCP46 and CCP48. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 5 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 Additionally, in exchange for reducing the required front yard, conditions were placed on the departure requiring streetscape amenities that are pedestrian oriented and identified in the Community Design Guidelines such as benches, lighting, trash receptacles, trellises, decorative paving, bicycle racks, landscaping, and rain garden interpretive signs. Additionally, a historical exhibit providing photos and information regarding the former use of the site and general history of the city and school district will also be included within Building E in exchange for the departure. These beneficial amenities provide features that distinguish this development from other developments within the city. The amenities add interest and value as they are consistent with the vision for the City Center Planning Area. These features could not have been required if the modification to the setback was not granted. It is not clear how the reduction of these four building's required front yards has any negative impact on the appellants. Streets, utilities and infrastructure are not affected by the reduction. The modified front yards setbacks do not cause any of the buildings to be closer to the single-family neighborhood than would otherwise be allowed per the standard setback. Planting The director allowed a 25 percent reduction for a portion of the northern perimeter landscape screen: from a 15-foot Type I screen to an 11.25-foot Type I landscape screen backed by a 6-foot solid board fence. In addition to the authority granted by the Use Zone Chart special regulations for this reduction, the reduction is also consistent with landscaping modification options set forth in FWRC 19.125.100(2) and (3), which allow up to a 25 percent perimeter landscape screen reduction. As stated in FWRC 19.125.050(1), the purpose of a Type I Solid Screen is to provide a solid site barrier. The proposed reduced landscape screen provides a combination of conifer type trees and solid board fencing that will provide an immediate solid site barrier. Whereas the required 15-foot Type I landscape screen does not require a solid board fence and the sight obscuring screen is typically not realized until 3 years after planting. The solid board fence could not have been required absent the modification. Parking The director has allowed the reduction of parking spaces for the proposal's multi -family use from the required 1.7 per dwelling unit to 1.51 per dwelling unit. For the proposal's ground floor commercial uses, the director has allowed the reduction from the required 1 space per 300sf of gross floor area to 1 space per 316sf of gross floor area. In addition to the authority granted to the director to reduce parking space requirements via the Use Zone Chart Special Regulation #17, FWRC 19.130.020(3)(b) also allows a reduction of parking spaces in the CC-F zone by up to 20 percent with the implementation of an approved transportation demand management plan. The applicant submitted both a thorough parking study and a transportation demand management plan (Exhibit FW10). The staff -supported parking space reduction rate of 1.51 spaces per dwelling unit is equal to the 85`h percentile weekday peak demand rate from the nine comparable sites analyzed in the applicant's parking study. Peak demand rates are actual utilization rates of the onsite spaces, i.e. total number of vehicles parked in relation to the total number of dwelling units. The peak demand rates for nine comparable sites range from 1.08 spaces per dwelling unit to 1.58 spaces per dwelling unit. Instead of using the average peak demand of 1.44 spaces for the nine sites, staff utilized the 85 h percentile figure to determine the appropriate residential parking ratio. The 85'h percentile is a more conservative calculation and provides a more confident figure than the average. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 6 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 The staff -supported ground floor commercial rate of 1 space per 316sf gross floor area is equal to the 85`h percentile of the weekday peak from the shopping center land use code as published by the 4`h edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) Parking Generation report. Staff utilization of the 85`h percentile for the ground floor commercial uses is a conservative figure and is consistent with the residential reduction methodology used. The opportunity for shared parking between the ground floor commercial and the residential uses is also likely due to contrasting peak demands. Residential peak demands occur after 9pm on the weekdays and during the early morning hours of the weekend. These are times when typical commercial uses are closed and their parking spaces are underutilized, thereby providing additional spaces for the residential users. The parking study provided by the applicant was prepared by a licensed professional engineer. The study documented nine comparable sites. The peak demand for each of those nine sites is less than the minimum number of spaces specified in FWRC 19.130.020(1), thereby supporting the approved reductions. The reduction in parking ratios is also supported by the condition to the Process III decision that requires the applicant to implement the transportation demand management plan. The management plan includes a commuter information center, building transportation coordinator, bicycle parking facilities, shower facilities, commuter information packets, and reduced fare transit passes. The onsite commuter information center is meant to provide residents/employees information regarding transit schedule and opportunities for ridesharing. The bicycle lockers are interior to the buildings providing security and weather protection for cycle commuters. The lockers provide an amenity to residents as there is no need to store their bicycles within their apartment unit or balcony, as is typical of other multi -family developments. Making showers available for employees encourages and supports bicycling, walking, or jogging commuters by providing the ability to refresh themselves prior to starting their work day. Employees and residents will also be eligible for reduced fare transit passes under the management plan. A transit stop is located along the subject property's South 320`h Street frontage providing service east to Twin Lakes, west to Auburn, and to the nearby transit center. The transit center provides regional service and connections to Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Sea-Tac airport, and other central and south Puget Sound cities. The reduction in parking ratios is also supported by the vehicle trip reduction that can be realized via the goods, services, and recreation within a 10-15 minute walkshed of the subject property. In addition to the project's future onsite ground floor commercial and recreational amenities, there is a grocery store, library, church, several retail shopping centers with restaurants, Celebration Park, The Commons, Town Square Park, and Federal Way Transit Center all within walking distance. The parking reduction modification will allow approximately a 13.4 percent reduction in the number of parking spaces required by Use Zone Charts 19.230.060 and 19.230.020. Pursuant to FWRC 19.130.020(3)(b), off-street parking requirements in the CC-F zone may be reduced up to 20 percent with the implementation of a transportation demand management plan. Pursuant to FWRC 19.130.080(2), off-street parking requirements may also be reduced if a thorough parking study documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses. Both the transportation demand management plan and parking analysis adequately demonstrate the viability of the permitted parking reduction. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 7 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 The parking space reduction is also supported by the comprehensive plan's City Center element. A principal purpose of the City Center element is to reduce dependency on automobiles. Additionally, the concept plan for land use and transportation in the City Center states "Reduce the impact of parking by encouraging structured parking, allowing reduced parking ratios [emphasis added], shared parking, and other innovative and creative parking solutions, as well as implementing guidelines that enhance appearance." lc. Appellant alleges tree removal is inconsistent with comprehensive plan and unauthorized removal of trees offsite. City Response (1 c) There is no stated policy or principle in the City Center element of the comprehensive plan that identifies tree and vegetation retention. Pursuant to FWRC 19.120.030(14), tree removal on CC-F zoned properties is considered an exempt activity. As an exempt activity, the applicant is not required to retain any of the vegetation along the border no matter the health of the tree. Further, pursuant to 19.120.130(2), there is no minimum tree unit density required in the CC-F zone. While there is no underlying tree unit density requirement for the subject property, the applicant is required to provide new tree, shrub and groundcover plantings along the north, east, and west perimeters as well as within the surface parking lot areas. The project does not propose to remove any trees offsite. The department is unaware of any easement benefitting the neighboring single-family properties. Surveys of the subject property and the Plat of Ingrid Manor (Exhibit FWll) indicate no easement granted to the homeowners as alleged by the appellants. No further surveying of the subject property is needed or warranted. 2. The Pro meet is Consistent with All Applicable Provisions of Federal Way Revised Code 2a. Appellant alleges applicant received variances to code that resulted in densities that would be unattainable without such variances. City Response (2a) The department has not granted any variances to the applicant. To clarify, a variance is administered via the procedures and criteria set forth in FWRC Chapter 19.45. Variances are typically granted due to a potential hardship a property owner would have in adhering to zoning standards when developing a property that contains a unique circumstance such as those indicated in Chapter 19.45. Variances require their own separate permitting process with a decision by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant has not applied for any variance related to this project. FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.230.060 Special regulation #1 allows departures from required yard, landscape and other site design and dimensional requirements if criteria are met. Special regulation #17 allows parking space reductions if a thorough parking study is provided and accepted by the department. FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.230.060 does not limit the densities for multi -unit housing in the CC-F zone. The appellant has provided no evidence that departures resulted in additional density achieved. Several of the proposed buildings reach a maximum height of 70 feet. The above - referenced Use Zone Chart allows heights of up to 85 feet which would allow the applicant to achieve higher densities than what is currently proposed. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 8 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 Granted departures from FWRC related to perimeter landscaping, parking, and required yards are all authorized by the FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.230.060(1) & (17). Additionally, the following code citations allow modifications to the perimeter width of landscaping and parking space reductions: ■ 19.125.100(3) Modification options — Perimeter width • 19.130.020(3)(b) Number of spaces — Minimum / Exceptions / CC-F zones • 19.130.020(3)(d) Number of spaces — Minimum / Exceptions / Parking study As indicated in City Response (lb), each departure request met specific criteria, was based on comparable sites, and/or provided amenities in exchange for the ability to deviate from the respective standards. City response (lb) and (2b) provides analysis of why the city allowed a 25 percent reduction for a portion of the northern perimeter screen. Such administrative flexibility and resulting departures are typical of municipal zoning regulations and necessary to address the wide variety of circumstances that occur in real world development scenarios. Granted departures and densities are authorized and consistent with Federal Way Revised Code. 2b. Appellant alleges reduction of landscaping along northern border is inadequate. City Response (2b) Departures from the perimeter landscaping screen are authorized by FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.230.060(1) and 19.125.100 (3) Modification options — Perimeter width. As indicated in city response (lb), the 25 percent reduction in landscaping width provides an effective and immediate solid barrier screen at the time of implementation as opposed to up to three years for typical Type I vegetation only planting. The city believes this represents a superior result and complies with the stated purpose of the modification title to allow for flexibility. Additionally, the new I Ith PIace South right-of-way between the perimeter screen and site improvement provide an additional buffer to the neighboring single-family residential zone. The granted departure is authorized and consistent with Federal Way Revised Code. 2c. Appellant alleges wood fence along border is inadequate to protect adjacent neighborhood. City Response (2c) The appellant has provided no compelling evidence that a solid board fence instead of a concrete block wall is inconsistent with Federal Way Revised Code. The solid board fence with a Type I landscaping screen along the northern property line is intended to provide a visual barrier between the neighboring single-family residential zone and the City Center -Frame zone. A solid six-foot concrete block wall provides no aesthetic complement to the single-family zone or the CC-F. The city has no precedent of ever requiring an applicant to construct a concrete block wall to separate one development from another. No fence or wall of any type is required pursuant to the FWRC. In this case, however, the solid board fence is required along the entire length of the single-family residential boundary as mitigation for the 25-percent decrease in buffer width along a portion of the boundary. The solid board fence backing is consistent with Federal Way Revised Code. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 9 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 2d. Appellant alleges parking space reduction is inadequate to demand. City Response (2d) The appellant has provided no factual evidence that the 13.4 percent parking reduction is inadequate to meet demand. Parking space reductions are authorized by Federal Way Revised Code Use Zone Chart 19.230.060(17) and 19.130.020(3)(b). As referenced in City Response lb, the reduction met criteria set forth in the cited code sections and comprehensive plan policies for the City Center Planning Area. Following review of the transportation demand management plan and parking study of comparable sites, a staff supported reduction of approximately 13.4 percent was permitted. The parking reduction is authorized and consistent with Federal Way Revised Code, which allows for a reduction of up to 20 percent. 2e. Appellant alleges omission of planter and utility strip is unacceptable as it would reduce buffer between the residential homes and the new buildings. City Response (2e) Street frontage improvement requirements on I I Ih Place South were modified by the Public Works director pursuant to FWRC 19.135.070 "Modifications, deferments, and waivers, " which allows the director to modify, defer, or waive required street improvements based on four specific criteria provided below: (1) The improvement as required would not be harmonious with existing street improvements, would not function properly or safely, or would not be advantageous to the neighborhood or city as a whole. (2) Unusual topographic or physical conditions preclude the construction of the improvements as required. (3) Proper vertical or horizontal alignments cannot be determined because the existing streets do not have correct alignments. (4) The required improvement is part of a larger project that has been scheduled for construction in the city's adopted six -year transportation improvement program. The result of the modification actually increases the distance between the single-family homes and proposed buildings as the analysis details below. The planned roadway cross -sections shown in Map III-6 of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan depicts 1 Ph Place South "ring road" as a type "S" street, consisting of a 36-foot-wide street with curb and gutter, 4-foot-wide planter strip, 5-foot-wide sidewalks, in a 60-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW). The project is located within the CC-F zone and as such roadway cross -sections within the City Center do not include planter strips and instead sidewalk width is increased to accommodate more pedestrian activities. As such, the roadway section for I I'h Place South was modified by the director to include a 44-foot-wide street with bike lane, curb and gutter, 8- to 12-foot-wide sidewalks with street trees and decorative streetlights in a 64- to 68-foot-wide ROW to reflect the City Vision statement for City Center. In terms of the overall separation, the ROW along 11`h Place South / east -west connection road will be increased from 60 feet to 64 feet in width, resulting in the buffer between the residential homes and the new buildings being increased by 4 feet with the modification. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 10 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 3. The Project is Consistent with Public Health, Safety and Welfare 3a. Appellant alleges clearing and grading proposal is `regular' and does not protect offsite residents from dust or contaminated groundwater. City Response (3a) The clearing and grading required by the city for this proposal is not the typical or `regular' method for preparing a site for construction. For a typical site without contamination, the entire site is graded to accommodate roads, utilities and building foundations. In this case, the city is requiring a two -phased grading package due to the contamination on the subject property. The first phase of the package is limited to removing the buildings and underground storage tanks and then excavating/removing contaminated soils. The second phase (grading of the entire site typical of site development) will not be authorized until cleanup work and satisfactory performance testing is completed and then reviewed/approved by the city's environmental consultant. The proposed grading is subject to temporary erosion and sedimentation control standards set forth in the city -adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Section D.3.8 of the manual identifies dust control measures that must be implemented to minimize wind transport of soil on the subject property. Such measures typically include spraying water on exposed soils without generating runoff. Grading is also subject to dewatering control set forth in KCSWDM Section D.3.7. The manual requires highly turbid or contaminated water to be handled separately from stormwater. The applicant has proposed within the Interim Action Work Plan to treat impacted groundwater onsite and obtaining the necessary permit(s) to discharge contaminated groundwater to the sanitary sewer system. 3b. Appellant alleges adjacent S. 320 St. is unsafe for pedestrians and therefore requires the need for a pedestrian connection on 13`' Ave. S. City Response (3b) The appellant provides no factual evidence supporting the statement that the street in front of the Highpoint project, South 320" Street, is a dangerous road on which to walk. The Planned Street Sections in the comprehensive plan identify a sidewalk along South 320 lb Street. Existing conditions along the frontage on South 320'h Street include vertical curb and gutter, 6' planter strip, and 5' sidewalk with decorative streetlights. The sidewalk and planter strip provide pedestrians with approximately 11 feet of buffer from motor vehicles travelling on South 320"' Street. in urban environments, sidewalks provide pedestrians with the safest place to walk. The city is requiring the pedestrian walkway connection to 13'h Avenue South. It was also requested by some single-family home residents at an informal neighborhood meeting held prior to the land use application submittal. This walkway will connect to the existing 13'h Avenue South street stub - out and will provide the neighborhood with a direct walking route to Celebration Park and other retail businesses south of the subject site. This pedestrian connection is supported by Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Policy TP54 and FWRC 18.55.070 (1) and (3). Furthermore, the Federal Way Public School District has reviewed the applicant's School Access Analysis (Exhibit FW12) and determined that the secondary route via 13`h Avenue South is a preferred option for students walking to Mirror Lake Elementary, Federal Way High School, and the bus stop at 8''' Avenue South and South 317`h Street. As such, the District sent conespondenae requesting that the project provide a pedestrian path from the project site to 13'h Avenue South. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 11 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 4. Streets and utilities in the area of the subiect proRerU are ade uate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. 4. Appellant alleges the proposed ring road connecting the new 11'h Place South to 14`h Avenue South as shown in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan needs to be constructed concurrent with the Highpoint proposal. City Response (4) Pursuant to FWRC 19.135.040 (1), the applicant is required to install improvements along the frontage of each right-of-way that abuts and traverses the subject property, commensurate with the impacts of the development. The applicant will construct the portion of the 11'b Place South "ring road" within the subject property concurrent with the development of the project, which is consistent with the FWRC. This consists of 11'h Place South extending north from South 320'h Street and an associated east/west connection with a stub for a future connection at the northeastern corner of the property. FWRC 19.135.050 and RCW 82.02.020 is highly restrictive in requiring off -site improvements and right-of-way (ROW) dedication. In order to require off -site improvements and ROW dedication, the city must show that the development caused a Level of Service (LOS) failure in the roadway network and that any proposed improvements are reasonably necessary and would address that specific failure. The city has performed concurrency analysis for this Project consistent with FWRC Chapter 19.90 Transportation Concurrency Management and has determined that there is no LOS failure per the LOS standards set forth in Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Policy TP 16 with programmed improvements at any monitored intersections. A Capacity Reserve Certificate (Exhibit FW13) was issued for the project on October 30, 2013. The intersection of 11 `h Place South and South 320'h Street is expected to operate at LOS C with Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C) of 0.83 during the Weekday PM Peak period. An extension of 11'h Place South north to the intersection of 14'h Avenue South and South 312`h Street would cross privately held properties and the need is not directly attributable to this development as there is no LOS failure. Therefore, the City cannot require the connection to be made as part of this project. Furthermore, if there were an LOS failure at the 11'h Place South and South 320`h Street intersection, the applicant could propose mitigation measures other than the road extension to meet the adopted LOS standard. 5. Proposed access to the subiect proRerty is at the optimal location and conf uration. 5. Appellant alleges configuration of access is very poor/ that the new 111h Place South right- of-way constructed with the Highpoint proposal must make connection to 14`h Avenue South to meet this criterion. City Response (5) The appellant provides no supporting evidence in terms of Level of Service (LOS) failure at the access point or nexus for requiring the road extension. The project will have two access points onto South 320'h Street. Access to the subject property is via the extension of 11'h Place South from the South 320`h Street intersection, which is expected to operate at LOS C with V/C of 0.83; and a private right -in and right -out driveway east of 11'h Place South which is expected to operate at LOS Highpoint Mixed Use Page 12 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 C. The proposed two access points on South 320`h Street meet FWRC 19.135.280 requirements for separation of intersections and driveways and will be adequate to meet the adopted LOS standard to service this development. As stated in City Response (4) above, the city has performed concurrency analysis and determined that there: is no LOS failure with programmed improvements at the intersection of 11`h Place South and South 320'h Street or any other monitored intersection. In order for the City to require off -site improvements, the city must demonstrate that the development caused the LOS failure, and that the improvement is directly attributable to development of the subject property and reasonably necessary. With no LOS failure, there is no "nexus" for the City to require the off -site improvement. 6. Traffic safety im acts for all modes of transportation, both on and offsite are adequately mitigated. 6. Appellant alleges this criterion is not met as the applicant is not required to make improvements along S. 320'h Street. City Response (6) The applicant is required to make improvements along South 320'h Street. The applicant is making signal modifications to the intersection of 11'h Place South and South 320'h Street for safe access, and just east of this intersection the applicant must construct a second access consisting of right -in and right -out only. Street frontage improvements along South 320'h Street were waived by the Public Works director pursuant to FWRC 19.135.070 "Modifications, deferments, and waivers, " which allows the director to modify, defer, or waive required street improvements after consideration of the four specific criteria referenced in City Response (2e). Existing conditions north of centerline are 28' of pavement, curb and gutter, a 6' planter strip, and 5' sidewalk within 50' of public right-of-way. The required frontage improvements would widen the sidewalk to 8' and add a 12' HOV lane to the current South 320'h Street cross-section, which consists of a left turn lane and two through lanes. After evaluating existing conditions, similarly approved modifications and FWRC, the Director determined that a modification should be granted pursuant to FWRC 19.135.070(1) which states: "Improvements as required would not be harmonious with existing street improvements, would not function properly or safely or would not be advantageous to the neighborhood or city as a whole. " Applying the required improvements at this time would create improvements that are not harmonious with the existing street system and would not function properly. Therefore, a modification was granted in March 2014. The City granted a similar modification request in October 2011 for the King County Library project located on South 320`h Street just west of the subject site. Off -site impacts to the transportation system will be mitigated via the project's transportation impact fee (FWRC 19.91) payment estimated at $388,900 (2014 rate). Highpoint Mixed Use Page 13 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 7. Proposal is consistent with the site design standards set forth for all zoning districts and applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in the community design guidelines. 7a. Appellant alleges design of the proposal does not meet community design guidelines. City Response (7a) The appellant provides no factual evidence of how the proposal is inconsistent with the Community Design Guidelines. Administrative review to determine compliance with the Community Design Guidelines was completed as a component of the Use Process III application. Item #6 of the Statement of Findings and Conclusions companion document to the Use Process III decision provides specific explanations of how the proposal is consistent with the guidelines. 7b. Appellant alleges proposed 4-6 story buildings are out of scale with surrounding area and residents of the apartments will look down into the appellant's homes. City Response (7b) The FWRC and Federal Way Comprehensive Plan recognize the need for a transition from single- family zoning to zoning that allows more uses and greater density. While the FWRC code does allow greater heights and densities for the subject property due to its current zoning of City Center - Frame (CC-F), it is limited in its development potential compared to other CC-F properties not adjacent to a single-family residential zone. For example, the project is subject to the following dimensional limitations in an effort to aid in the transition from adjoining Single -Family High Density Residential zoning designation to the City Center -Frame zoning designation pursuant to FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.230.060 and perimeter landscaping code 19.125.060(7): ■ Structures on property that adjoins a residential zone shall be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the property line adjacent to the residential zone; Note — The approved site plan details the proposed structures are approximately 80 feet from the adjacent residential zone. The height of structures shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation when located between 20 ft. and 40 ft. from the adjacent residentially zoned property line, and shall not exceed 40 ft. above average building elevation when located between 40 ft. and 100 ft. from such property line; and Note —As shown on the approved site plan, portions of Buildings H, J and L are located between 80 and 100 feet from the adjoining residential zone and those portions are limited to heights of 40 feet. Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the perimeter of property abutting a residential zoning district. Note — Portions of the northern perimeter landscape strip have been granted a width departure of 25 percent as authorized by Use Zone Chart 19.230.060 and landscaping code 19.125.100. As indicated in City Response (1 b), the departure results in an immediate solid screen due to the required implementation of a solid board fence along the entire northern perimeter. Otherwise, atypical 15 foot Type I landscaping screen is permitted a three-year time period from time ofplanting to provide the 100 percent sight obscuring screen. Residents of the proposed apartments will likely have no opportunity to look down into the appellants' homes as: Highpoint Mixed Use Page 14 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 • the proposed 40-foot structures will be set back approximately 80 feet from the north property line; • a Type I perimeter landscaping screen backed by a solid board fence will be constructed along the north property line; and ■ the location of the adjacent single-family homes are located on the northern portion of their respective lots and more than 150 feet from the proposed 4-story buildings. While the single-family homes may be visible from the proposed apartment units, the distance between the homes and apartment buildings and the 40-foot height limitation will likely not enable the apartment dwellers to "look down into" the adjacent homes. For those buildings further than 100-foot from the adjoining residential zone, FWRC Use Zone Chart 19.230.060 permits outright heights of up to 70 feet for multi -unit housing with opportunities to build up to 85 feet. This reflects the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 vision for the future of the City Center Planning Area as a redeveloped high density and mixed use center. The approved site plan shows no buildings that will exceed the outright height allowance of 70 feet. 7c. Appellant alleges the proposal steals land from neighboring single-family homeowners by clearing vegetation in the homeowner's legal alley. City Response (7c) Both the survey prepared by a licensed professional and the Plat of Ingrid Manor identify no legal alley between the subject property and adjacent homeowners. The appellants have provided no evidence of such an easement or alley in favor of the homeowners. No offsite vegetation clearing is proposed by the applicant and no authorization from the city to remove offsite vegetation has been granted. 7d. Appellant alleges the variances granted by the city are providing densities to the applicant that would be unattainable without such approval. City Response (7d) As cited in city response (2a) no variances to the FWRC were granted to the applicant. Departures as authorized by the cited code sections were granted as they met specific criteria stated in the Use Process III findings. V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE APPLICATION AND DNS The department received 63 written comments (Exhibit FWI4) prior to the transmittal of this staff report on the proposal. Highpoint Mixed Use Page 15 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 VI. TRANSMITTAL 71 The Hearing Examiner staff report has been transmitted to the following parties on July 21, 2014: • Hearing Examiner — Phil Olbrechts / olbrechts_law(a7%anail.com • Applicant— Jack Hunden, Devco Inc., 11100 Main St., Suite 301, Bellevue, WA 98004 — jack.hunden@devooapts.com • Applicant Representative —blM(&gth-law.com + Appellant Representative — Leah Boehm -Brady, 841 S. 315'' St. Federal Way, WA 98003 - leahboehin ftotrnail. com • Federal Way Staff— Matthew Herrera / matt.herrera ci# offederaiwa .com, Kevin Peterson / kevin. eterson ci offederalwa .com, Sarady Long / sarady.1ong{a7cityoffederalway.com, Isaac Conlen / Isaac.conlen(i7cityoffederalway.com and Kim Adams Pratt ki mAkenyondis end. com ■ City Clerk's Office— Carol McNeilly / carol.mcneilLy@cLiZLeffederalway.com Highpoint Mixed Use Page 16 Agency Decision Appeals File Nos. 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-UP/Doc. I.D. 65843 40k FederalOF Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit offederalwa _corn DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, a 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 ❑ FWRC Interpretation Da Other A if-. ❑ 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 l�rmailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2014. Project Name t File Number(s) 13 -) 0 3 57d Signature Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2:40:00 PM HEX Decision Mailing Mark Brady 841 S 315th St Federal Way, WA 98003 brad arka ahoo.com Laura Johnson 4615 SW 3171h Pl. Federal Way, WA 98023 sralatiraiohnson@hotmail.com Michael Barclay 3108 SW 313th PI Federal Way, WA 98023 mrbarcla comcastmet Jeanne Epp 826 S. 316th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 jeanneepp l Q,P-mail.com Leah Boehm Brady 841 S. 315'h St. Federal Way, WA 98003 leahboehm cr hotmail.com Tracy Fischlin 1035 S 317th St Federal Way, WA 98003 253-312-5132 tlischl in cr comcast.net Jennifer Wojciechowski 1091 S. 317th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 thewocketfa�msn.com Bruce Snyder 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way. WA 98003 bnicesnydergg .com Caroline Miller 1027 S. 317th St. Federal Way, 98003 253-946-6822 p i l larofmi l l er4out 1 oo k. co m Marcia Silicani 1027 S 317' St Federal Way, WA 98003 indigochimaera@msn.com Elise Crick 1281 S. 315'h St. Federal Way, WA 98003 eli se. crick(a,nai 1. com Sandy Linderman 840 S. 318`h St. Federal Way, WA 98003 Linderman480 rr,hotmail.com Heather Mathews Raechel Dawson Paul Green 903 S. 317, St. 31919 1" Ave S, #101 409 E. Pioneer Federal Way, WA 98063 Federal Way, WA 98003 Puyallup, WA 98372 hmathews44 ahoo.com Tdawson@fedwaymirror.com paul@mailajzc.com BEFORE THE HEARING EXANIINER FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: High Point Mixed Use Process IV FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION No. 13-103506-00-SE and 13-103505-UP INTRODUCTION Lisa Boehm -Brady, along with several dozen other appellants who reside adjacent to the project site, appeal the issuance of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance "MDNS" and Process III permit approval of a mixed use redevelopment of the former Federal Way Public Schools transportation facility located at 1066 South 320th Street. The MDNS and Process III approval are sustained with the addition of several SEPA mitigation measures and Process III conditions. For the most part, the proposal clearly complies with all applicable development standards. Federal Way has adopted very detailed development standards, so a staff finding of compliance (if accurate) leaves little room for differences of opinion. The appellants were faced with very difficult appeals for this reason. Due to the comprehensiveness of the City's standards, it is also not surprising that the most significant and complicated issue of the application was whether existing regulations prohibited the exercise of some discretion in preserving the Laurel treed located along the northern property line. The City has detailed tree retention and perimeter landscaping requirements that one could reasonably argue preclude the imposition of any additional standards to buffer adjoining uses. However, the intent of the City Council in adopting those tree retention and landscaping requirements is paramount in determining whether those regulations can. operate to prohibit a condition that requires retention of an existing vegetated buffer that is far superior to what would be installed under the City's landscaping requirements. Given the City's comprehensive plan policies that strongly encourage the protection of the City's neighborhoods, it is reasonable to conclude that the City Council did not intend its regulations to preclude a vegetative buffer retention requirement. Given those same comprehensive plan policies, it is likely that the City's perimeter buffer requirements along residential areas are based on the maximum that could be reasonably required for new landscaping. Planting new 16-25 foot trees cannot be reasonably required of an applicant. Retaining existing trees of that height, however, is eminently reasonable. The conditions of approval require retention of the Laurel trees within the 11.25 to 15 foot buffers located along the northern property line. A second major point of contention has been the City requirement to provide a pedestrian connection o 13th Ave. There is some merit to the contention that this connection detracts from the preservation of neighborhood character as encouraged by the comprehensive plan. However, the comprehensive plan also encourages pedestrian connectivity. More important, the ' The applicant's arborist report references the Laurel trees as shrubs. Laurel trees and Laurel shrubs are used interchangeably in this decision. Process IV Decision -- 1 connection facilitates safer walking conditions for children to and from school. On balance the safety benefits of the required connection outweigh the minor adverse impacts associated with the proposal and the condition requiring the connection will be kept in place. The appellants were also concerned about the generation of contaminated dust during remediation of the project site. Applicable regulations already require the applicant to implement a dust control plan. To remove any doubt on the issue, a condition of approval is added to the Process III approval that requires the applicant to implement a dust control plan that assures that no contaminated dust will adversely affect neighboring properties. This plan will be subject to third party review. Other issues raised by the appellants are not subject to much legal dispute. Most significant of those issues are the appellants' assertions that the bulk and scale of the proposed buildings is not compatible with their neighborhood and also that the roads serving the proposal are not adequate. The City Council has zoned the subject property for the type of use proposed and the City Council has also adopted level of service standards that are met by the roads serving the proposal. Once those policy choices have been enacted into law by the City Council, state law is clear that those choices cannot be revisited during permit review. Mitigation measures such as the retention of the Laurel can be imposed to enhance compatibility, but the project cannot be denied on the basis of building size or road congestion if those aspects of the proposal are consistent with the zoning map and adopted level of service standards. ORAL TESTIMONY A summary of the testimony is included as Attachment A to this decision. The summary has been excised from this decision in order to reduce the length of the decision. The summary does not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law and is only prepared for the convenience of the reader. Any persons wishing to have a copy of the summary emailed to them may do so by sending a request to olbrechtslaw@e,gmail.com. EXHIBITS The exhibit lists admitted into the record include those exhibits identified in the exhibit lists submitted by each of the hearing parties prior to the commencement of the hearing. The exhibit lists are identified as follows: 1. Applicant's Final Exhibit List, dated July 24, 2014 (Applicant Exhibits Denoted by "H"). 2. City of Federal Way's Exhibit and Witness List, dated July 22, 2014 (City Exhibits Denoted by "FW"). 3. City of Federal Way's Supplemental Exhibit List, dated July 25, 2014. 4. Exhibits Al through A26 submitted by Leah Boehm -Brady by emails dated July 25, 2014 to all hearing. (Appellant Exhibits Denoted by "A"). Exhibit A2 was excluded from the record. Exhibits AI I and A17 do not exist. 5. Ex. A27 — four comment letters submitted by Leah Boehm -Brady 6. Ex. FW15 — Title Report 7. Ex. H23 — 7/31/14 email from Bill Lynn proposing revised buffer language. Process IV Decision -- 2 8. Ex. H24 — 7/31/14 email from examiner re -opening hearing. 9. Ex. FW16 --Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, dated July 23, 2014 along with motion to dismiss and reply to motion to dismiss from the City, the applicant's joinder in the dismissal motion and the appellants' response to the motion. 10. Ex. F W 17 — Prehearing Order dated July 13, 2014. 11. Ex. FW 18 — July 21, 2014 staff report FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant/&Rellants. The applicant is Devco. The Appellants are Leah Boehm -Brady in addition to 52 other appellants for the SEPA appeal and 45 other appellants for the Process III appeal. 39 of the 46 appellants for the Process III appeal were dismissed by Order on Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing in the above -captioned matter, dated July 23, 2014. See Ex. FW16. 2. He_arng. A prehearing conference was held on the application on July 11, 2014. The public hearing on the application was held at 1:00 p.m. at Federal Way City Hall on July 28, 2014. The hearing was initially left open through July 29, 2014 in order to provide the City with an opportunity to submit the title report for the property. The hearing was re -opened by consent of the hearing parties on July 31, 2014 to consider a proposed condition regarding the northern perimeter buffer. The record was left open through August 1, 2014 in order to provide the appellants an opportunity to respond to the proposed language. No response was provided. Substantive: 3. Proposal and Appeal. The applicant proposes to redevelop the former Federal Way Public Schools bus storage facility (commonly known as the bus barn) located at 1066 S 320th St into a mixed use multi -family facility. The development will be composed of 15 buildings three to six stories in height. The buildings will accommodate 300 dwelling units and 27,337 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space. The site will be accessed by two access points from 320th St. The primary access point will be an extension of 11th Pl. S., which will curve near the center of the development and end with a stub road at the northeastern corner of the site. The 1 lth Pl. S. extension is part of a planned "Ring Road", designed to improve traffic circulation in the downtown area of Federal Way as depicted and planned in Map VII-5 of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. The project site is 9.84 acres in area and the majority of the site is paved. Historic use of the site as a transportation facility has resulted in contaminated soils caused by underground storage tanks, hydraulic vehicle hoists, and exterior chemical storage. Site investigations have found impacts to soil at concentrations exceeding Model Toxic Control Act ("MTCA") clean up levels. The applicant has prepared a Phase I Environmental Assessment as required by MTCA. The mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued for the proposal requires the applicant to prepare a clean-up plan consistent with state regulations, subject to third party review. Process IV Decision -- 3 The project site adjoins a single-family neighborhood located to the north zoned R7.2. The neighborhood is currently buffered from the bus barn site by a greenbelt of Laurel and other trees about 20 feet deep. The Laurel trees form a completely site obscuring screen with most of the trees at heights of 16-25 feet. Pursuant to Federal Way height standards, the four buildings proposed within 100 feet of the neighborhood are less than 40 feet tall. The development was reviewed as a Process III project by the City. The City approved the Process III application by decision dated June 4, 2014. An MDNS for the proposal was issued on March 28, 2014. Deviations were approved for the proposal as well, including in relevant part: (1) the perimeter landscaping for the northern perimeter of the proposal was reduced from 15 feet to 11.25 feet; (2) the number of required parking spaces were reduced from 586 parking spaces to 517 parking space; (3) the front yard setback for four of the buildings was reduced; (4) street frontage requirements for I Ith Pl. S. were modified; and (5) frontage improvements to S. 320`h St. were waived. The appellants filed an appeal of the MDNS on May 1, 2014. The appellants filed an appeal of the Process III approval on June 19, 2014. The MDNS appeal was based exclusively on the adequacy of the proposed clean up measures for the contaminated soils of the site. The Process III appeal contested the compatibility of the bulk and scale of the site with the adjoining neighborhood, asserted the deviations should not have been approved, asserted the proposal is not served by and adequate road system, expressed concern over the generation of contaminated dust during remediation, advocated for the retention of the trees along the northern perimeter and requested the elimination of a pedestrian access point to 13 Ave. S. The following Findings of Fact address each of the appeal issues individually. 4. Hazardous Waste Removal. The proposed remediation of the project site, as mitigated by the MDNS, will not result in any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Further the City has made a prima facie showing that it has based its MDNS upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. As the location of a school district bus barn, the property has been found to contain numerous hazardous wastes, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene. The applicant will remediate the site prior to any development. The MDNS for the proposal requires the applicant to fund third party review of the applicant's remediation plan prior to the issuance of any grading permit and then to fund additional third party review of the completed remediation prior to the issuance of any further permits for development of the site. The third party reviewer will be tasked with verifying that the clean-up effort is consistent with applicable state remediation statutes and regulations. In their SEPA appeal, the appellants challenge the accuracy of the "initial data" used to evaluate the hazardous waste of the site. The appellants do not identify where this "initial data" came from. It appears that the information was taken from the Phase I review and Interim Action Work Plan, Ex. FW6. The environmental checklist notes that this information was considered in making the threshold determination. See Ex. H5, p.2. Process IV Decision -- 4 In their appeal the primary assertions by the appellants are as follows: (1) the soil testing was done before removal of the impervious surfaces and it is likely that additional contaminants that haven't yet been discovered are located below those surfaces; (2) the applicant has too much self-interest to objectively do its own clean-up plan; and (3) the Washington State Department of Ecology ("DOE") should review the clean-up. At the outset is should be noted that the appellants presented virtually no credible evidence to support any of their assertions. As noted in the Conclusions of Law below, the hearing examiner must give substantial weight to the determination of the SEPA responsible official. This creates a fairly high bar for the appellants to overcome if they wish to prevail. With this standard of review, the appellants would likely have to present very compelling expert testimony to rebut any expert testimony provided by the applicant and/or city. The applicant presented expert testimony at the hearing that the clean-up efforts would be adequate. The city presented the testimony of an expert third party reviewer that the clean-up would be adequate. In response the appellants only provided written hearsay statements in their SEPA appeal, Ex. FW2, from Greg Wingard. Mr. Wingard works with King County Councilmember Larry Phillips in some undefined capacity in directing environmental remediation. Mr. Wingard was not present at the hearing and his comments were not subject to cross-examination. There is no information in the record as to what information Mr. Wingard reviewed before allegedly making the comment referenced in the SEPA appeal that "the contamination to the property in question is likely worse than what the initial data has shown". Mr. Wingard may have formulated a well -qualified and well justified opinion on the adequacy of the "initial data", but without any cross-examination and any information on exactly what that "initial data" he reviewed, his comments have virtually no probative value. Despite the absence of any evidence substantiating any deficiencies in the proposed clean-up efforts, the appellants do raise a troubling issue regarding the potential for undiscovered contaminants located below impervious surfaces. When the examiner asked the applicant's expert, Thomas Morin, about this issue, he simply responded that it was very unlikely that any additional contaminants would be discovered. This is not very reassuring testimony. An explanation of exactly why additional contamination was unlikely to be found would have been much more to the point. However, the 595 page Phase I review, FW6, includes a detailed series of soil borings and other subsurface testing procedures designed to ensure the elimination of all data gaps. The city's third party reviewer, Jon Sondergaard, concluded that the applicant has sufficient data to determine the location of all contaminated soils except for one area. Mr. Sondergaard concluded that the proposed remediation plan meets industry standards for this type of activity, and, in the end, it would meet the state requirements for cleanup of the soil and water at the site. The one portion of the project area still needing investigation (called a "data gap" in the remediation documentation) is located at the southwest corner of the project site. Additional evaluation of this area prior to any development, as recommended by Mr. Sondergaard, will be required as an additional SEPA mitigation measure. Mr. Sondergaard's other recommendations, listed in his written report, F7, will also be added to the SEPA mitigation measures. The other issues raised in the SEPA appeal are not compelling. The self-interest of the applicant in preparing its own remediation plan is not a concern for two reasons: (1) the applicant can incur substantial liability if it fails to properly clean up the site; and more importantly, (2) the Process IV Decision -- 5 applicant's actions will be subject to third party review. This third party review will be more intense than any kind of oversight the appellants could hope to get from DOE, which is very likely none. DOE may have some involvement in dealing with hazardous waste at Hanford, but as testified by Mr. Morin, the subject property is not sufficiently contaminated to trigger any DOE oversight prior to the issuance of a No Further Action (an opinion letter from DOE concluding that the remediation is complete and, apparently, that the remediation satisfies DOE standards). Even if DOE did exercise some oversight authority over this type of remediation, the hearing examiner has no authority to order DOE to do it. Of course, the appellants are free to contact DOE themselves in efforts to persuade them to get involved. For the reasons stated above, it is determined that the proposed remediation plan will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The third party review required by the City provides strong assurance that the project site will be remediated according to applicable state regulations. The appellants have provided no evidence to the contrary. It is also determined that the SEPA responsible official had sufficient information to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal for purposes of issuing the MDNS. The 595 page Phase I review document, FW6, provided enough information for the SEPA responsible official to determine that compliance with state remediation standards could be assured by third party review. The desire of the appellants to have access to clean up documentation is understandable, but beyond the scope of the SEPA appeal. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law below, a SEPA appeal is based upon whether the SEPA responsible official had adequate information to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposal and whether the proposal creates probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts. The public availability of future remediation documents is not relevant to either of these legal issues. The appellants should be aware however, that any remediation documents filed with the City are subject to public review under the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW. Under these statutes the City has a duty to promptly respond to any requests for public documents within its possession, unless those documents are statutorily exempt from disclosure. The appellants are also encouraged to see if the City would be willing to notify them of when new remediation documents are filed with the City. Such notification is not required by state law and would depend upon whether the City has the resources to provide this type of notice as a policy matter. 5. Compatibility. In Page 1 of their Process III appeal, the appellants assert that the bulk and scale of the proposal is not compatible with their single-family neighborhood. As mitigated, the proposal is not significantly incompatible with the adjoining residential neighborhood. Aesthetics is the greatest issue of concern in regards to compatibility. The proposed three to six story buildings are clearly at a much greater scale then the single-family homes owned by the appellants. However, several regulatory measures and conditions of approval assure that the adjoining neighborhood is adequately screened and separated from these relatively large scale buildings. Retention of the 16-25 foot high Laurel vegetative buffer, as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 7 and Conclusion of Law No. 7, should go a long way in creating a complete visual barrier to the proposed buildings, at least to the homes immediately adjoining the northern boundary of the property. The City Council has also placed limitations on building height in the CC-F district next to residential zones. Note 5 of FWRC 19.230.060 provides that structures on Process IV Decision -- 6 property that adjoins a residential zone shall be set back a minimum of 20 ft. from the property line; the height of structures shall not exceed 30 ft. above average building elevation when located between 20 ft. and 40 ft. from the adjacent residentially zoned property line; and shall not exceed 40 ft. above average building elevation when located between 40 ft. and 100 ft. from the property line. These height restrictions are a legislative determination of acceptable building heights next to residential zones. The proposal complies with these height limits. There is nothing in the record that suggests anything unusual about the subject application that merits additional protection from aesthetic impacts. The applicants also assert that the waiver of frontage, setback and landscaping requirements creates design incompatibilities by bringing buildings closer to the property line and facilitating increases in density. There is nothing in the record that suggests any adverse aesthetic or other impacts associated with the authorized modifications. As the applicants have not pursued their arguments on these issues and there is no evidence supporting their position, the findings and conclusions of the staff report on the frontage waiver Section IV(1)(b)(buffer) and Section IV(2)(e) are adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. Regarding the 3.75 reduction in perimeter landscaping on the north side of the property, the conditions of approval added by this appeal decision will require retention of the Laurel trees, which will likely provide an impenetrable visual barrier. The 3.75 buffer reduction should not reduce the effectiveness of this barrier. As to other compatibility issues, the appellants have raised every adverse impact that reasonably could be associated with compatibility for this project, i.e. aesthetics (the adequacy of the buffer), traffic and parking. As determined in other Findings of Fact herein, the proposal is adequately mitigated for all of these impacts. Nothing in the record suggests that the project would create any significantly adverse amount of noise, odor or vibration. Consequently, it must be determined that the proposal does not create any significant adverse compatibility issues. 6. Project Design. At page 1 and pages 5-6 of their Process III appeal, the appellants assert the project design is not consistent with comprehensive plan policies or standards. It is determined that no design standards or comprehensive plan policies are violated by the proposal. 'Cfie appellants have not cited to any City design standard or comprehensive plan design policy that is violated by the proposal and no such violation is evident from the record. Item No. 6 of the Process III decision, Ex. FW9, provides detailed findings on how applicable design standards have been met by the proposal. The appellants have not contested any of these findings. 7. Northern Vegetative Buffer. Page 2 of the Process III appeal asserts that removal of the existing vegetation along the northern perimeter is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. This portion of the appeal is sustained and retention of the Laurel trees will be required as a condition of approval. Retention of the northern vegetative buffer is the most significant issue of this application. The appellants raise valid concerns on the compatibility of the proposed high density development with their single-family neighborhood. Complete retention of the vegetative buffer would have 2 The height of the buildings and deviations to setbacks and the like are not considered design issues and are handled separately under the preceding Finding of Fact as a compatibility issue. Process IV Decision -- 7 gone a long way in buffering and mitigating against the compatibility issues. It is unfortunate that the applicant has not made a greater effort to retain this buffer. As noted in the arborists report prepared by the applicant, Ex. H4, there are a large number of Laurel "shrubs" 16 to 32 feet tall located at the northern 20 feet of the subject property that provide a complete screen up to 24 and 32 feet high in some places. Ex. H4, p. 5. According to the report, in places the foliage is so dense it obscures all vision through it and the Laurel provides "an impenetrable screen" to the neighborhood to the north. The foliage is located between a 6-foot tall chain link fence and the north property line. The chain link fence runs parallel to and 20 feet south of the north property line. The applicant prepared an arborist report that assessed the health of 263 trees within the vegetative buffer. See Ex. H4. The report concluded that 23 of the trees were dead, dying or in poor condition and need to be removed for safety. The report did not identify why the 26 trees were selected for evaluation and it is unclear if other trees are also present in the vegetative buffer. The applicants had a bonsai artist inspect a portion of the vegetative buffer from the back yards of three residences abutting the north property line of the proposal. The bonsai artist is not an arborist, but he does have 40 years of experience in working with a wide range of tree species, excluding large tree specimens, and evaluating insect and disease problems for trees. The bonsai artist essentially found some trees to be healthy and others not to be healthy. Ex. A3. The applicant's arborist was more qualified to do a tree assessment and his survey of the vegetated area was more comprehensive than that of the bonsai artist. For these reasons, the arborist's conclusions on the health of the trees and their need for removal is the most compelling and they are taken as verities. Despite the greater reliance on the findings of the applicant's arborist, it should be noted that there's nothing in the record to suggest that the arborist and bonsai artist actually disagree on the health of any particular tree. The bonsai artist's main comments about healthy trees were focused upon "Cherry Laurel". The Laurel "trees" are characterized as "shrubs" in the arborist report. Although this is a curious designation for plants that the arborist noted were as high as 32 feet, the Laurel "trees" or "shrubs" were not included in the 26 trees that the arborist evaluated for health. In point of fact the applicant's arborist found the "English Laurel" to be in good to very good condition. The arborist comments about the Laurel plants creating an "impenetrable" visual barrier with the majority of the plants being 16 to 25 feet tall establishes the significance of these Laurel plants as a visual buffer to the applicant's multistory buildings to the south. That 16 to 25 foot impenetrable visual barrier (at some points reaching 32 feet in height) is located just 100 feet from the residences to the north of the property line, See Ex. FWl1 Such a high visual barrier should serve to block most of the view of the applicant's buildings from adjoining residences. Retention of the Laurel trees would be far superior to the six foot fence and six foot trees proposed by the applicant for the buffer area. At least for the amount of time it would take for the applicant's proposed trees to form a 16 to 25 foot "impenetrable" barrier, retention of the s The 26 trees evaluated in the arborist report do not include any of the Laurel trees of the site — the arborist designated the Laurels as shrubs rather than trees. Process IV Decision -- 8 Laurel trees would serve as a far more effective visual barrier to the multi -story buildings proposed by the applicant. 8. Location of Trees. At p. 2 of the Process III appeal the appellants assert that some of the trees proposed to be removed are located on their property. During the hearing the appellants also referenced a "Sewer Plan and Profile", Ex. A15, that they assert establishes that a sewer easement is located within the tree removal area along the northern perimeter. The ALTA property survey, Ex. H2 and title report, Ex. FW6, do not suggest that the trees that will be removed will be taken from any adjoining property. The sewer easement on the "Sewer Plan" submitted by the appellants appears to be located on the adjoining residential property and not on the project site. None of the evidence in the record suggests that there will be any taking of trees off of private property or that the proposed tree removal will occur within a sewer easement. 9. Parking. In pages 3-4 of the Process III appeal, the appellants contest reductions in parking standards authorized by the City. The city and applicant have presented expert testimony that establishes that the number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant and authorized by the City is sufficient to meet the parking demand created by the proposal. The applicant's presented no expert testimony or compelling evidence to contest the findings of the applicant and city. The amount of proposed parking is found to be adequate to meet the parking demand of the proposal. Without the application of any waivers or reductions, City code would require 5864 stalls. The applicant requested a reduction to 503 spaces. Under the currently proposed 300 dwelling units and 18,4405 square feet or retail commercial space, the City of Federal Way Director of the Department of Community Development ("Director"), authorized a reduction to 517 parking spaces. See Ex. H14. This reduction was authorized by the reduction of parking spaces for the proposal's multi -family use from the required 1.7 per dwelling unit to 1.51 per dwelling unit. For the proposal's ground floor commercial uses, the Director allowed the reduction from the required 1 space per 300sf of gross floor area to 1 space per 316sf of gross floor area. See Ex. H14. As with most other impacts assessed for this project, the adequacy of mitigation is set by City Code. For parking, the City Council has authorized a site specific analysis of parking impacts under Use Zone Chart Special Regulation #17, which authorizes reductions in parking requirements pursuant to a parking study that documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses. For this application the applicant prepared a parking study showing the parking demand created by nine comparable multi -family sites in King County and Snohomish County. The applicant also applied parking generation data from the 4t" Edition of Parking Generation, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE"). The average parking demand established from both the ITE manual and the comparable parking site study was well below the 503 parking stalls proposed by the applicant. See Ex. FW10. However, the City rejected the applicant's reliance upon average numbers and instead required parking 4 This figure is taken from the applicant's parking study, Ex. FW10. As noted in the next footnote, the applicant's parking study may have been based upon a greater number of dwelling units than was finally approved by the City. 5 This figure was taken from the applicant's parking study. Ex. FW 10. Since the parking plan notes that the proposal involves 308 dwelling units and only 300 dwelling units were authorized in the final Process III approval, it is unclear if the amount of commercial space referenced in the report is what was finally approved. Process IV Decision -- 9 demand to be based upon the much more conservative 85th percentile of parking demand. This is why the applicant's request for 503 spaces was denied and the reduction was only authorized to 517 spaces. The City's conservative approach was further augmented by the applicant's transportation demand management plan, which would reduce reliance upon single -occupant vehicle use by the addition of on -site design features (such as showers for bicycle commuters), an on -site trip reduction coordinator for vanpooling/carpooling services, reduced transit passes for residents, and an on -site commuter center. The only evidence on parking demand presented by the applicants to contest the parking demand data presented in the applicant's parking study is an assertion made during the hearing that parking demand is 1.82 stalls per apartment unit. This figure was based upon census data. The appellants presented no expert evaluation or justification as to why this 1.82 figure is the most appropriate for the parking demand evaluation of the proposal. The appellants did not dispute that the comparable sites used for the applicant's parking studies were suitable for the project site. As detailed in the applicant's parking study, given that the comparable sites were located in similar suburban areas and that the multifamily buildings had similar numbers of bedrooms per dwelling units, it is determined that the applicant did use appropriate comparable sites and these sites do serve as the basis for accurate and compelling parking demand estimates for the proposal. The applicants also contested some facets of the demand management plan proposed by the applicant. Even if the beneficial impacts of the demand management plan are discounted in their entirety, the applicant's studies still establish that the number of parking stalls authorized by the City is sufficient to meet parking demand. Given the thorough and credible parking analysis prepared by the applicant and the expert and conservative review conducted by the City's traffic engineers, it is determined that the 1.51 parking spaces/dwelling unit and one parking space/316 square feet of retail space authorized by the Director is sufficient to accommodate the parking demand created by the proposal. Associated with the parking issue is the appellant's contention that the inadequate parking will cause persons to park within their neighborhood on 317`h Ave. Given that the applicant has established that they are roviding sufficient parking to meet demand, it is determined that parking overflow onto 317t will Iikely not occur. 10. Hazardous Waste Dust Control. At page 4 of their Process III appeal the appellants raise concerns about hazardous waste dust control. The City's third party hazardous waste reviewer, Jon Sondergaard, testified that the applicant's health and safety plan will include provisions to provide for adequate dust control. The conditions of approval will specifically require that the applicant prepare a dust control plan, subject to third party review, that protects neighboring properties from contaminated dust. As conditioned, it is determined that the proposal will not generate any contaminated dust that could be harmful to adjoining property owners. 11. Pedestrian Facilities. The appellants assert that the walking conditions along 320th street are dangerous and therefore the proposal is not consistent with public health, safety and welfare. As noted in the staff report, existing conditions along the frontage on South 320`h Street include vertical curb and gutter, a 6' planter strip, and a 5' sidewalk with decorative streetlights. The sidewalk and planter strip provide pedestrians with approximately 11 feet of buffer from motor vehicles travelling on South 320th Street. A pedestrian connection to 13th street from the project site, as recommended by the Federal Way School District, will enable children walking to and Process IV Decision -- 10 from school to avoid walking along South 320th Street. As noted in the school access analysis prepared by the applicant, Ex. FW12, the route to neighboring schools through the 13th Street connection does not have sidewalks and crosswalks in all necessary areas, but the route does take students through a quiet residential neighborhood subject to local access road residential speed limits. Given these factors, there are no pedestrian hazards created by the project that rise to the level of a public safety concern. 12. Adequacy of Roads. At page 5 of their Process III appeal the appellants contend that the streets for the proposal are not adequate because the Ring Road depicted in the City's Comprehensive Plan should be completed prior to approval of the proposal. It is concluded that the surrounding road system is consistent with the City adopted level of service ("LOS") standards and is therefore adequate. The legislative standard for road adequacy is LOS. The City has determined that the proposal will not violate the City's adopted LOS standard of E (adopted in Comprehensive Plan Policy TP 16) and has issued a determination to that effect. See Ex. FW13. The appellants do not dispute this finding and offer no evidence to the contrary. 13. Access. The appellants contend that vehicular access to the proposal is not adequate. Access is determined to be adequate as it meets City design and LOS standards. As noted in the staff report, the project will have two access points onto South 320th Street. Access to the subject property is via the extension of 11'h Place South from the South 320th Street intersection, which staff have determined will operate at LOS C with VIC of 0.83; and a private right -in and right - out driveway east of I Ith Place South which staff have determined will operate at LOS C. As previously noted, the City's adopted LOS is E. See Comprehensive Plan Policy TP16. The proposed two access points on South 320th Street meet FWRC 19.135.280 requirements for separation of intersections and driveways. The appellants did not identify any adopted City intersection requirements that are violated by the proposal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: FWRC 19.65.120(3) provides that appeals of Process III decisions are processed as Process IV actions. FWRC 14.10.060(1) provides that appeals of SEPA threshold determinations shall be processed as Process IV actions. Chapter 19.70 FWRC provides that the hearing examiner shall hold hearings and issue final decisions on Process IV appeals. SEPA APPEAL 2. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an NMNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each ground for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. Process IV Decision -- 11 The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). In addition, FWRC 19.70.120 provides that the applicant has the burden of proof and must establish its factual assertions by a preponderance of evidence. FWRC 19.70.120 also requires that the hearing examiner shall give great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own properly promulgated regulations, matters within its expertise, and procedural determinations. B. Ad uac of Environmental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. An agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, III Wn. App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal". See, also, Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 176 Wn. App. 555 (2013). The standard of review on adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a Process IV Decision -- 12 prima facie showing that the determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 3. MDNS Sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposed hazardous waste remediation will not create any probable significant adverse environmental impacts and the SEPA responsible official had information that was reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of the proposal. Both standards for a SEPA appeal have been met, so issuance of the MDNS is sustained. PROCESS III APPEAL 4. Review Criteria. Most of the review criteria that apply to a SEPA appeal also apply to a Process III appeal. FWRC 19.70.120 provides that the applicant has the burden of proof and must establish its factual assertions by a preponderance of evidence. FWRC 19.70.120 also requires that the hearing examiner shall give great deference to the agency's interpretation of its own properly promulgated regulations, matters within its expertise, and procedural determinations. The criteria for Process III approval are governed by FWRC 19.65.100(2). Those criteria are quoted below in italics and the appeal issues pertinent to each criterion are addressed in corresponding Conclusions of Law. FWRC 19.65.100(2): Decisional criteria. The director shall use the criteria listed in this subsection and the provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application. (a) The director may approve the [Process III] application only if: (i) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 5. Compatibility. The bulk and scale of the proposed development does not create an incompatibility with the adjoining single-family neighborhood that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. At the hearing Laura Johnson presented a well -researched list of comprehensive plan policies and an overview of City incorporation history showing that Federal Way makes the preservation of neighborhoods a priority. All of her points were accurate. Unfortunately for the appellants the legally determinative point to be made is that the City Council adopted the CC-F designation for the property in the Comprehensive Plan Designations map, Map II-1. The map designation authorizes the uses of the CC-F zone, including those proposed by the applicant. RCW 36.70B.030(2) dictates that existing regulations are determinative on the issue of type of land use, density and adequacy of public services. The zoning and underlying comprehensive plan CC-F designation authorizes "types of land use" that include those proposed by the applicant. RCW 36.70B.030(3) prohibits those policy choices from being reconsidered during permit review. A basic rule of statutory construction also comes into play. When there is a conflict between statutes of general applicability and statutes that apply more specifically, the specific statute applies. Walker v. Wenatchee Valley Truck and Auto Outlet, Inc., 155 Wn. App. 199 (2010). Ms. Johnson cited numerous comprehensive plan policies that apply to residential neighborhoods in general. These provisions arguably conflict with the City Council's determination that CC-F uses are authorized at Process IV Decision -- 13 the proposed location. Since the Council's designation applies specifically to the applicant's property, that designation supersedes any conflicting policies that generally apply to residential uses. Given the limitations outlined above, it is clear that whether multi -story mixed use buildings are appropriate for the project site cannot be considered. The only compatibility issue that can be considered during project review is whether the adverse impacts caused by the buildings have been adequately mitigated. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse compatibility impacts created by the proposal as conditioned. 6. Project Design. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the design of the proposal (architectural features, building materials and the like) is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicants cite general comprehensive plan policies about preservation and protection of single-family neighborhoods, but there is nothing in the comprehensive plan or the City's development regulations that dictate any particular design beyond those evaluated by staff in the Process III decision. When dealing with subjective issues such as project design, only specific standards that can be objectively administered can be legally enforced. See Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993). The applicants have cited no specific design policy or standard that has been violated, so project design cannot be addressed. 7. Northern Vegetative Buffer. The appellants assert that removing the vegetative buffer on the northern boundary of the property violates comprehensive plan provisions that encourage protection and preservation of the City's single-family neighborhoods. That argument is sustained. The City's single-family comprehensive plan policies do dictate that the Laurel trees of the vegetative buffer should be retained in order to mitigate against the incompatibilities of the proposed multi -story buildings. The authority to impose a Laurel tree retention requirement in this case is a difficult legal issue. First, it must be determined whether any part of the FWRC authorizes the imposition of the condition. Second, it must be determined if addressing tree retention is precluded by standards that already regulate tree retention and buffering. The authority for imposing the condition can be found in FWRC 19.65.100(3), which specifically authorizes the director in Process III review to impose conditions as "reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the application." As determined in Finding of Fact No. 7, the construction of multi -story buildings is not aesthetically compatible with single- family neighborhoods — an undesirable effect of granting the application. The retention of the Laurel buffer provides a visually impenetrable buffer that mitigates against this incompatibility. Imposition of the retention requirement is also necessary for a finding of compliance with the review criteria for Process III applications, specifically FWRC 19.65.100(2)(a)(i), which requires that a Process III proposal must be consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. LUP14 requires that the City's land use regulations be strictly enforced in order to maintain the character of existing single family neighborhoods. LUP15 requires the protection of residential areas from impacts of adjacent non-residential uses. LUP20 requires the preservation of site characteristics that enhance residential development (including tree retention) using planning techniques such as clustering, planned unit developments and lot size averaging. Authorizing the removal of the Laurel vegetation would be inconsistent with all of these comprehensive plan policies since it would replace a 16-25 Process IV Decision -- 14 foot impenetrable visual barrier to buildings three to six stories in height with a visual barrier that initially will only be six feet in height. The Laurel trees are necessary for the protection of the residential character of the adjoining neighborhood. The Laurel trees are necessary to protect the adjoining neighborhood from the visual impacts of the comparably tall buildings proposed by the applicant. Retention of the Laurel trees would also provide a green belt of existing mature vegetation that would enhance both the proposal and the adjoining neighborhood. The replacement of the Laurel trees with Type I landscaping would not effectively achieve any of the objectives promoted by LUP14, 15 or 20. The applicant and City argue that retention of the Laurel trees cannot be required because tree retention and buffering is already extensively addressed in other City regulations. Especially given the subjective nature of assessing the adequacy of visual buffering, existing regulations would serve as a determinative standard for buffer adequacy if those regulations were intended to cover the situation at hand . However, the City's perimeter landscaping and tree retention standards were likely not intended to supplant the preservation of a mature vegetative buffer composed of Laurel trees 16 to 25 feet high. The applicable perimeter landscaping standard at issue is FWRC 19.125.060(7), which requires a 15 foot Type I landscaping along City Center development property lines that abut adjoining residentially zoned property. That perimeter landscaping requirement does not require the planting of any vegetation reaching the heights of the existing Laurel trees. Given the strong comprehensive plan policies encouraging the protection and preservation of residential character, it is fairly clear that the City Council would have required landscaping involving fully mature trees to buffer against multi -story mixed use structures if it were reasonable to do so. However that type of landscaping cannot be planted at a reasonable price. In this situation the trees are already there and they can be reasonably required to be retained. The existence of a tall, existing vegetative buffer was most likely not considered by the Council when it adopted its perimeter landscaping standards. The natural vegetative buffer of the subject property presents a unique and unanticipated opportunity for preservation of residential character that the regulations were not designed to address. Similar reasoning attaches to the applicability of the City's tree retention standards. FWRC 19.120.030(14) provides that tree removal in the CC-F zone is exempt from the tree retention requirements of Chapter 19.120 FWRC. One of the purposes of these tree retention requirements is to provide visual screening. See FWRC 19.120.010(4)(g). However, as reasoned above for landscape perimeter requirements, the Council likely did not intend tree retention requirements and exemptions to prevent taking advantage of well -developed vegetative buffers that already exist. It is concluded that the FWRC 19.120.030(14) tree retention exemption for CC-F properties does not preclude the City from requiring the preservation of an already existing vegetative buffer that serves to protect neighborhood character as encouraged by applicable comprehensive plan policies and, by extension, as required by extension the Process III review criteria. Given the conclusion that the Laurel should be preserved, an associated issue is how much of the Laurel should be preserved. The applicant's arborist report suggests that the vegetative buffer is 20 feet wide. It is somewhat unclear whether the entire 20 feet is necessary for the Laurels to continue to serve as an impenetrable visual buffer. However, the arborist report assessed the Laurels from the standpoint of a proposed vegetative buffer that is 10 to 15 feet wide and concluded that "[tjhey have a high potential to be retained, if their bases are located in the proposed new buffer". Given the Process IV Decision -- 15 arborists repeated references to the effective screening properties of the Laurel, his conclusions that they can be viably retained in 10-15 foot buffers, and the dense canopy created by the Laurels as depicted in the aerial photograph of the arborist report, it appears more likely than not that the buffer widths proposed by the applicant would provide for adequate screening in conjunction with retention of the Laurel. Effort should also be made to minimize disruption of the expectations created by the City's regulatory framework. In most cases the applicant would only be required to install the 15 foot wide Type I landscaping. The developer designed its site plan upon the reasonable expectation that the 15 foot buffer would apply in this case. Given all of the factors in this paragraph, Laurel retention will be limited to the Type 1 buffer width. A final outstanding issue related to retention of the Laurel is whether the 25% reduction in the northeastern buffer width to 11.25 feet is still justified. One compelling factor for staff in approving the reduction was the proposed solid wood fence. Staff reasoned that the fence would allow for immediate full site obstruction as the Type I landscaping grew into place. With retention of the Laurel, the immediate full site obstruction will likely exist with or without the fence. However, ifthe 25% reduction is not authorized, the applicant cannot be made to install the fence. In addition to providing visual screening, the fence will prevent trespass from inhabitants of the mixed -use development into the adjoining single-family properties. This is likely to be an important benefit to the neighbors. Further, the arborists conclusions related to retention of the Laurel applied for a buffer width ranging from 10 to 15 feet, which encompasses the 25% width reduction. In order to retain the fence, the proposed 11.25 width along the eastern side of the northern vegetative buffer will be authorized. 8. Location of Trees. In their Process III appeal addressing comprehensive plan consistency, the appellants assert that the trees proposed to be removed are located on the adjoining private property. It is not immediately apparent what relevancy this issue has to comprehensive plan consistency. Regardless, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8, the preponderance of evidence in the record establishes that the trees will only be removed from the project site and not from adjoining property. Ultimately, the hearing examiner has no jurisdiction to resolve trespass claims. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). If the appellants wish to pursue a trespass claim they will have to seek redress in superior court. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(ii): It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; 9. ParkinLy. The appellants contend that the proposed number of parking stalls is not consistent with City Code provisions. It is concluded that the 517 parking stalls allowed for the project is authorized by Title 19 FWRC. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 9, the total number of parking stalls required for the proposal by FWRC 19.220.010 and 19.250.040 is 586. However, note 17 to FWRC 19.230.060 authorizes this amount of parking to be reduced pursuant to the terms of FWRC 19.130.020(3). FWRC 19.130.020(3)(d) allows parking to be reduced if a parking study is prepared pursuant to FWRC 19.130.080(2), which in turn provides that a decrease in parking may be authorized "if a thorough parking study documents that fewer parking spaces will be adequate to fully serve the uses." As determined in Finding of Fact No. 9, the applicant has prepared a thorough parking study that justifies the reduction of required parking from 1.7 parking stalls per dwelling unit to 1.51 per Process IV Decision -- 16 dwelling unit and I parking space per 300sf of gross retail floor area to 1 space per 316sf of gross retail floor area. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(iii): It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; 10. Remediation Dust Control. The appellants assert that the applicant's remediation activities may generate contaminated dust that would be inconsistent with public health, safety and welfare. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 10, hazardous waste regulations require a dust control plan to be implemented by the applicant. To remove any doubt on the issue, a condition of approval is added to the Process III approval that requires the applicant to implement a dust control plan that assures that no contaminated dust will adversely affect neighboring properties. This plan will be subject to third party review. As conditioned, remediation dust will not create any threat to public health, safety or welfare. 11. Pedestrian Facilities. The appellants assert that the proposal is not consistent with public health, safety and welfare because it will contribute pedestrian tragic to S. 320th St., which the appellants claim is not safe for pedestrians. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 11, S. 320th St. is not unsafe for pedestrian traffic. For the reasons outlined in Finding of Fact No. 11, the walking conditions associated with the proposal are consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(iv): The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; 12. Adequacy of Roads. The proposal is served by adequate roads and the completion of the Ring Road is not necessary and cannot be required of the applicant. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 12, the proposal meets the City's adopted LOS standard. As noted previously, RCW 36.70B.030(2) dictates that existing regulations are determinative on the issue of type of land use, density and adequacy of public services. The LOS standard adopted by the City is determinative on the adequacy of roads. The adequacy of the roads cannot be reevaluated during project review. It should also be noted that the proposal includes development of the Ring Road for the portion that crosses the project site, along with a stub at the northeastern end of the project site to allow for future development. The applicant cannot be legally required to make any more improvements for the Ring Road development. The courts consider it to be an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation if a property owner is required to provide transportation mitigation that exceeds its proportionate impacts. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For example, if a project will only create ten percent of the traffic for a new intersection, the applicant can only be made to pay for 10% of those costs. As testified by the City's traffic engineer during the hearing, the applicant could not be made to complete the Ring Road connections without exceeding its proportionate share funding responsibility. FWRC 19.65.100(2)(v): The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration; and 13. Access. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 13, the street access for the property is adequate. There is also nothing in the record to suggest that there is any more suitable location for access. The Process IV Decision -- 17 appellants assert that more optimal access can be made by completing the Ring Road, but as previously noted, a requirement for the applicant to complete the Ring Road would violate his constitutional rights. Given the constitutional limitations on what can be required of the applicant, the only feasible access points are along 3201h. Given that one of the access points serves as an extension of the Ring Road as well as 1 lth Pl. and the second access point is separated from the Ring Road access point at a distance dictated by City standards, it is concluded that the proposed access is at an optimal location and configuration. (vi) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated. 14. Traffic Safety. The appellants assert at page 6 of their Process III appeal that the traffic safety impacts are not adequately mitigated because no improvements are required to S. 320th St. The appellants have provided no evidence to support this position and no safety hazards are evident in the record. The findings and conclusions of the staff report at Section IV(6) are adopted by this reference on this issue. Given the rigorous review of City staff, the detailed transportation design and performance standards adopted by the City and the absence of any evidence of unsafe conditions, it is concluded that traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation along S. 320th St. are adequately mitigated. DECISION The MDNS and Process III approval are sustained with the following modifications: 1. The MDNS is modified to add the following mitigation measure: The recommendations of the AESI report, Ex. FW7, shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading permit for remediation. 2. The following conditions are added to the Process III approval: A. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for remediation, the applicant shall prepare a dust control plan that ensures that contaminated dust will not adversely affect neighboring properties during remediation of the property. The plan shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. B. The Laurel trees/shrubs located within the proposed landscape buffer along the northern property line shall be retained. Specific Laurel trees/shrubs may be removed if the applicant demonstrates by an arborist report that site grading will damage the roots of the tree(s) and thereby make the tree(s) unsafe, or if the trees are already unsafe. If root or other damage or disease precludes the retention of a significant number of trees, the applicant shall have an arborist evaluate whether increasing the buffer width from 11.5 feet to 15 feet will enable the retention of a larger number of trees that will in turn create a materially more effective screening for adjoining properties. The landscape buffer will be increased to 15 feet if the arborist concludes that increasing the buffer will be materially beneficial in screening the adjoining Process IV Decision -- 18 properties. The arborist analysis required by this condition shall be subject to third party review funded by the applicant. The proposed fence will not be required if the landscaping width is increased to 15 feet. Dated this 15th day of August, 2014. --)r - 1. A. Glhrc: kus Hearing Examiner, City of Federal Way APPEAL FWRC 19.70.260 Judicial Review: The final decision of the city in granting or denying an application or an appeal under this chapter [Chapter 19.70 FWRC] may be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW in the King County superior court. The land use petition must be filed within 21 calendar days after the final land use decision of the city... Change in Valuation Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Process IV Decision -- 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE CITY OF HEARING EXAMINER IN RE: APPEAL OF A PROCESS III MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT, 1066 SOUTH 320th STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., Appellants, TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, Applicants, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, Respondent. SEPA FILE NO. 13-103506-00-SE USE PROCESS III NO. 13-103505-00-UP APPLICANT'S BRIEF ON SEPA AND USE PROCESS III APPEAL PHIL OLBRECHTS, HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: July 28, 2014 INTRODUCTION Though the two appeals here are lengthy, they are not supported by substance. They weave together speculation, misstatement of fact and generalized assertions not supported by facts. In the end, there is nothing that would support the relief the appellants seek. APPLICANT'S BRIEF ON SEPA AND USE PROCESS III APPEAL - 1 of 5 () LAW OFFICES [100093058.docx] ORIGINAL GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The High Point proposal is on land zoned for just this type of multifamily development, and the project has been shown to meet the City's density, height, set back, and other specific development regulations. The City's staff members in various departments have found that the project meets all the City's highly -detailed requirements. It is clear from the appeal that the primary objection is the fact that the multifamily units allowed by the City on this property are larger in scale than the single family homes in which the Appellants reside. They have other more specific objections as to buffers and traffic, but they are speculative and not supported by substantial evidence sufficient to refute the expert reports submitted by the Applicant and reviewed and accepted by the City's experts. There are no grounds to overturn either the land use approval or the City's environmental determination. SEPA Appeal The appeals challenge two City's decisions, a land use approval and a SEPA determination. While the Appellants challenge the SEPA decision based on the environmental cleanup, they do not object to the cleanup itself but simply want it done a different way. Their appeal does not provide any facts as to unmitigated impacts of the proposal; the cleanup will create benefits, not harm. For that reason, we will not address the SEPA appeal except to say that Appellants have the burden of proof and that the City's decision is entitled to substantial weight. RCW 43.21C.075 (3)(d); RCW 43.21C.090; WAC 197-11-680(3)(vi). RCW 43.21C.075(3)(d); 43.21C.090; WAC 197-11- 680(3)(vi); Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.70.120. The Hearing Examiner must uphold the City's MDNS unless it is determined that the decision was clearly erroneous. Leavitt v. Jefferson County, 74 Wn.App. 668, 875 P.2d 681 (1994); Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 APPLICANT'S BRIEF ON SEPA AND USE PROCESS III APPEAL - 2 of 5 () LAW OFFICES [100093058.docx] GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1976). An agency decision is clearly erroneous only if, after a review of the entire record and in light of the policy of SEPA, the reviewing official is left with the definite and firm conviction that the agency made a mistake. Leavittat 680. It is not up to the City or the Applicant to justify the DNS. Rather, the City must merely "demonstrate that environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Pease Hill Community Group v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 810, 816 P.2d 37 (1991)(quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Association v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73, 510 P.2d 1140, review denied, 83 Wn.2d 1002 (1973)). Thereafter, the Appellant has the burden of proving that the decision was in fact clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Leavitt, 74 Wn.App. at 677 n.3. In making its decision, the Responsible Official must review the proposal in light of mitigation already imposed by "development regulations, comprehensive plans, or other existing environmental rules or laws." WAC 173-11-330(1)(c). Thus, reliance on applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation is appropriate. See Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 16 (2001), rev'w denied, 146 Wn.2d 1017 (2002). Similarly, the official may rely on mitigation measures proposed by the applicant. WAC 197-11-330(1)(c). Use Process III Appeal With respect to the land use decision, the burden is also on Appellants. FWRC 19.70.120. In review, the decision of the City Staff is due "great deference" as to interpretation of code and other matters within their expertise. That is very important here since most of the appeal allegations challenge matters within the expertise of the staff. Appellants have a heavy burden. APPLICANT'S BRIEF ON SEPA AND USE PROCESS III APPEAL - 3 of 5 () LAW OFFICES [100093058.docx] GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In meeting the burden, the Appellants must have evidence. General community displeasure is irrelevant to zoning decisions. Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wn. App. 795, 894, 801 P. 2d 985 (1990); Kenart & Assocs. v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295, 303, 680 P. 2d 439, review denied, 101 Wn. 2d 1021 (1984). Rather, residents must have a substantial and well-founded basis for their fears, not one based on popular prejudices or stereotypes. Sunderland Family Treatment Servs, v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn. 2d 782, 903 P. 2d 986 (1995); Washington State Dept. of Corrections v. City of Kennewick, 86 Wn. App. 51, 532, 937 P. 2d 1119 (1997). Most of Appellants' arguments protest the height and location of the proposed buildings. The height and setbacks are established by code for the CC-F zoning. In many respects, the proposal is designed to exceed the requirements; as to setbacks for example, several buildings on the north side nearest the neighbors are set back much further from the nearest neighbors than required. In all cases, the setbacks are met. Following the adoption of the Growth Management Act, the Legislature made clear that the rules developed through the extensive GMA process were to be used as the basis for decision -making. This concept is manifested in RCW 36.70B.030, and 040, and RCW 43.21C.240, all of which were adopted as part of the Regulatory Reform Act. Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. RCW 36.70B.030(1). This is specifically true as to allowable land uses. RCW 36.70B.030(2)(a). The development regulations are "determinative". RCW 36.70B.030(2). And, if a county has a development regulation that adequately addresses a project's environmental impacts, the government "shall not impose additional mitigation under SEPA". RCW 43.21C.240(3). Developmental regulations are APPLICANT'S BRIEF ON SEPA AND USE PROCESS III APPEAL - 4 of 5 (� LAW OFFICES [100093058.docx] GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 considered to have adequately addressed the environmental impact if the "local government has designated a specified development standard." RCW 43.21C.240(4)(b). Under these provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act, local governments may not alter adopted development standards on an ad hoc basis. Here this means the City must follow the height, bulk and setback provisions of the Federal Way code. That includes the buffer and parking provisions that specifically allow for reduction if written standards are met. The City, acting through the Examiner or otherwise, may not establish different height or other restrictions for the project, simply because neighbors request. CONCLUSION The Appellants cannot meet their heavy burden of proof. The various decisions made by the City were based on professionally prepared design and study and were reviewed and approved by the City's independent experts. Giving those decisions the "great deference" they are due, the Examiner should uphold the City actions. Dated this 28th day of July, 2014. GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP By �)k William T. Lyn blynn@gth-la� Attorneys for APPLICANT'S BRIEF ON SEPA AND USE PROCESS III APPEAL - 5 of 5 [100093058.docx] No. 07887 nt LAW OFFICES GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, JA,?5: 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 Significarce (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 ❑ FWRC Interpretation 91 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 ge-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on Project Name o •�� File Number(s) Signature ~ Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2:40:00 PM Tamara Fix To: blynn@gth-law.com; paul@mailagc.com; kim@kenyondisend.com; jack.hunden@devcoapts.com; bradymarka@yahoo.com; sralaurajohnson@hotmail.com; mrbarclay@comcast.net; jeanneeppl@gmail.com; hmathews44@yahoo.com; leahboehm@hotmail.com; tfischlin@comcast.net; thewocket@msn.com; brucesnyder@q.com; rdawson@fedwaymirror.com; pillarofmiller@outlook.com; indigochimaera@msn.com; elise.crick@gmail.com; Iinderman480@hotmail.com Cc: Matt Herrera Subject: Highpoint Decision Attachments: Process IV -- SEPA and Process III Appeal.pdf Attached is the Hearing Examiner Decision for the Highpoint project appeal. HEX Decision Mailing ✓lark Brady :41 S 315th St ederal Way, WA 98003 kadymarka@yahoo.com ,aura Johnson .615 SW 317'h Pl. ederal Way, WA 98023 .%ralaurajolmson@hotmail.com dichael Barclay 108 SW 313th PI ederal Way, WA 98023 tarbarclay@comcast.net eanne Epp :26 S. 316th St. ederal Way, WA 98003 43-anneeRPI@gLnail.com Heather Mathews 903 S. 317`h St. Federal Way, WA 98063 hmathews44@yghoo.com Leah Boehm Brady 841 S. 315" St. Federal Way, WA 98003 leahboehm cr,hotmail.com Tracy Fischlin 1035 S 317th St Federal Way, WA 98003 253-312-5132 tfischlin ate. comcast.net Jennifer Wojciechowski 1091 S. 317th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 thewocket@msn.com Bruce Snyder 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way. WA 98003 brucesnyder a g.com Raechel Dawson 31919 1" Ave S, # 101 Federal Way, WA 98003 rdawson@fedwaymh-ror.com Caroline Miller 1027 S. 317th St. Federal Way, 98003 253-946-6822 pi I l arofm i ller(rgr7.outlook. co m Marcia Silicani 1027 S 317, St Federal Way, WA 98003 indi ochimaerana msn.com Elise Crick 1281 S. 315' St. Federal Way, WA 98003 elise.crick@gmail.com. Sandy Linderman 840 S. 318" St. Federal Way, WA 98003 Linderman480(@,hotmail.com Tamara Fix From: Matt Herrera Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 4:24 AM To: Tamara Fix Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: Highpoint Distribution Hi Tamara, The Highpoint decision came out later Friday night so it needs to be distributed to parties on the list I sent over a couple of weeks ago. We'll also need to send it to the following: Bill Lynn / blynn@cith-law.com Paul Green / vaul@mailacic.com Kim Pratt / kim ken ondisend.com Jack Hunden / jack.hunden@devcoapts.com I also need a declaration of distribution for the file. Thanks. -Matt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE CITY OF FEDER) IN RE: APPEAL OF A PROCESS III MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNFICANCE, HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT, 1066 SOUTH 320TH STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., Appellants, TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, Applicants, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, �L WAY HEARING EXAMINER SEPA FILE NO. 13-103506-00-SE USE PROCESS III NO. 13-103505-00-UP CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST The City of Federal submits the following list of exhibits and witnesses for the hearing in the above appeals. V I. EXHIBITS FW1 Zoning Map of Site and Vicinity FW2 DNS Appeal FW3 Use Process III Appeal FW4 Notice of Appeal Hearing w/ declarations Kenyon Disend,PLLC ""9' , South The Municipal Law Firm CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S EXHIBIT AND I I Franz Sweet DISEND Issaquah,WA 98027-3027-3820 WITNESS LIST - I Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax:(425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FW5 DNS w/ declarations FW6 Phase I Environmental Assessment & Subsurface Investigation w/ Interim Action Work Plan & Cost Estimate FW7 AESI Review Memo FW8 Site, Landscape, and Grading Plans FW9 Use Process III Decision w/ Findings. FW10 Parking Analysis & Transportation Demand Management Plan FW 11 Plat of Ingrid Manor/Subject Property Topographic & Boundary Surveys FW12 School Access Analysis with FWPS Response FW13 Capacity Reserve Certificate & Level of Service Summary FW 14 Public Comment Letters II. WITNESSES 1. Matthew Herrera, Senior Planner — SEPA and Use Process III application process and substance, zoning, land use and design review of the proposal. 2. Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager — SEPA and Use Process III application process and substance, zoning, land use and design review of the proposal. 3. Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer — Traffic review and analysis of the proposal. 4. Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer — Traffic review and analysis of the proposal 5. Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer — Proposal's civil construction requirements including stormwater, right-of-way, and clearing/grading. 6. Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer — Proposal's civil construction requirements including stormwater, right-of-way, and clearing/grading. 7. Jon Sondergaard - Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated, Senior Principal Geologist and Engineering Geologist — Proposal's environmental remediation documents and cleanup performance. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of July, 2014. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST - 2 KENYON DISEND, PLLC By �p , /U— Kim Adams Pratt WSBA No. 19798 Attorney for Respondent City of Federal Way Kenyon Disend,PLLC The Municipal Law Firm I I Front Street South e® ® Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 ..,�. --. - :';.i` sF `• Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax: (425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, Sheryl Loewen, declare and state: 1. I am a citizen of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein. 2. On the 22nd day of July, 2014, I served a true copy of the foregoing City of Federal Way's Exhibit and Witness List, on the following counsel and pro se representative of record using the method of service indicated below: Leah Boehm -Brady ❑ First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid 841 South 315th Street ❑ Legal Messenger Federal Way, WA 98003 ❑ Overnight Delivery ❑ Facsimile ® E-Mail:leahboehm@hotmail.com William T. Lynn ❑ First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid Attorney at Law ❑ Legal Messenger P.O. Box 1157 ❑ Overnight Delivery Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 ❑ Facsimile ® E-Mail: blynn@gth-law.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 22nd day of July, 2014, at Issaquah, Washington. J&4; &.62AL=2 Sheryl Lae Caen CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S EXHIBIT AND WITNESS LIST - 3 Kenyon Disend,PLLC The Municipal Law Firm II Front Street South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax (425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE CITY OF FEDEIL IN RE: APPEAL OF A PROCESS III MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNFICANCE, HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT, 1066 SOUTH 320TH STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, Appellants, Applicants, Respondent. �L WAY HEARING EXAMINER SEPA FILE NO. 13-103506-00-SE USE PROCESS III NO. 13-103505-00-UP CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S REPLY TO APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING I. INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way (the "City") requests that certain Appellants who lack standing under FWRC 19.65.120 be dismissed as Appellants. II. ANALYSIS A. ADDellants' Misinterpret Anneal Requirements of FWMC 19.65.120. Kenyon Disend,PLLC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT The Municipal Law Firm M II Front Street South OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FORIssaquah,WA 98027-3820 LACK OF STANDING - 1 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax:(425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City ordinances are interpreted using statutory construction principles. Tahoma Audubon Society v. Park Junction Partners, 128 Wn. App. 671, 682, 116 P.3d 1046 (2005).1 An ordinance of the City Council is presumed to mean exactly what it says, and those words are given their plain and ordinary meaning. Ockerman v. King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services, 102 Wn. App. 212, 216, 6 P.3d 1214 (2000). The Appellants' Response to the City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss ("Response") focuses on the provision in the Federal Way Revise Code ("F`NRC") that allows an appeal by "any person who has specifically requested a copy of the decision." The Appellants' interpretation of this provision, however, is not consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in the code. Appellants' argue that the code "appears to allow almost anyone who has read the decision"2 to appeal the decision, and that the code allows anyone who has received a copy of the decision from a third party to appeal the decision.3 The plain and ordinary meaning of the code does not allow for an appeal to be filed by a person who has merely read the decision or a person who has received a copy of the decision from a third party. The language specifically provides that a person may appeal if they "specifically requested a copy of the decision." It allows a person who requested a copy of the Highpoint Use Process III Project Approval decision from the City to file an appeal. This is the City's code and procedures for filing an appeal of a City decision. It does not dictate what third parties may agree to amongst themselves. ' FWRC 19.65.120 was adopted and amended by City Ordinance No. 09-594, § 61, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 07- 573, § 22, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; and Ord. No. 90-43, § 2 (145.60), 2-27-90. 2 Appellants' Response to City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss at 4. 3 Id. at 3. Kenyon Disend,PLLC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT The Municipal Law Firm • OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR I I Front Street South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 LACK OF STANDING - 2 DISEND Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax: (425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Response indicates that Ms. Boehm -Brady and others have provided all of the named Appellants with copy of the decision. Agreements and arrangements between the neighbors, while convenient, are not addressed in the code. The plain meaning of the code does not grant appellant status to the 39 persons who did not request a copy of the decision themselves, did not submit comments themselves, and did not submit information themselves. FWRC 19.65.120. Herrera Decl. at 2, ¶ 3, and Ex. A thereto. III. CONCLUSION City of Federal Way respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss as Appellants to the Project Permit Appeal the persons listed in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Matthew Herrera filed with the City's Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of July, 2014. KENYON DISEND, PLLC By Kim Adams raft WSBA No. 19798 Attorney for Respondent City of Federal Way 4 Id. at 2. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 3 Kenyon Disend,PLLC The Municipal Law Firm II Front Street South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax: (425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, Mary Swan, declare and state: 1. I am a citizen of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein. 2. On the 22nd day of July, 2014, I served a true copy of the foregoing City of Federal Way's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appellants for Lack of Standing on the following individuals of record using the method of service indicated below: Leah Boehm -Brady ® First Class, U.S. Mail_, Postage Prepaid 841 South 315'h Street ❑ Legal Messenger Federal Way, WA 98003 ❑ Overnight Delivery ❑ Facsimile ® E-Mail: leahboehm@hotmail.com William T. Lynn ® First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid Attorney at Law ❑ Legal Messenger P.O. Box 1157 ❑ Overnight Delivery Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 ❑ Facsimile ® E-Mail: blynn(@,Pth-law.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED thi ay of July, 2014, at Issaquah, Washington. 2&q Mary Sw CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 4 Kenyon Disend, PLLC The Municipal Law Firm I I Front Street South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax:(425) 392-7071 0 ■ BEFORE THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER IN RE: APPEAL OF A PROCESS III MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON$IGNIFICANCE, HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT, 1066 SOUTH 320TIl STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., Appellants, TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, Applicants, - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, Respondent. SEPA FILE NO. 13-103505-00-SE USE PROCESS III NO. 13-1-3505-00-UP APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING APELLANT' S RESPONSE TO CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 1 Declaration of Service 1, Leah Boehm Brady, declare and state: On the At day of July 2014 l received the City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing; and the declaration of Matthew Herrera in Support of City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.„ 2. On the �� nay of July 2014 l received Applicant's Joinder from William T. Lynn. 3. Attached to this Declaration of Service is the Appellant's Response to the City of Federal Way's and the Applicant's Motions to Motion to Dismiss some of Appellants, for Lack of Standing. i am sending this Motion to the following participants. Hearina Examiner's Office Phi101brechts: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com City of Federal Way Matt Herrera: matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com Kira Pratt: kimCa-)kenyondisend.ccrn Applicant Bill Lynn bl nn ath-law.com M. Archer marcher(Pgth-law.corn l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this/9 day of July, 2014 r • Boehm -Brady I a2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I. Relief Ilea nested The Appellants request that the Hearing Examiner reject the motion to dismiss certain Appellants from the Use Process III Project approval appeal and allow all Appellants remain as parties to this issue as initiated. II. Backo.ound, Two administrative appeals have been filed against the High Point Mixed Use Project to be located at 1066 South 320th Street in Federal Way (the "High Point Project"). On May 1, 2014 a group of fifty-three (53) citizens appealed the Determination of Nonsignificance and on June 19, 2014, a group of fifty-eight (58) appealed the Use Process III project Approval. Those appeals have been consolidated as required by WAC 197-11-680. Ms. Boehm -Brady and others have engaged the community at large numerous times with the above -mentioned appeals and with each of the appellants individually, providing each appellant with a copy of the decision and ensuring that each appellant has read and understands the appeal filed. III. Analvsis The City correctly states that the Hearing Examiner has authority to establish rules of -procedure for the "efficient and fair conduct of matters that come before the hearing examiner." Federal [PLEADING TITLE] - 2 1 Way Revised Code ('`FWRC") 2.95.050. The City also correctly states that standing to file an 2 appeal of a project permit approval is governed in FWRC by 19.65.120 which provides as 3 follows: 4 5 19.65.120 Appeals. 6 (1) Who may appeal. A decision of the director under this process may be appealed by the applicant, any person who submitted written comments or information, any person 7 who has specifically requested a copy of the decision, or the city. 8 9 The City argues that because Mr. Herrera did not receive requests for a copy of the 10 decision or receive submissions of written comments or information from thirty-nine (39) of the 11 Appellants, that they are ineligible to appeal. Motion to Dismiss at 3. We disagree. This statute 12 is insufficiently clear as to determine to whom the requests for a copy of the decision must be 13 14 made. 15 Each of the thirty-nine (39) challenged Appellants have received a copy of the decision 16 via Ms. Boehm -Brady, have read the decision and have chosen to appeal said decision. Each of 17 18 those Appellants disagree with the decision issued by the City of Federal Way as outlined in the 19 Use Process III•Project Approval appeal. 20 Furthermore, while the language of the FCRW 19.65.120 is generally vague, it appears 21 clear in that it is intended to be expansive in its intention to allow appeals. Language from the 22 23 United States Administrative Procedure Act (5 USCS §702), Washington's Administrative 24 Procedure Act (RCW 34.05.530) and from Washington's State Environmental Policy Act 25 (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C.074(4)) all have requirements for standing which allow for an "adversely 26 affected" or "aggrieved" party to appeal an agency decision. 27 [PLEADING TITLE] - 3 r 1 a2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 The Appellants believe that the language of FRCP 19,65.120 is intended to be broader than the other administrative review requirements discussed above. The language appears to allow almost anyone who has read the decision to appeal. This would likely be considered a much larger population beyond simply those "aggrieved" or "adversely affected." For example, a person living in New York City, Paris or Hong Kong could request a copy of the decision and appeal a Use Process 111 project approval and still meet the City's interpretation of this statute. Yet, the City here seeks to exclude thirty-nine (39) people who all live within blocks of I the proposed building project, who are all adversely affect by the decision, who have all read the decision and who have all decided to appeal the project approval for High Point. In effect, this would leave a great number of aggrieved community members, who filed a timely appeal, without remedy. Such a determination based on a vague statute would likely have a chilling j effect on members of our community looking to use our justice system. Finally, if F WRC 19.65.120 is interpreted to mean that "any person who has specifically requested a copy of the decision from the director," there does not appear to be a timing requirement associated with the statute. If a simple request for the decision from Mr. Herrera and the City would cure any deficiencies in this appeal with regard to standing issues, the Appellants would like to request said copies of the decision. 1t is also important to note that six (6) of the appellants that the city seeks to dismiss from Use Process 1I1 appeal, namely, Francine Becker, David Collins, Jeanne Epp, James Saulsbury, Bruce Snyder and Clara Snyder, are also appellants to the SEPA Appeal. The Appellants do not believe the City's Motion to Dismiss Appellants for Lack of Standing has provided any reason dismiss their standhig with respect to the S.EPA appeal. [PLEADING TITLE] - 4 I ®2 3, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 IV. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, the Appellants respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner reject the City of Federal Way's motion to dismiss thirty-nine (39) Appellants for lack of standing and allow all of the Appellants to continue to the appeal as initiated. [PLEADING TITLE] - 5 Respectfully submitted this 18'h Day of July, 2014. zdw=z = Leah .Boehm Brady, On Behalf of the Appellants 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER IN RE APPEAL OF A PROCESS III MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFICANCE, HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT,1066 SOUTH 320th STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., Appellants, TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, Applicants, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, Respondent.: SEPA FILE NO. 13-103506-00-SE USE PROCESS III NO. 13-103505-00-UP APPLICANT'S JOINDER IN CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING COMES NOW the Applicant Devco for High Point, through its attorney, William T. Lynn Of' Gordon Thomas Honeywell, :LLP, and' hereby joins in the Motion to Dismiss Appellants for Lack of Standing brought by the City of Federal Way. This joinder is based on the records and files in this case and the pleadings filed by Respondent City of Federal Way, which are hereby incorporated by reference. APPLICANTS JOINDER IN CITY OF FEDERAL WAYS MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING -1 of 2 O LAW OFFICES [1000926191 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated this 1:8th day of July, 2014. GORDON z HONEYWELL LLP William T. Lynn, blynn@gth-law.( Attorneys for Ar No. 07887 Certificate of Service hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that on the 18th day of July, 2014, served the Hearing Examiner and parties by email as noted below, a copy of the document to which this certification is attached. .Hearing Examiner: Phi101brechts olbrechtslaw@ mail.com Cay of Federal Way: Matt Herrerra matt.herrera@ci offederalwa .com Kim Pratt kim@ken►yondisend.com Anoellant: Leah Boehm leahboehm@h tmail.com GI` U s Frances Ostruske Legal Assistant to William T. Lynn APPLICANT'S JOINDER IN CITY OF FEDERAL WAYS MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 2 of 2 () LAW OFFICES [1000926191 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP 1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 2100 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 (253) 620-6500 - FACSIMILE (253) 620-6565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Administrative Appeal of Process III approval (13-103505-00-UP) and SEPA PRE -HEARING ORDER Determination of Nonsignificance (13- 103506-00-SE). INTRODUCTION This prehearing order is issued at the request of the City of Federal Way after holding a prehearing conference on July 11, 2014. I. Evidence Relied Upon Evidence relied upon for this pre -hearing order is as follows: A. Testimony of pre -hearing conference held July 11, 2014. B. Appeal of SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (13-103506-00-SE), received by Federal Way on May 1, 2014. C. Appeal of Process III approval (13-103505-00-UP), received by Federal Way on June 19, 2014. (PA0764360.DOC;1\13049.900000\ ) PRE -HEARING ORDER - 1 II. Rulings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Consolidation. The SEPA appeal will be consolidated with the Process III approval as required by WAC 197-11-680. B. Designated Parties and Email Distribution. The persons listed below shall speak and receive documents on behalf of each party (City, Applicant and Appellant). Most notably, Leah Boehm shall serve as the designated representative of all Appellants in this appeal and shall be solely responsible for sharing all documents submitted to her to all of the other Appellants of this appeal. Ms. Boehm shall be responsible for presenting the case and argument of all Appellants, but is allowed to assign portions of her argument to other individuals who serve as Appellants). Appellants may also present evidence as witnesses, but should be disclosed as witnesses in the witness list. Given the tight timeframes involved in this proceeding, emails are the easiest and most efficient form of communication for all parties involved. All documents required by this Order should be emailed to all the email addresses below or shall otherwise be received by the parties below by the deadlines set by this prehearing order. Documents will be considered timely submitted if emailed on the date required. The time due for any documents sent by email is 5 pm of the date due unless otherwise specified by this order. Hearing Examiner's Office Phil Olbrechts: of brechtslaw e gmail.com City of Federal Way Matt Herrera: matt.herreraQcityoffederalway.com Kim Pratt: KimAkenyon di send. com Applicant Bill Lynn: blynn[7gth-law.com M. Archer: marcher t rth-law.com Appellant Leah Boehm leahboehin@hotmail.com 1 For example, Ms. Boehm could designate another Appellant to make a presentation on traffic impacts. That person would be responsible for presenting and questioning witnesses on traffic impacts and then presenting any verbal argument on the issue. {PA0764360 DOC;I\13049.900000\ ) PRE -HEARING ORDER - 2 I C. Hearing Date. The appeal shall be held on July 28, 2014 at 1:00 pm at the City of Federal Way City Hall, City Council meeting chambers. The hearing shall continue into the 2 evening and on into the next day, July 29, 2014, if necessary. 3 D. Exhibit and Witness Lists. Exhibit and witness lists are due on the dates specified in 4 the schedule below. Witness lists should include a summary of the testimony to be provided by each witness. No witnesses other than those identified on witness lists will be allowed to testify at 5 the appeal hearings except as necessary to rebut evidence presented by other parties. Only exhibits identified in the exhibit lists will be admitted into the administrative record except those submitted 6 in response to evidence presented by other parties. 7 In order to work within the short time frames available before the appeal hearing "preliminary" 8 exhibits and preliminary exhibit lists are due on July 22, 2014. These preliminary documents should constitute the majority of exhibits the parties intend to present at the hearing, with final 9 exhibits and exhibit lists to be distributed by 10:00 am on July 25, 2014. 10 E. Hearing Format. The order of presentation will be Appellant; Applicant; City 11 (including rebuttal and closing); Applicant rebuttal and closing; Appellant rebuttal and closing. 12 F. Cross -Examination. All witnesses will be subject to cross-examination. The authors of any exhibits submitted into the record shall be present for cross-examination upon the request of 13 any party. Requests for the presence of authors shall be submitted to all parties by email by 5:00 14 pm, July 23, 2014 for documents identified in the preliminary exhibit list and 4:00 pm, July 25, 2014 for documents identified for the first time in the final exhibit lists. Failure to request the 15 presence of an author at the hearing within the timeframes required by this Section (F) shall constitute waiver of the right of cross examination of that author. 16 G. Schedule. The following schedule applies: 17 18 July 11, 2014 City Motion to Dismiss 19 July 18, 2014 Response to City Motion to Dismiss from Appellants July 22, 2014 Reply to Motion to Dismiss from City (Applicant may 20 also file a reply) 21 22 July 22, 2014 Witness lists and preliminary exhibit lists with preliminary exhibits. 23 24 July 25, 2014 Final exhibit list and exhibits due by 10:00 am. 25 26 July 28, 2014 1:00 pm appeal hearing, to be continued into {PA0764360.DOC;1\13049.900000\ } PRE -HEARING ORDER - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 evening and next day if necessary. ORDERED this 131h day of July, 2014. {PA0764360,D0C;1 )3049 900000\ ) PRE -HEARING ORDER - 4 Hearing Examiner for Federal Way 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE CITY OF FEDERi IN RE: APPEAL OF A PROCESS III MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNFICANCE, HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT, 1066 SOUTH 320TH STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, Appellants, Applicants, Respondent. �L WAY HEARING EXAMINER SEPA FILE NO. 13-103506-00-SE USE PROCESS III NO. 13-103505-00-UP DECLARATION OF MATTHEW F. HERRERA IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING 1. I am a Senior Planner for the City of Federal Way ("City"), over the age of 18, competent to be a witness in this matter, and make this declaration in support of the City's Motion to Dismiss Appellants for Lack of Standing. 2. I am the Senior Planner assigned to the High Point Mixed Use Project to be located at 1066 South 320a' Street in Federal Way (the "High Point Project"). As part of DECLARATION OF MATTHEW HERRERA IN Kenyon D iisend, PLLC SUPPORT OF CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S 9 The Municipal Law Firm MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACKDISEND I I Street South Issaquahuah,WA 98027-3820 OF STANDING - 1 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax:(425) 392-7071 --"• - f�, - �•=ern duties, and Go the Hi `[ ` . 1 my in rep gh Point Project I am in receipt of all comments , f• 3 f 4 I i G 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 ' 21 22 f 23 24 information subrnitted in response to the High Point Project by entities and persons other than the Applicant ("Third Parties"). I am also in receipt of all requests by Third Parties for copies of the Project Permit Decision for the High Point Project: I have maintained in the regular course of business the comments, information and requests received in the City's file for the High Point Project. 3. I have reviewed all comments and information and all requests for the Decision received from Third Parties, and I have compared those entities and persons to the list of fifty-eight (58) individuals who signed the Project Permit Appeal filed on June 19, 2014. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and convect copy of the list I compiled listing the names of thirty-nine (39) persons who signed the Project Permit Appeal, but who did not submit a comment or information or request the Project Permit Decision for the High Point Project. I declare that the foregoing is true and correct subject to the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. DATED this 11`h day of July, 2014, at Federal Way, Washington. Matth e 25 f DECLARATION OF MATTHEW HERRERA IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S M(xftON 'I10 DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK - OF STANDING - 2 Kpnyon Dis+arwd. PLLC The Munkipo! taw. RM I 1 Frans Ssrw. South Tel: {4754?3 392-�04Q Fa�c (� ... First Name Cast Name 1 Address tine 1 City State ZIP Code Home Phane Lori Anderson 3170413th AVE S — Federal Way WA 98003 206-578-2758 Francine M_ Becker 1074 S 316th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-4264 Steve Bennett 31411 loth AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-1688 Ron Bina 858 S 318th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-941-4117 Barry Bosshart 10825 316th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-906-7598 Karin Cheeks 607 37th ST SE #95 Auburn WA 98002 206-734-2536 David D. Collins 1035 S 316th ST Federal Way WA 98003 206-602-9940 Chad Collins 31712 13th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 253-946-5288 Jacqueline Cook 1010 S 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-797-9236 April Ellinston 31726 8th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 Jeanne L. Epp 826 S 316th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-7425 Igor Golodyuk 852 S 318th ST Federal Way WA 98003 206-497-9309 Rafaela Herrera 31526 13th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 253-941-1205 Carolelaine A.B. Hughes 31255 8th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 253-946-0733 Jodyne Johnson 31337 13th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 253-797-8013 Eric &Jaque Johnson 31421 loth S Federal Way WA 98003 253-941-2048 R. K. 3161213th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 206-271-3748 Villiamu Kennar 31612 13th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 206-571-8636 Shirley Kjelaard 31339 llth PLS Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-1063 Amethyst Lenz 1072 S 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-579-4128 Doag Lenz 1072 S 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-202-9864 Melody Meakins 31205 loth Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 253-709-9207 Ken Meyering 3132710th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 253-326-5014 Ron L. Michaels 31705 7th Ave S Federal Way WA Judith Marie Muscutt 1109 S 313th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-0198 William L. Muscutt 1109 S 313th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-0198 Georgenne Robbins 1072 S 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-941-6878 Cathie Rohleder 8175 314th ST Federal Way WA 98003 206-334-6852 James Saulsbury 31503 loth AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 206-439-2963 Bruce Snyder 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 253-946-7939 Clara Snyder 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 253-946-7939 Melody Stewart 1072 S 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 253-370-5299 Timothy Strickler 31427 loth AVE Federal Way WA 98003 253-315-2325 Martin Vazquez 10415 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 360-338-1123 Zahira Vazquez 10415 317th ST Federal Way WA 98003 360-349-9534 Mary Wallace 31249 8th Ave S Federal Way WA 98003 253-839-2500 Christopher West 3162813th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 253-282-2560 Leeaun White 31242 8th AVE S Federal Way WA 98003 206-422-2864 Angie Zmijewski 32657 9th PL S Federal Way WA 98003 206-455-7262 EXHIBIT A 11 2' 3' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER IN RE: APPEAL OF A PROCESS III SEPA FILE NO. 13-103506-00-SE MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION AND DETERMINATION OF NON- USE PROCESS III SIGNFICANCE, NO. 13-103505-00-UP HIGH POINT MIXED USE PROJECT, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' S 1066 SOUTH 326TH STREET, FEDERAL MOTION TO DISMISS WAY, WASHINGTON, APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING LEAH BOEHM-BRADY, et al., TOM NEUBAUER, DEVCO, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, Appellants, Applicants, Respondent. I. RELIEF RE UESTED The City of Federal Way (the "City") requests that certain Appellants who lack standing under FWRC 19.65.120 be dismissed as Appellants from the appeal of the Use Process III Project Approval issued on June 4, 2014, for the High Point Mixed Use Project. Kenyan Dlsend,PLLC RThe Municipal Law Firm CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS I I quah,Front Sweet 98027-h DISEND Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 1 TO. (425) 392-7090 Fax:(425) 392-7071 I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. BACKGROUND Two administrative appeals have been filed against the High Point Mixed Use Project to be located at 1066 South 3201h Street in Federal Way (the "High Point Project"): On May 1, 2014, a group of fifty-three (53) citizens appealed the Determination of Nonsignificance ("DNS") issued by the City on March 28, 2014 ("SEPA Appeal"); and on June 19, 2014, a group of fifty-eight (58) citizens appealed the Use Process III Project Approval ("Project Approval") issued by the City on June 4, 2014 ("Project Permit Appeal"). Matthew F. Herrera, AICP, Senior Planner for the City, has been the recipient of the comments made and information submitted by third parties regarding the High Point Project. Herrera has reviewed the comments received and information submitted and found that not all persons who signed the Project Permit Appeal submitted comments, submitted information, or requested a copy of the Decision prior to the Project Permit Appeal being filed. See Declaration of Matthew F. Herrera in Support of City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing at 2, 13. III. ANALYSIS The Hearing Examiner (the "Examiner") has authority to establish rules of procedure for the "efficient and fair conduct of matters that come before the hearing examiner." Federal Way Revised Code ("FWRC") 2.95.050. The Examiner's Rules of Procedure ("ROP") provide that the Examiner may hear motions brought by any party prior to the hearing. ROP 4(b)(5) and 6(d). Standing to file an appeal of a project permit approval is governed in FWRC by 19.65.120, which provides as follows: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 2 Kenyon Oisend, P" C The Municipal Law Firm I I Front Street South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax:(425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4' 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19.65.120 Appeals. (1) Who may appeal. A decision of the director under this process may be appealed by the applicant, any person who submitted written comments or information any 'person who has specifically requested a copy of the decision. or the city (emphasis added). Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of Matthew Herrera is a list of thirty-nine (39) individuals who signed the Project Permit Appeal, but who did not submit written comments or information and who did not request a copy of the Permit Decision for the High Point Project. Herrera Decl. at 2, ¶ 3, and Ex. A thereto. The City requests that pursuant to FWRC 19.65.120(1) the persons listed in Exhibit A be dismissed as Appellants of the Project Permit Appeal. IV. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the City of Federal Way respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss as Appellants to the Project Permit Appeal the persons listed in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Matthew Herrera filed herewith. Respectfully submitted this 1 Vh day of July, 2014. KENYON DISEND, PLLC By/� �A Kim Adams Pratt WSBA No. 19798 Attorney for Respondent City of Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 3 Kenyon Disend,PLLC The Nlernicipal Law Firm I I Front 5traac South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax: (425) 392-7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, Mary Swan, declare and state: 1. I am a citizen of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein. 2. On the �Lay of July, 2014, I served a true copy of the foregoing City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing; and Declaration of Matthew Herrera in Support of City of Federal Way's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, on the following counsel of record using the method of service indicated below: Leah Boehm -Brady 841 South 3151h Street Federal Way, WA 98003 William T. Lynn Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 ® First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid ❑ Legal Messenger ❑ Overnight Delivery ❑ Facsimile ® E-Mail:leahboehm@hotmail.com ® First Class, U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid ❑ Legal Messenger ❑ Overnight Delivery ❑ Facsimile ® E-Mail: blvnn rr)gth-1aw.coin I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correcct. DATED this jMay of July, 2014, at Issaquah, Washington. Mary Sw CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLANTS FOR LACK OF STANDING - 4 Kenyon Disend, PLLC The Municipal Law Firm I I Franc Street South Issaquah,WA 98027-3820 Tel: (425) 392-7090 Fax: (425) 392-7071 s Sign# Last Name First Namd Street City Zip 1 � Boehm -Brady Leah 1841 S 315th st Federal Way 98003 206 819-4534 2 Snyder Bruce 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253 946-7939 3 Snyder Clara 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253 946-7939 4 Zmijewski Angie 32657 9th PI Federal Way 98003 206 455-7262 5 Bjorklund Betty A 832 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 253 839-1092 6 Epp Jeanne 826 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 253 839-7425 206 601-9998 7 Collins David 1035 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 206 602 9940 8 Carney Thomas 206 724 2942 9 Fischlin Tracy 1035 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 312-5132 10 Twiggs Conn 1010 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 312 5132 11 Bina Ron _ 858 S 318th St Federal Way 98003 253 941-4117 12 White Lee Ann 131242 8th Ave S j Federal Way 98003 206 422-286? 13 i Ellington April 31726 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 none 14 Becker lFrancine 1074 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 253 839 4264 15 Bitz Karen 1073 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 253 941-0829 16 Silicami Marcia 1027 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 221-2866 17 Jmi [ter Caroline 1027 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 946-6822 18 Johnson Jacque 31421 10th ave s Federal Way 1 98003 253 941-2048 18 Johnson Eric 31421 10th ave s Federal Way 98003 253 941-2048 19 Byars Belina 1055 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 250-6521 20 Bosshart Barry 1082 S 316th St Federal Way 980031253 906-7598 21 West Christoph 31628 13th Ave S Federal Way 1 98003 253 282-2560 22 Anderson Lori 31704 13th ave S Federal Way 98003 206 578-2758 23 Kennar Sam 31612 13th ave S Federal Way 1 98003 206 571-8636 24 K? R? 31612 13th Ave S Federal Way 98003 206 271-3748 25 Herrera? Rafaela 31612 13th ave S Federal Way 98003 253 941-1205 1 26 Johnson Laura 4615sw 317th Pl Federal Way 1 _1 98003 253 661-0399 27 Collins Chad 31712 13th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253946-5288 28 Johnson Wdyne 31337 13th ave S Federal Way 98003 253 797-8013 29 Wojciechowski Jennifer 11091 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 206 419-6168 30 Kjelgaard Shirley 31339 11th?? Pl S_ Federal Way 98003 253 839-1063 31 Greco Carol 31502 13th Ave S ' Federal Way 98003 253 508-9774 32 Greco Sandra 31502 13th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253 839-7620 33 Olson Eric 807 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 253 839-3401 34 Moen Lee 831 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 253 839-406 35 I Ferguson Diane 1920 S 315th Federal Way 98003 253 941-7071 37 Strickler Timothy 31427 10th Ave Federal Way 98003 253 315-2325 38 Bennett Steve 31411 10th ave s I Federal Way 98003 253 839-1688 39 Meyering Ken 31327 10th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253 326-5014 40 Wallace Mary D 31249 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253839-2500 41 Hughes Carolelaini 31255 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253 946-0733 42 Golodyuk Igor 852 S 318th St Federal Way 98003 206 497-9309 43 Lenz Ametnyst 1072 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 202-9864 44 Vazquez Zahira 1041 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 360-338-1123 45 Vazquez Martin 1041 S 317th St 'Federal Way 98003 360-338-1123 46 Saulsbery Jim 31503 10th ave S I Federal Way 98003 206 439-2963 50 Muscutt Judith 1109 S 313th Federal Way I 98003 253 839-0198 51 Muscutt William 1109 S 313th Federal Way 98003 253 839-0198 52 ! Meakins Melody 31205 10th Ave S Federal Way 98003 253 709 9207 53 Michaels Ron 31705 7th Ave S Federal Way 98003 none 54 Rohleder Cathie 8175 314th St Federal Way 206 334-6852 98003 55 I King Aaron 1047 S 317th Federal Way 98003 425 432-2020 L 56, Robbins Georgennc- 1072 S 317th St Federal Way , 98003 253 941-6878 , 2 57 Stewart Melody 1072 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 370-5299 58 Lenz Doag 1072 S 317th St Federal Way i 98003 253 202 9864 Asay Sarah 1059 S 316th St Federal Way li 98003 Asay Trevor 1059 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 Barclay Michael 3108 sw 313th Pi I Federal Way 98023 Becker Dwight 1074 S 316th St Federal Way j 98003 Bjorklund Raymond 832 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 Brady Mark 841 S 315th st Federal Way 98003 Cheeks Karin 37th St SE #95 Federal Way 98003 206 734-2536 Cook Jackie 1010 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 253 312 5132 Corey Sarah -11067 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 Crick Elsie 1281 S 315th st Federal Way 98003 Dotterwick William �1005 S 323rd St Federal Way 98003 Dotterwick Judith 1005 S 323rd St I Federal Way 98003 Famimalo Flora 1061 S 317th Federal Way 98003 Guadalupe Susana 1206 S 315th St Federal Way 98003 Icy? Kamona ^ 2253 sw 342nd St Federal Way 98023 Jennings Earl 1201 S 315th St Federal Way 98003 Jones KariA 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kirwin Aletha Jea 1273 S 315th St Federal Way 980031 Mouse Julie 32249 7th Ave sw Federal Way 98023 Love Laura 1079 S 316th St Federal Way 98003 Lund Eric 1050 S 316 st Federal Way 98003 Marquez Liliane 1018 S 317th St Federal Way 98003 McCloe Clifford 846 S 310th PI Federal Way 98003 McCloe Jill 846 S 310th PI Federal Way 98003 Moen IJan 1333 S 315th St Federal Way 98003 Caregiver for #56 K 41LA C '34 C+h C+ CnAl r�i U/w i uuj 5 3 i btn 5t 1091 S 317th St . ___. _ 1 ..-.F Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 4 R Sign# Last Name First Name Street .is Asay Asay saran i v:)7 3 .s 1 ou I x 34 Trevor Michael 1059 S 316th St 3108 sw 313th PI. 6 Barclay 1 21 ' Becker 22 Becker 46 Bitz Francine 1074 S 316th St Dwight 1074 S 316th St Karen 1073 S 316th St 2 Bjorklund Betty A 832 S 316th St _ 832 S 316th St 28 Bjorklund Raymond 8 Boehm -Brady Leah 37 Bosshart Diana 7 Brady IMark 39 Byars Belinda 18 Collins David 35 Corey Sarah 841 S 315th st 1082 S 316th St 841 S 315th st 1055 S 317th St 1035 S 317th St 1 1067 S 316th St 511 Crick Elsie 11281 S 315th st 161 Dotterwick William 11005 S 323rd St 17 Dotterwick Judith 1005 S 323rd St 15 Epp Jeanne 826 S 316th St 31 Famimalo Flora 1061 S 317th Ferguson Diane 920 S 315th Fischlin Tracy 1035 S 317th St Guadalupe Susana 1206 S 315th St Icy? Kamona 2253 sw 342nd St Jennings Earl 1201 S 315th St JohnsonT Laura 4615 sw 317th PI. Jones Kari A 31622 8th Ave S 27 19 47 32 40 9 26 50 Kirwin 10 Klouse 36 Love 38 Lund 41 Marquezy 20 McCloe 23 McCloe 14Miller 4 Moen 45 Moen 48 Monaghan 1 Murchinson 49 Olsen 3 Olson 52 Sanchez? 13 Silicami 30 Silicami 24 Snyder 251Snyder 42 Thiessen 29 Thomas 43 � Whisler 441 Whisler Wojciechowski Wojciechowski 5' Zmijewski Aletha Jean Julie Laura Eric Liliane Clifford Jill Caroline Lee Jan Pat Sharon D Carol _ Eric Javier Marcia James Clara Bruce Kat Garret John Donna Jennifer Stephen Angie 1. 1273 S 315th St 32249 7th Ave sw 1079 S 316th St 1050 S 316 st 1018S317thSt 846 S 310th Pi 846 S 310th PI 1027 S 317th St 831 S 316th St 1333 S 315th St 1264 S 315th St 29805 2nd Ave SW 1265 S 315th St 807 S 316th St 31503 10th ave S 1027 S 317th St 1072 S 317th St 31622 8th Ave S 31622 8th Ave S 1017 S 317th St 1091 S 317th St 1003 S 316th St 1003 S 316th St 1091 S 317th St 1091 S 317th St 32657 9th PI 2 City Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way m 98003 98003 98023 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98023 98003 98003 98003 3 teaerw way Federal Way Federal Way yuuus 98023 98003 98003 98003 98003 Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 98003 Federal Way 98003 Federal Way 98003' 98003 98003 98003 98003 Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 98003 Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 98003 98032 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way Federal Way 98003 Federal Way 98003 Federal Way 98003 Federal Way 98003 CITY OF Federal Way Pre -Conference Hearing Attendance Roster File Numbers: 13-103506-SE / SEPA Threshold Determination 13-103505-UP / Use Process III Decision Project: Highpoint DNS and Use Process III Appeal Hearing. Date: July 10, 2014 Time: 11:00 AM Place: Federal Way City Hall Council Chambers 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Please provide your name and address on the attendance roster to assist in preparing the record of the hearing. Do You Wish PRINTED Name Mailing Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? 030-2- 1Y1*6otrclYes ❑ �1C�lael �o►rc�a� -3 o$ SIN-313.1' 9L i:*J aJ���mems},nz�" No ❑ -1_rcLcy5_3_k[i►\ Be�tn �L_ J 1 0- C-D� �"VLs io 35 S -S[74115+. ( 05! 5 5. _�3 Rol 1 0 3s 5 317 `s-r �Jt E SN yDElL 3J � z z g7/� z66 LDZ?9% ' zs3- ;9I���C.� stiy��- 9a/(-7q �A el0 Yes ❑ No E— Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No —$— Yes No Yes No Copy of Decision? Yes ❑ No ❑ Yew No ❑ Yes-❑ No Yesi-E- No ❑ 0 Do You Wish Copy of PRINTED Name Mailing Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? Decision? Yes El Yes] 3�S ��`�_ 31 G �"3-93q,�nm �i /� 9,c�� J D Co wi No [* No ❑ a.LK �r $St- � N �� Yes ❑ Yes Yl G. �g003 ;�50�07 SI"JVL§,U LO0�CQ�i No No ❑ 2 l3i?r S, �gco f �or,�r�� o2e`c11u�. c Yes ❑ No Yes No Yes [>]� La.0 r o U""N 5o.1 --wrs `p/ Yes -�cizro� L�o LJR QS'U;L3 �5�1-03gQ �rtr�a�ro-�6�wsacti��a.�ay.ccc NO ❑ NO ❑ Yes foh,✓ ��� i oa3 S �i6 �`� �a',, Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ vD :.�� � cKL"S) �� � t , �� �Q � �✓�r�vv ^� Yes ❑ Yes [ ,�����,�>.-�ez ��L✓��✓1r �1��0-(s3-� No No ❑ u� Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Do You Wish Copy of PRINTED Name Mailing Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? Decision? Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Do You Wish Copy of PRINTED Name Mail in Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? Decision? Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Do You Wish Copy of PRINTED Name Mailing Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? Decision? I Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No❑ No❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Do You Wish Copy of PRINTED Name Mailing Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? Decision? Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Do You Wish Copy of PRINTED Name Mailing Address Phone E-Mail to Speak? Decision? Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No❑ No❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ No ❑ t -A Federal Way NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold an open record hearing at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter on Monday, July 28, 2014, in the Federal Way City Council Cham- bers, 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA. Project Name/File Numbers: Highpoint Mixed Use / 13-103506-SE & 13-103505-UP Description of Appeal: Appeal of agency environ- mental threshold determination and appeal of Use Process III decision for a proposed mixed use de- velopment that includes 300 multi -family residen- tial units and 26,095 square feet ground floor com- mercial/amenity space located at 1066 S. 320th St., Federal Way, WA 98003 Scope of Appeal: The scope of the appeals is limit- ed to the errors of law raised or the specific factual findings and conclusions disputed in the notice of appeal. The Hearing Examiner may only consider evidence, testimony, or comments relating to er- rors of law raised or the disputed findings and conclusions. Environmental Threshold Determination Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal on May 1, 2014, which alleges that remediation docu- ments prepared by the applicant and the condi- tions placed on the Determination of Nonsignifi- cance (DNS) by the city are inadequate. Use Process VI Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal June 19, 2014, which alleges errors and disputes factual findings/conclusions of the land use decision related to consistency with the following: the comprehensive plan; applicable provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code; public health, safety and welfare; adequacy of streets and utilities in the area to service the anticipated de- mand; location and configuration of access; miti- gation of traffic safety impacts; and applicable Community Design Guidelines. Participation in the Appeal: The hearing is open to the public and anyone may attend, although only those persons entitled to participate in the appeal may provide oral comments directly to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or submit writ- ten comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or deliver the written comments to the Community DevelDpment Department prior to the hearing. Those entitled to participate in the hearing are the city, the applicant, parties that signed the SEPA appeal and parties that signed the Use Process III appeal who had previously submit- ted comments or specifically requested a copy of the decision. Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera — Senior Planner, 253-835-2638 Published in the Federal Way Mirror July 11, 2014 FWM2148 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � l- 1 �- } AUG 14 2014., .CC f• C 31919 1"Ave S, Suite 101 1 Federal, Way, WA 98003 1 253,925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) 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 weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by 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- Economic Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 11th day of July 2014 , and ending on the 11 th day of July 2014 , 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 108.15, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 8th day of August 2014. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, ng t Buckley L I �� A� NO z PUBLIC a..' �'`z "•..0 1WA k\' �ti`� 41k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF APPEAL BEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold an open record hearing at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter on Monday, July 28, 2014, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8ch Avenue South, Federal Way, WA. Project Name/File Numbers: Highpoint Mixed Use / 13-103506-SE & 13-103505-UP Description of Appeal: Appeal of agency environmental threshold determination and appeal of Use Process III decision for a proposed mixed use development that includes 300 multi -family residential units and 26,095 square feet ground floor commercial/amenity space located at 1066 S. 3201h St., Federal Way, WA 98003 Scope of Appeal: The scope of the appeals is limited to the errors of law raised or the specific factual findings and conclusions disputed in the notice of appeal. The Hearing Examiner may only consider evidence, testimony, or comments relating to errors of law raised or the disputed findings and conclusions. Environmental Threshold Determination Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal on May 1, 2014, which alleges that remediation documents prepared by the applicant and the conditions placed on the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) by the city are inadequate. Use Process III Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal June 19, 2014, which alleges errors and disputes factual findings/conclusions of the land use decision related to consistency with the following: the comprehensive plan; applicable provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code; public health, safety and welfare; adequacy of streets and utilities in the area to service the anticipated demand; location and configuration of access; mitigation of traffic safety impacts; and applicable Community Design Guidelines. Participation in the Appeal: The hearing is open to the public and anyone may attend, although only those persons entitled to participate in the appeal may provide oral comments directly to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or deliver the written comments to the Community Development Department prior to the hearing. Those entitled to participate in the hearing are the city, the applicant, parties that signed the SEPA appeal and parties that signed the Use Process III appeal who had previously submitted comments or specifically requested a copy of the decision. Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera — Senior Planner, 253-835-2638 Doc. 4D. 65841 41k CITY Federalo. Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003-6325 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalwoy.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, Kalon Thomas 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 ❑ FWRC 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 ❑ e-mailed and/or A posted to or at each of the attached addresses on July 11 , 2014. Project Name Highpoint Mixed Use File Number(s) 13-103506-00-SE & 13-103505-00-UP Signature Date �,fS��Zo l�( 1ADocuments\Declaration of Distribution\Highpoint Mixed Use.doc Posting Sites: Federal Way City Hall - 33325 8th Avenue Federal Way Regional Library - 34200 1 It Way South Federal Way 320th Branch Library - 848 South 320th Street Subject Site - 1066 S. 320th St., Federal Way, WA 98003 I:\Documents\Declaration of Distribution\Highpoint Mixed Use.doc 4ik CITY OF '0'::tSP Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit offeder Iwa .cam DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 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 Significarce (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 ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other was ❑ mailed ❑ Land Use Decision Letter Notice of Public Hearin before the Hearing Examiner ef2d ❑ 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 ❑ faxed �<e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2014. Project Name , I ,' File Number(s) Signature Date 1 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distdbution.doc/Lost printed 1 /22/2014 2:40:00 PM Project Name/File Numbers: Highpoint Mixed Use / 13-103506-SE & 13-103505-UP Description of Appeal: Appeal of agency environmental threshold determination and appeal of Use Process III decision for a proposed mixed use development that includes 300 multi -family residential units and 26,095 square feet ground floor commercial/amenity space located at 1066 S. 320th St., Federal Way, WA 98003 Scope of Appeal: The scope of the appeals is limited to the errors of law raised or the specific factual findings and conclusions disputed in the notice of appeal. The Hearing Examiner may only consider evidence, testimony, or comments relating to errors of law raised or the disputed findings and conclusions. Environmental Threshold Determination Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal on May 1, 2014, which alleges that remediation documents prepared by the applicant and the conditions placed on the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) by the city are inadequate. Use Process III Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal June 19, 2014, which alleges errors and disputes factual findings/conclusions of the land use decision related to consistency with the following: the comprehensive plan; applicable provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code; public health, safety and welfare; adequacy of streets and utilities in the area to service the anticipated demand; location and configuration of access; mitigation of traffic safety impacts; and applicable Community Design Guidelines. Participation in the Appeal: The hearing is open to the public and anyone may attend, although only those persons entitled to participate in the appeal may provide oral comments directly to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or deliver the written comments to the Community Development Department prior to the hearing. Those entitled to participate in the hearing are the city, the applicant, parties that signed the SEPA appeal and parties that signed the Use Process III appeal who had previously submitted comments or specifically requested a copy of the decision. Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera — Senior Planner, 253-835-2638 Tamara Fix From: Jennifer Anderson <jnderson@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 2:56 PM To: Tamara Fix Subject: Re: Legal Notice Got it, thanks! Jennifer Anderson Advertising Sales Consultant Office: 253-925-5565, Ext 3056 Internal: 02-3056 Fax:253-925-5750 31919 1st Ave S, Ste 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 ❑x Sound Publishing, Inc. Map Print Rates Online Rates Media Kit Sound Info On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tamara Fix CTamara.Fix@cityoffederalway.cam> wrote: Please publish the following legal notice (Highpoint Appeal, 13-103506) in Friday's (July 11, 2014) issue. Please confirm and issue an affidavit of publication. Thanks! CITY of Federal !flay NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold an open record hearing at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter on Monday, July 28, 2014, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA. i CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold an open record hearing at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter on Monday, July 28, 2014, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA. Project Name/File Numbers: Highpoint Mixed Use / 13-103506-SE & 13-103505-UP Description of Appeal: Appeal of agency environmental threshold determination and appeal of Use Process III decision for a proposed mixed use development that includes 300 multi -family residential units and 26,095 square feet ground floor commercial/amenity space located at 1066 S. 320th St., Federal Way, WA 98003 Scope of Appeal: The scope of the appeals is limited to the errors of law raised or the specific factual fmdings and conclusions disputed in the notice of appeal. The Hearing Examiner may only consider evidence, testimony, or comments relating to errors of law raised or the disputed findings and conclusions. Environmental Threshold Determination Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal on May 1, 2014, which alleges that remediation documents prepared by the applicant and the conditions placed on the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) by the city are inadequate. Use Process III Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal June 19, 2014, which alleges errors and disputes factual findings/conclusions of the land use decision related to consistency with the following: the comprehensive plan; applicable provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code; public health, safety and welfare; adequacy of streets and utilities in the area to service the anticipated demand; location and configuration of access; mitigation of traffic safety impacts; and applicable Community Design Guidelines. Participation in the Appeal: The hearing is open to the public and anyone may attend, although only those persons entitled to participate in the appeal may provide oral comments directly to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or deliver the written comments to the Community Development Department prior to the hearing. Those entitled to participate in the hearing are the city, the applicant, parties that signed the SEPA appeal and parties that signed the Use Process III appeal who had previously submitted comments or specifically requested a copy of the decision. Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera — Senior Planner, 253-835-2638 Doc. I.D. 65841 us � FederalWayFILE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Highpoint Mixed Use / FILE No: 13-103506-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the city. Proposal: Multiunit housing and commercial use redevelopment of former Federal Way School District transportation facility. Proposed improvements include 308 multifamily dwelling units, 27,337 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space, surface parking, stormwater control/treatment, public streets, and landscaping. All existing buildings on the subject property will be removed. Proponent: Tom Neubauer, DevCo. Location: 1066 South 320`h Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera— Senior Planner; 253-835-2638 SEPA Condition: Goals and policies adopted within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan serve as the basis for the . city to exercise SEPA substantive authority set forth in FWRC 14.25.060 and to condition the proposed action as it relates to potential adverse impacts that would result from this project. The following goals and policies support the conditions for the development. NEG1 To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. NEP1 Protect and restore environmental quality through land use plans, surface water management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, and development review. (Emphasis added) Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are required to mitigate potential adverse impacts: The applicant shall take the following actions to ensure that site remediation per the Washington Department of Ecology's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and underground storage tanks removal regulations occur prior to site development of the property. The applicant may choose from the following two options: 1. The applicant shall submit and receive city approval for a grading plan limited in scope to remediation of contaminated soils and underground tank removal. A copy of the No Further Action opinion from the Department of Ecology shall be ,provided prior to further site development and building permits; or 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for site remediation, the applicant shall fund an environmental pass -through account to pay the full cost of third party consultant charges to perform peer review of the action work plan, compliance reports and other documentation prepared by the applicant to confirm that site remediation is in compliance with the Department of Ecology rules. Prior to issuance of further site development and building permits beyond the scope of remediation, the applicant shall provide the city, for third party review paid for by the applicant, the compliance report and other documentation demonstrating the cleanup has complied with the Department of Ecology's rules for remediation and removal of underground storage tanks. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the city will not act on the proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by April 11, 2014. The project file is available for review during normal business hours in the Permit Center at City Hall located at 33325 8th Avenue South, 2nd Flr, Federal Way; WA 98003. 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 21 days (May 2, 2014) of the above comment deadline. Doc. I.D. 65283 cIry OF A.. Federal March 27, 2014 Paul Green Azure Green Consultants 409 East Pioneer Puyallup, WA 98372 FILE CITY HALL Way 8th Avenue South Feder Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com RE: File #13-103506-00-SE; ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD DETERMINATION High Point Mixed Use,1066 South 320th Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Green: This office and other 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 identified in the enclosed Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). 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 197-11-340). A notice inviting comments will be published in the Federal Way Mirror on March 28, 2014. 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 21 days (May 2, 2014) 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. 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 43.21 C.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 and Economic Development. The city is not responsible for publishing the Notice of Action. However, the city is responsible for giving a notice (to parties of record) stating the date for commencing a judicial appeal (including Mr. Green ' March 27, 2014 Page 2 the 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. If you need further assistance, feel free to contact me at 253-835-2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Matthew Herrera, AICP Senior Planner enc: Signed DNS 13-103506 Doc. I.D. 65286 CITY OF Federal Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Highpoint Mixed Use FILE No:13-103506-00-SE Proposal: Multiunit housing and commercial use redevelopment of former Federal Way School District transportation facility. Proposed improvements include 308 multifamily dwelling units, 27,337 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space, surface parking, stormwater control/treatment, public streets, and landscaping. All existing buildings on the subject property will be removed. Proponent: Tom Neubauer, DevCo. Location: 1066 South 320t' Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera— Senior Planner; 253-835-2643 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(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 of issuance. Comments must be submitted by April 11, 2014. SEPA Condition Goals and policies adopted within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan serve as the basis for the city to exercise SEPA substantive authority set forth in FWRC 14.25.060 and to condition the proposed action as it relates to potential adverse impacts that would result from this project. The following goals and policies support the conditions for the development. NEG1 To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. NEP1 Protect and restore environmental quality through land use plans, surface water management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, and development review. (Emphasis added) Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are required to mitigate potential adverse impacts: The applicant shall take the following actions to ensure that site remediation per the Washington Department of Ecology's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and underground storage tanks removal regulations occur prior to site development of the property. The applicant may choose from the following two options: High Point Mixed Use DNS March 28, 2014 Page 2 1. The applicant shall submit and receive city approval for a grading plan limited in scope to remediation of contaminated soils and underground tank removal. A copy of the No Further Action opinion from the Department of Ecology shall be provided prior to further site development and building permits; or 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for site remediation, the applicant shall fund an environmental pass -through account to pay the full cost of third party consultant charges to perform peer review of the action work plan, compliance reports and other documentation prepared by the applicant to confirm that site remediation is in compliance with the Department of Ecology rules. Prior to issuance of further site development and building permits beyond the scope of remediation, the applicant shall provide the city, for third party review paid for by the applicant, the compliance report and other documentation demonstrating the cleanup has complied with the Department of Ecology's rules for remediation and removal of underground storage tanks. Appeals Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the city's final determination may file an appeal with the city within 21 days of the above comment deadline. An appeal must be filed with the Federal Way City Clerk (address below), no later than 5:00 P.M. on May 2, 2014, stating the reasons for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make factual objections. Procedures for SEPA appeals are set forth in Federal Way Revised Code 14.10.060. Responsible Official: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen for Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development Address: 33325 8th Avenue South, 2°a Flr, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date Issued: March 28, 2014 Signature: 13-103506 Doc. ID 65104 4 CITY OF ' Federal Way April 22, 2014 RE: File #13-103506-00-SE; RETENTION OF DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Highpoint Mixed Use, 1066 South 3201h Street, Federal Way Dear Neighbor and Party of Record: This letter is to notify you that the Community Development Department has reviewed all timely comments submitted to the City regarding the Highpoint Mixed Use Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). The department will retain the DNS as the proposal is not anticipated to cause significant adverse environmental impacts that would require review in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The DNS is not a land use decision or a permit to authorize construction; it is a determination that an EIS is not required. Many comments received on the DNS were concerning the proposed cleanup of contaminated soils. The department utilized its substantive authority granted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to condition the DNS document to require the applicant to obtain a written No Further Action (NFA) finding from the Washington State Department of Ecology, which regulates the Model Control Toxics Act (MTCA) statute, prior to the City's issuing any site development/building permits for the site. In lieu of that NFA document, the department also provided the option for the applicant to pay for the city's environmental remediation consultant to review the cleanup plan and post cleanup testing/documentation for compliance with Department of Ecology's rules for soil remediation and removal of underground storage tanks prior to site development/building permits. To clarify, government agencies do not conduct the cleanup of sites such as the school district's bus barn. It is the responsibility of the property owner to hire qualified professionals to prepare the assessment reports and cleanup action plans pursuant to Department of Ecology oversight. It is also the property owner's responsibility to hire qualified professionals to implement the plans. The city will not issue permits (except for building demolition and grading permits required for the remediation) until the applicant submits the NFA document from the Department of Ecology or the city's environmental remediation consultant (third party) has verified the site cleanup has been completed. The department anticipates the land use decision will be issued on the Highpoint Mixed Use proposal in the coming weeks. As a party of record you will also receive a copy of the decision with its findings. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the land use application, please contact me at 253-835- 2638 or matt.herrrera(�Zcityoffederalway.com Sincerely, Matthew Herrera, AICP Senior Planner Doc. I.D. 65441 4 noC,✓ ,d (kJ �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South CITY OF SdD Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 AVM -Md1 (]]A AO AlI� 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way NOZ 11834 www.citvoffedera]Way.com ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about our proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Non -Project Actions. For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: High Point Mixed -Use 2. Name of applicant: DevCo Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jack Hunden, 11100 Main St., Ste. 301 Bellevue, WA 98004 4. Date checklist prepared: 8/6/13 revised 2/6/2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: Azure Green Consultants 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction January 2014 (permit approval timing dependent), begin tenant occupation: December 2014, complete construction: Aug 2014. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Q Me 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, - Qc1v A„� directly related to this proposal. A Limited Hazardous Materials Survey and Phase I and Phase II assessments have been prepared for the site. A geotechnical engineering +65"Sv-Qef,rq- report has been prepared for the site. 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 known. Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 2 of 18 k:\landouts\Environmental Checklist 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Land Use Approval, Building Permits, Site Development permits, various utility permits, and NPDES coverage, and any other permits required by the City of Federal Way will be required for the project. 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. The site is 9.8 acres and the project will total 9.9 acres with some work in the adjacent yid right-of-way. The project is a mixed use development with a total of 15 buildings containing ILO } 308 dwell s 1 b square feet of ground -floor commercial space, and-l-�Oil feet of ground -floor common resident amenity space. The range of building types includes two 6-story residential over ground -floor commercial structures, a single 5-story residential -over -amenity space structure, six 4-story single -purpose residential apartment buildings, and six 2-story carriage -units -over -garages. 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 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. Site address: 1066 South 320th Street Section 8, T21N, R4E. W.M. 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)? 50%, plus existing vertical retaining walls. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty sand with gravel and some cobbles. Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 3 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Cut: 29,022 cy, Fill: 14,674 cy. Grading as necessary to prepare and construct road and building foundations. Source of fill is onsite cut. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Removal of existing impervious surfaces and vegetation could result in erosion from sheet flow runoff. Typical ESC measures as required by Storm Drainage Manual will be adequate to mitigate this potential. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 80%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. During construction, standard ESC BMP's such as silt fence, sediment ponds, etc. will be implemented. Post -construction, the impervious surfaces and landscaping will stabilize exposed soils. 2. A1R 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. Typical construction equipment exhaust will result during construction. Typical automobile and truck exhaust related to multi -family and commercial development will result when the project is completed. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 4 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. None proposed. 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 it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Does not apply. 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. Does not apply. 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. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 5 of 18 Uliandouts\Environmental Checklist 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. km b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Based on data from the Geotechnical Report, groundwater is typically 12 feet below grade, so significant withdrawal of groundwater is not anticipated. Temporary, limited dewatering of excavations may be necessary. If so, water will be routed to ESC facilities such as a sediment trap or sediment pond. Two raingardens will be constructed that will discharge to groundwater. 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 system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) 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. Rooftops, paving, and sidewalks will be sources of runoff. Runoff will mainly be collected in catch basins and piped to detention vaults. The detention vaults will be tied into the City's storm system in S. 320th St. Some runoff will be piped to a raingarden. A limited area will sheet flow on the surface directly into a raingarden. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Any waste materials left on the paving could enter the storm system. Typically this would be automobile fluids or any non -protected chemicals from commercial uses. The storm system will be designed to mitigate the potential for any waste materials to enter groundwater or the downstream storm system. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 6 of 18 kAHandoutsEnvironmental Checklist d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. The raingardens and detention vault storm treatment systems will be designed to treat typical runoff contaminants before release to groundwater or surface waters. As required by the Storm Manual, a Pollution Source Control Plan will be required for the commercial portion of the development. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. X deciduous tree. alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: t�r ced ine then X shrubs % grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation will be removed: trees, shrubs, and grasses. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation -�4%JAa4c-c-- on the site, if any. L,-,J 5 C-P Landscaping will be provided throughout site as required �yt,ra(- �r by Federal Way Revised Code. t -L5 ljs� C'hsiMI o l � Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 7 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist 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. abi ther 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. The site is part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds as is most of Western Washington. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. 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 and natural gas will be used for heating buildings, heating water, and operating office equipment. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 8 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist 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. Buildings will be constructed to Washington State Energy Code requirements that are intended to produce energy efficient buildings. 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. Based on the Limited Hazardous Materials Survey and Phase I and Phase II assessments prepared for the site there are contaminated soils, underground storage tanks, and various building materials that qualify as potential health hazards. See those reports for specific locations and recommendations. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Proper cleanup and removal by qualified professionals, and all recommendations from the environmental assessments should be followed to mitigate potential environmental health hazards. b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? 320th Street is a major arterial with noise from traffic. The surrounding uses, multifamily, single family, and commercial currently generate noise similar to the project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During construction, the noise typical of construction vehicles will exist. Construction will be limited in hours as required by FWRC. Long term, noise will be generated by traffic of tenants of the multifamily and customers of the commercial buildings. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 9 of 18 k:\landouts\Environmental Checklist 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Limited construction hours per FWRC will control noise during construction. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current use of the site is for equipment and vehicle storage. The property to the north is single family residential, the property to the east is a hotel and health care related commercial, to the south is a shopping center with various commercial and retail units including a gas station, and to the west is a condominium and a commercial building with a dentist. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are two structures on the site used for maintenance of vehicles and storage of equipment with some office space. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Both existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CCF f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? CCF Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 10 of 18 k:\landouts\Environmental Checklist g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an environmentally critical area? If so, specify. Yes, the site is within a 5-year and 10-year Wellhead Protection Zone. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? f� � ,�,� Approximately 708 people will reside and approximately 30-40 "1 kavb people will work in the complete t . j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, to our knowledge. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None proposed, the current owner has already relocated the operations. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and{V\ ,�,� ` plans, if any. �� r•n►� The proposed project meets current zoning and land use k,,,. requirements. The Process III Project Approval process 1°t•a 3 will ensure code requirements are met. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Project proposes to provide 308 middle income to low income housing units. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 11 of 18 k:\iandouts\Environmental Checklist b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No units will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 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? Approximately 75 feet to the highest roof. Principal exterior building material is cementitious horizontal siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The view of the perimeter trees will be eliminated with the removal of the trees. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Architectural features such as modulation, decks, base -middle - top facade composition, variety in siding color and pattern, varying roof forms, and site landscaping. A fence will be built along the north property line. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The potential for nighttime glare from this development is from security lighting and vehicle headlights. Glare from security lighting would occur during all evening hours. Glare from headlights would mainly occur in the 5 o'clock hour during winter months. Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 12 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The potential lighting glare is mitigated by shielded light fixtures that limit light spillover onto the adjacent properties. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None proposed. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is an existing library on 320th Street, 400 feet west of the site. There is a movie theater 3/4 mile east of the site. Celebration Park is 1/2 mile south of the site. b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational 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. 10IRA S� -1-0r847--91 -of common resident amenity space is provided with various recreation facilities. Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 13 of 18 k:\Handouts\Enviromnental Checklist 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There is an existing library 400 feet west of the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None proposed. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existingA W�,Q-�,tvo, street system. Show on site plans, if any. S . 320th Street is on the proj ect' s south property line. A signalized intersection with llth Place South exists on the project .tiy► frontage and will be used to access the site. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, there is a transit site on the site's frontage. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will have 501 parking stalls. The project will eliminate several bus and passenger vehicle parking spaces, however, these were originally for use by the school district for it's maintenance and operation of buses. These operations have been relocated and the site is currently vacant and appears to be used by City agencies for vehicular storage at less than 10% of its capacity. Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 14 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist 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). The public road, llth Place South, will be extended onto and through the site for future offsite connection. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project will generate 2,450 trips per day with a peak hour of 183 trips in the afternoon (sometime between 4 and 6 pm). g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. llth Place South will be extended onto and through the site. A traffic impact fee will be paid, the final amount to be calculated at time of building permit submittal. 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. There will be a proportional increased need for all public services relative to the increased number of residential units and commercial area. Bulletin #050 — January 1, 2011 Page 15 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None proposed. 16. UTiiL=s a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: , natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, (please system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the (Vl general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C�e. Electricity & Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy ►.�� Hn�"� Water & Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Telephone: CenturyLink M`J Cable TV: Comcast [� Utility replacement, up -sizing, and construction will take place in nearby right-of-ways. Electricity, telephone, and cable will be brought off adjacent poles, then extended underground onto the site. 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 decision. SIGNATURE: DATE SUBMITTED: ` G — Bulletin #050 - January 1, 2011 Page 16 of 18 kNiandouts\Environmental Checklist (4�' ( -r.4' I 1'�'q, J �� 1 � ✓�� i �, w�� ail ov,�� �W �-v 1 �. V-� bV M 0\- �f Sl S ZQ :C-cf -- f-& v - CILF(cu- +�Ict� - — _ C_ e- 5 teL 4 +t\,e cUa. 0 U no -cn�t 03 1 APR I 1 Z014 � 1�� V V G� y l M,, C)F FEDERAL WAY _ CDs I &t.'At'Act --hpul 14" .0 V54w- td 141 A vwf vei 6 ROM APR 112014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS r k� mrI> /_� OMEN w", TA i pp =�Q r It. MURRIVIA Ki WE: gQERAL WAY Vic Iz ' r RECEIVED BY IMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APR 04 2014 April 3, 2014 City of Federal Way ATTN: Matthew Herrera 33325 8d' Avenue south Federal Way, WA 98003 Good Morning, I am writing regarding my concern over the proposed cleanup of contamination at the High Point Apartments site at the old Federal Way School Bus Barn. I feel that that the current proposal is inadequate to assure that all of the contamination has been removed. Since this property was used by the school board for bus storage and maintenance for a very long time, the contamination must be severe. The SEPA determination includes only a passive review comment and offers no guarantee or consideration of active oversight of cleanup for this site. In addition, the City of Federal Way should be re -sampling the contamination AFTER the buildings are removed. Given the previous use of this property it is certain that additional, previously undiscovered contamination will be found. The determination should only be based on confirmation sampling once the site has been cleared of all structures and sampling in previously inaccessible areas has been completed. It is my understanding that you do not plan to do this. In addition, I understand that the developer will be allowed to do the cleanup as an independent third party which will result in very little Ecology oversight and allowing for NO opportunity for public continent or participation in the process. Obviously, this will benefit the developer and certainly not the citizens of Federal Way who will be living and playing 24 hours a day in this area. I implore you to be concerned enough to take action warranting that any and all of the toxic poisons in the ground on this property be given the same concern that you would demand if you and your family were going to live there. Thank You, Sharon D. Murchison 29805 2°d Avenue S.W. Federal Way, WA 98023 Matt Herrera From: I h b ea oehm <Ieahboehm@hotmail,com> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2094 6:55 AM To: Matt Herrera; Jim Ferrell; Lydia Assefa-Dawson; Kelly Maloney; Susan Honda; Jeanne Burbidge; Bob Celski; Martin Moore; Dini Duclos; bradymarka@yahoo.com Subject: Inadequate cleanup is proposed for High Point site Hi Matt, You have just released your determination of non significance for the High Point site. The current proposal is inadequate to assure the public that all contamination has been removed, and here are several reasons why. Y First of all, as we all know, the school district used the site for vehicles, for decades. The contamination there is well known, and is a serious health concern. The SEPA determination as put forward by the city includes only a passive review component, with no guarantee, or even consideration of active oversight of the cleanup of this site. But the City of Federal way should be adding an extra step, and resampling the contamination AFTER the buildings are removed. The determination should only be based on confirmation sampling once the site has been cleared of all structures, and sampling in previously inaccessible areas has been completed. They are not planning to d❑ this! Given the long time use of the property with shop areas, hydraulic lifts, vehicle maintenance, and fueling there are fairly good odds that once they remove the site structures and other improvements, that they will find additional, previously undiscovered contamination. This will make oversight of that hase of the cleanup (final removal of site structures and improvements), and related p confirmation sampling demonstrating that contamination has been removed to or below the MTCA Method A cleanup levels critical. The current proposal is simply not good enough in this regard. The reason there is a need for this is that there are still significant unknowns related to existing contamination on this site. Simply assuming the site will be adequately cleaned is not prudent, or rational, at this stage of site activity. And we should expect and demand a full cleanup. Another reason to oppose the determination is that it offers the developer to do the cleanup and in an independent 3rd party, and then there will be very little Ecology oversight, and virtually no opportunity for public comment or participation in the process. This is critical as the develo cleanup throw h as ra record as in the develo included SEPA review, has substantial i as Possible. The ei rs SEPA submissions ruin the i3ermits and an a scale of months a time line that is alreadv to idence of this is there callin and rush the already on the for a time lino ion of the Arc behind 1 sampling We should demand a full cleanup, out in the open with a public processthese causing after the buildings are removed. We should make sure for all thathese cancer chemicals are really gone. Please stop this rushed cleanup, and add the necessary extra step of resampling for pollution when the buildings are removed. Unless this is done, the site could become toxic for the inhabitants like other nearby sites. At the nearby Lora Lake Apartments site, a cleanup done in 1986 was done a afoformer from the ical barrel washing, and auto wrecking facility. The property was purchased by adeveloper last owner/operator of the property, the auto wrecking facility. The developer proposed a cleanup and construction of apartments for the site, similar to what is propose th Vie. Ecology col gthet the developer proceed without real oversight, relying othe orts submitted apartments were built, also in site had been cleaned up. Ecology approved thosereports, 1986 and occupied until the site was taken over and shut down by the Port ort� f Seatperty tle for their third runway expansion. Environmental red with aquired for variety ofthat type contaminants well over even showed the site to be grossly contaminated number of people were industrial, let alone residential cleanup levels. As a result an unknown t allowed the project to go exposed to site contamination, in spite of Ecology's 1986 all clear forward. Another more recent case is the development of the ASARCO complex in Ruston, Contamination on site Federal Way. The developer there was part of a proposal.awere spread to nearby was miss -handled, elevated levels of arsenic and other contaminants residential properties and workers were found to be contaminated with arsenic, base a on all, and reports from local activists. The company, of course, tried to deny there were any problems EPA was worse than useless. There was a great paper written of there he politics is adcs of the se al sAR O ion. In cleanup and EPA demonstrating how badly things went wrong the, any case, another example of where development of residential and commercial buildings on a contaminated site proved very problematic, even with oversight Federal Way cannot afford such a toxic problem. Sincerely, Leah Boehm -Brady Matt Herrera From: Guy Woods <woods 1 y@yahoo. com > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 11:29 AM To: Jessica Oldenkamp Subject: Fw: brownfield site regulations --- On Sat, 4/5/14, Guy Woods <woodsly@vahoo.com> wrote: > From: Guy Woods <woodsly@yahoo.com> > Subject: brownfield site regulations > To: MattHerrera@cityoffederalway.com > Date: Saturday, April 5, 2014, 11:23 AM The school district site being > SEPA determined is an accident waiting to happen. Public law > 107-118 (HR 2869, passed 2002) makes clear that all regulators are > potentially liable for Brownfield Site regulation violations > (including city officials). Other stakeholders can bring suit on the > city if known hazardous materials have not been re -mediated properly > before development of a potential brown site. This city has a good > environmental record, don't mess with it please! We all know that the > site was used for decades with shops and storage areas using known > hazardous materials, these areas need to be closely inspected for > human health hazards to community well being. Please be careful, you > have potential liability with this SEPA minefield. We do not need to > finance defense lawsuits on our city tax money! > Sincerely, > Guy Woods, > 31820 - 53rd SW > 253-927-3934 Matt Herrera From: serrferguson@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 9:07 AM To: Matt Herrera Subject: Re: High Point Mixed Use - Resident Neighbor concerns Hi Matt, Just wanted to make sure I stay active as a Party of Record as the Highpoint project is a Watch Item for me and my neighbors. We want to ensure this property is cleaned and inspected for thorough toxic clean-up PRIOR to being paved over by the developer. Thank you very much. Sincerely Dianne Ferguson Sent from my iPhone On Sep 6, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Matt Herrera <Matt.Herrera ci offederalwa _comma wrote: Thank you Ms. Ferguson for your email. Your comments are now a part of the official project file and you are a party of record. We'll be beginning our review following the end of the comment period. Please let me know if you have additional concerns, comments and/or questions as the review process continues. Also please share my contact information to your neighbors should they have questions/concerns. -Matt Matt Herrera, AICP — Associate Planner Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 253.835.2638 (p) / 253,835.2609 (fl Matt. Herrer ci offederalwa _com From: Dianne [mailto:serrfer uson comcast.net] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:18 PM To: Matt Herrera Cc: Leah Boehm - park neighbors -Mark; serrfe[guson@comcast.net Subject: High Point Mixed Use - Resident Neighbor concerns Hello Matt, Thank you for reading my email. I have also sent you a letter in today's post. I would like to request that the proposed land use at the old FW city school bus barn be up for a review by the people of Federal Way. I am a resident of the neighborhood abutting the school bus barn. I would like to call out my concern for such a large and high -6 stories complex, so close to our single family dwelling neighborhood. We already deal with the 320th Library traffic which brings in, out of neighborhood traffic, zipping down 10 Ave S. street ,which is the back entrance to the 320th library. I'd like to request the following changes to the Highpoint complex before the land is purchased and design plans are finalized; • Add Speed Bumps to 10 Ave S. (back street that feeds direct from 312th to the 320th Library. )Cars speed on this street since it is a rather straight and smooth shot between 312th & 320th. The next big street, 8th Ave S. does have speed bumps and traffic lights, 10th Ave S. does not. • Change the Highpoint Complex to be no higher than 3 stories, in keeping with the surrounding buildings and with single family residences as neighbors. • Maintain more of the large mature trees in the landscape design. • Please, please do not allow a back entrance to the High Point complex to be built now or Iater.The access for this complex has to stay on 320th or Pac Highway, not our residential neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We as citizens do not feel that we have had an opportunity to voice our opinion to such a huge change to our city and neighborhood. Please know that we have canvased our neighborhood and are asking for concerned citizens to voice their say to you. Thank you. Sincerely, Dianne Ferguson 920 S. 315th ST. 2 Matt Herrera From: mark brady <bradymarka@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:46 PM To: Matt Herrera Subject: HI Point DNS - cleanup and neighborhood impact concerns Matt, have serious concerns with the City of Federal Way's determination of non significance for the High Point site. we all know, the school district used the site for vehicles, for decades. The contamination there is well known, and is a serious health concern. The contamination is likely worse than what the initial data has shown, which will become clearer once they remove the buildings and other impervious surface barriers that prevented sampling over the entire area where fuel and other hazardous materials were handled over the decades. The current proposal is inadequate to assure the public that all contamination has been removed The key to this site is credible verification. As we heard at the public meeting Jack Hunden's concerns are for profit and it is simply foolish to rely on the developer to provide an adequate information base to assure the job was done right, and that future residents and business owners have a safe place to live and work. Washington State Ecology is not likely to have time to do a credible review, or on -site verification, and the city clearly doesn't anticipate doing anything more than a passive review, or at has given no indication in their decision that they intend to do so. We nearby Federal Way residents want to be positive that the fully cleared site is contamination free and certified by The Department of Ecology before grading and construction begins. A third party consultant does not give the same opportunity for public comment and oversight and may lead to health problems for whatever people live or work on the site or nearby. The developer stated in an article http://www.wshfc.org/newsletter/2013.07.index.htm#DevC❑ talking about 15 developments of a similar type totaling 2,500 units had a population of 10,000 people. That is 4 people per unit. That puts the number of people at the 308 units of Hi Point at 1232. This is 524 more people than the DNS specifies at 708. This is a very significant in that all design considerations, parking, open space, amenities and basic livability are based on flawed population numbers. There is no mention of loss of neighbors view from 4-6 story buildings and people looming over them, lights from the apartments at night and of course more traffic than described because there is 1232 people, not 708. The pedestrian pathway that the neighbors oppose is not mentioned and would be unprecedented in the City frame. The DNS should accurately reflect the reality of what is being proposed here. The cleanup plan steps needs to be clearly spelled out with opportunity for public involvement and certified by state officials to be clean before any grading/construction begins, no third party consultants. And when development does occur plans are based on accurate estimates and impacts to the existing neighborhood, population of the complex, building height, glare and pedestrian traffic are taken seriously and documented in the DNS. Mark Brady Matt Herrera From: Karen Bitz <karen.bitz@grantweber.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 2:49 PM To: Matt Herrera Cc: Subject: leap boehm (leahboehm@hotmail.com) Highpoint I have lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years.. I am so disappointed in the people we have voted into office if allowing this project to go forward.. 1 read your SEPA report and cannot understand how they believe we do not have to check the land under the buildings after they are removed ? The bus barn included the maintenance of the buses, overnight storage, car repair on other county vehicles as well , the age of all of the school busses, driver cars and maintenance equipment for the City of Federal Way, also housed heavy emergency snow equipment. Not all of those buildings were built at once when they moved in.. As with all land, this property too had evolved as needs were met for out buildings and support shelters. If anything is to be built on that land, I believe it should be cleared and ALL the ground be tested for contaminants. Are they saying that the people they want to overpopulate that small area do not deserve clean uncontaminated land for their homes and for their children to play on ? I think it will be a very sacs legacy indeed for the school board to be remembered for tuning this land into a tenement space.. If you investigate, Devco has built much smaller projects on much bigger land sites. I have seen the rapid speed of the other 2 project sites they are building. I believe the 2 new projects of Devco in Federal Way should be sufficient for the time being. After the meetings, 1 left feeling very much that this developer has not the well being or betterment of our city in their plans. In the heart of the city and on the already busiest road in Federal Way, I feel this is a true injustice. For our city, for the children and families that will live there and the destruction of our close knit community. Please do not let this project come to fruition.. Thank You Karen Bitz Office (253) 604-1544 email Karen.Bitx rantweber.com I Matt Herrera From: Eric Olsen <flickerout@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 3:44 PM To: Matt Herrera Subject: Proposed cleanup of Bus Barn This is the worst possible location for High Point. The people that live here do not want this project located here for many reasons. Surely you can think of something to make this location better not worse. You talk about building up the core of downtown. Build something that will beautify and serve the people that live here. Not one more low income apartment building. This time - smack dab in the middle of one of the busiest intersections in Federal Way. I have lived in this city my whole life and have seen it getting more and more depressed. This apartment complex will definitely make our neighborhood another undesirable place to live. I know at least six home owners that want to move if this is the direction the city wants to go. Everyone in my neighborhood. S 317th to S 312th - behind bus barn. We ALL think it's a very bad idea. Have you had even one person say. "please build a large low income apartment building behind my house". If you listen you might hear. Build a Park, build a school, Art, Music, anything but another apartment building. I read Leah Boehm-Brady's letter to the city on Proposed cleanup. "The determination should only be based on confirmation sampling once the site has been cleared of all structures, and sampling in previously inaccessible areas has been completed. The city is not planning to do this." Is this true? We know there is contamination here. How could there not be with decades of use as, vehicle and bus maintenance, hydraulic lifts, fueling, storage of who knows what. You need to dig deeper. We demand a full cleanup, out in the open with a public process, and re sampling after the buildings are removed. We should make sure that these cancer -causing chemicals are really gone. I hope this project becomes more burden than it's worth. Listen to the people, they do not want it here. Eric Olsen Matt Herrera From: mrbarclay@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 6:01 PM To: Matt Herrera Subject: High Point Development SEPA Determination Response Matt, The SEPA determination for the proposed contamination cleanup at the High Point Apartments site at the old School Bus Barn was recently released by the city of Federal Way. The proposal fails to address several major concerns which must be addressed before this project is initiated. It is a fact that for decades the school district used this site for vehicles. Hence the contamination present at this site is well-known and poses a serious health risks for anyone at the site. The SEPA determination allows only a passive review component, with no attempt for active oversight of the cleanup. This is negligence on the part of the City of Federal Way and opens the city for future lawsuits should there be any health issues that arise from contamination that remains at the site. It is imperative that a resampling be made once all the buildings have been removed so the full extent of the contamination is known. It is necessary to demonstrate that the contamination has been removed to or below the MTCA Method A cleanup levels. The residents of Federal Way expect and demand that a full cleanup be performed. Also, the SEPA determination allows the developer to perform the cleanup with very little, if any, Ecology oversight. This is totally unacceptable as to how do we ensure the developer will properly clean up the site. After all he is only the developer and will not be living at the site or be responsible in future when problems arise from an incomplete cleanup. The developer has been "ramming" through the proposed cleanup as fast as possible without any public participation in this process. As a resident of Federal Way, I expect a complete cleanup of the site, with the public fully informed on the process. It is imperative that all the cancer causing chemicals have been completely removed. The residents of Federal Way demand this. The last thing we need is another Love Canal. Sincerely, Michael Barclay 3108 SW 313th PI Federal Way, WA 98023 Matt Herrera From: Laura Johnson <sralaurajohnson@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 5:13 PM To: Matt Herrera Subject: Highpoint Mixed Use Project Mr. Herrera — I feel quite strongly that the just released SEPA determination for proposed cleanup of contamination at the .High Point Apartments site at the old School Bus Barn is inadequate to assure the public that all contamination has been removed, and here are several reasons why. First of all, as we all know, the school district used the site for vehicles; for decades. The contamination there is well known, and is a serious health concern. The SEPA determination as put forward by the city includes only a passive review component, with no guarantee, or even consideration of active oversight of the cleanup of this site. But the City- of Federal way should be adding an extra step, and resampling the contamination AFTER the buildings and fuel tanks are removed. The determination should only be based on confirmation sampling once the site has been cleared of all structures, and sampling in previously inaccessible areas has been completed. I don't see a plan to do this! Given the long time use of the property with shop areas, hydraulic lifts, vehicle maintenance, and fueling there are fairly good odds that once they remove the site structures and other improvements, that they will,,find additional, previously undiscovered contamination. This will make oversight of that phase of the cleanup, and related conflimation sampling demonstrating that contamination has been removed to or below the NNiTCA Method A cleanup levels is critical. The current proposal is simply not good enough in this regard. The reason there is a need for this is that there are still significant unknowns related to existing contamination on this site. Simply assuming the site will be adequately cleaned is not prudent, or rational, at this stage of site activity. Another reason to oppose the determination is that it offers the developer to do the cleanup and in an independent 3rd party, and then there will be very little Ecology oversight, and virtually no opportunity for public comment or participation in the process. This is land purchased with public funds - with our taxes - and now it is no longer subject to public scrutiny' The developer has substantial incentive to try and rush the cleanup through as rapidly as possible. Every, day delayed he's loosing money. I understand that. But evidence of this is already on the record as in the developers SEPA submissions they were calling for a time line that included SEPA review, issuing the permits and starting construction of the project on a scale of months (a time line that is already substantially behind). 1 We respectfully request a full cleanup, out in the open with a public process, and resampling after the buildings and fuel storage tanks are removed. We should make sure for all that these cancer causing chemicals are really gone. Please require a full cleanup and a transparent process for the people so we can know assuredly that the poisons have been removed from the land. It's reasonable and rational to do it now before the new buildings are built and then people get sick because the area wasn't properly cleaned. It would be less expensive in the long run to do some extra cleaning now than have to try to clean under the buildings later. The whole folk proverb: haste makes waste. The builder and some city officials seem to be quite hasty in attempting to make the project come to pass. Please don't waste our taxpayer money. Thank you, Laura Johnson z Matt Herrera From: Francine Becker <dfbecker67@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:54 PM To: Matt Herrera Subject: High Point Development Dear Mr. Herrera, my name is Francine Becker I am a 13year volunteer with the Federal Way Police Dept. and a resident of Federal Way since 1970. 1 have spoken to you at the Mirror Lake school meeting, went upstairs to talk to you but was given one of your cards to call you, which I did, with no response and I can not say the words of how disappointed I am in you! No response at all, really? My husband & I bought our house on So. 316th in 1970, raised our 2 daughters here and love our neighbors and neighborhood. I can't see what gives "big" money the right to come in build what "they" want because they have "big money" and clout. 320th and our local schools are overcrowded as it is and we sure don't need more people included in a very small area that there is at this point. Our schools are over crowded and Mirror Lake Elementary has way to many portables, as it is. They are mold infested and a real health hazard. Are the High Point developers going to improve the schools before they built more units in an already overpopulated spot? I would like a acknowledgement receipt. Government Ecology study with a MTCA method A also. It would be nice if you could take one of your coffee breaks at our house so you could see first hand what we are all worried about. would really appreciate not being ignored this time. Have a nice day. Thank you, Francine M. Becker 1074 So. 316th St Federal Way, WA 98003 Phone # s home - 253-839-4264 cell - 206-755-4741 Sent from Windows Mail Matt Herrera From: CenturyLink Customer <bettybjo@q.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 10:44 AM To: Matt Herrera Subject: Fwd: SEPA appeal From: "CenturyLink Customer" <bettybio(a7g.com> To: mattherrera ci offederalwa .com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:43:15 AM Subject: SEPA appeal Matt Herrera As a resident in the neighborhood of the proposed Highpoint Development. I am concerned that the developer will not take the time or care to do the clean up of the proposed site properly without oversight because of time and expense. We have lived here 45 years and the Bus Barn has been there as long as as I remember. Because the property was used for school vehicles, matainance of vehicles and fuel for said vehicles for so many years the contamination is well known and a serious health concern. The current proposal is not adequate to assure that all contamination has been removed. An active oversight needs to be done before and after the current buildings are removed. An Ecology oversight must be done to ensure a safe and healthy environment for future residents and existing neighborhood free of cancer causing chemicals and dangerous contamination. A full cleanup is necessary. Hope for a Clean and Green Federal Way. Betty Bjorklund 832 So. 316th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 April 9, 2013 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, My name is Carol Greco and I grew up here in Federal Way, and my parents have owned the same house for over 39 years. We have watched Federal Way grow into the great city it is today. We live in that very house today and will remain here because this is our HOME. We know of the current plans for the formal site of the Federal Way bus barn and I am appalled at the lack of compassion those involved, have for us who call Federal Way our home. You have put the value of money over us and our families and over the families you say you are trying to help by building this "Affordable Housing". The site that you planning for this housing was, for many years, home to the bus barn that is now contaminated with chemicals from maintaining the diesel engines of the busses over many years. The plans for clean up are, at best, the minimum requirements. This is a concern because of the known contaminates there and major health risks to the families living there that you say you are trying to help. How is putting the health of adults and children's long term health for generations to come "helping" them? It is my hope that this site be completely stripped of its contaminates and properly cleaned, regardless of the cost. Would you accept your house on these grounds where your children would play? How much money is your children's health worth to you? Yes, I just made it personal because it is very personal to us. You are also not taking into consideration, the schools that are already filled to capacity and are in desperate need of repairs. The teachers that have such full class rooms that some students will not get the education they deserve and we are responsible to give them. How is this going to help families here in our neighborhood? The only results I see coming from this, is some ones pocket being filled with money. I am sickened at your lack of human compassion and your greed. You should be ashamed of yourselves.... all of you. Matt Herrera From: Angie Z <emilelegieux@gmail. com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 9:42 AM To: Matt Herrera Cc: Jim Ferrell; Lydia Assefa-Dawson; Kelly Maloney; Susan Honda; Jeanne Burbidge; Bob Celski; Martin Moore; Dini Duclos Subject: Re: Highpoint Mixed Use DNS Attachments: Highpoint DNS.pdf Good Morning Matt, I hope you are well on this gorgeous sunny Friday morning here in Federal Way. Thank you for sending out the SEPA Determination regarding the High Point development at the old 'Bus Barn" location. The proposed oversight of the cleanup seems a little weak. I am not an environmental expert, but I did contact one. The determination does not explicitly state there will be further testing on the site after the current buildings are removed. The soil under those buildings could not be previously tested and there could be a great deal more contamination on the site. Given the long time use of the property with shop areas, hydraulic lifts, vehicle maintenance, and fueling there are fairly good odds that once they remove the site structures and other improvements, they will find additional, previously undiscovered contamination. I oppose this current determination. I feel that there should be strong oversight of this development, assuring that there are no cancer causing pollutants in a planned high density apartment complex. There should a full cleanup, out in the open with a public process, and resampling after the buildings are removed. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Please reply back so that I know you have received my email. Kind Regards, Angie Zmijewski Begin forwarded message: From: Tamara Fix <Tamara.Fix@cityoffederalway.com> Date: March 27, 2014 at 11:07:26 AM PDT To: Matt Herrera cMatt.HerreraQcityoffederalway.comma Subject: Highpoint Mixed Use DNS Attached is the Determination of Nonsignificance for the Highpoint Mixed Use project. If you have any questions regarding this project you may contact Senior Planner Matt Herrera at matt.herrera cit offederalwa .com. Matt Herrera From: snylorrie@q.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 12:28 PM To: Matt Herrera Cc: leah boehm Subject: Person of Record against High Point Appartments April 11, 2014 Matt Herrera, The current SEPA determination for the proposed cleanup of the High Point Apartment site is inadequate to assure the all contamination has been removed. The SEPA determination put forward by the City of Federal Way includes only a passive review component, with no guarantee or even consideration of active oversight of clean up site. The City of Federal Way should add an extra step and re -sample the contamination after the buildings are removed. Given the fact that this site has been a school bus barn with fueling area, maintenance and shop areas for about 50 years, the determination should on be based on confirmation sampling once the site has been cleared of all structures and paved areas. The confirmation sampling demonstrating that contamination has been removed to or below MTCA Method A cleanup levels is critical. The current proposal is not good enough in the regard. Just assuming the site will be adequately cleaned is not good enough. We should expect and demand a full cleanup. Another reason to oppose the determination is it offers the developer to do the cleanup and an independent 3rd parry and there will be very little ecology oversight and no opportunity for public comment or participation. We should demand a full cleanup, in the open with public process and re sampling after building are removed. I am requesting a return conformation you received this letter. Sincerely , Clara L Snyder 31622 8th Ave S Federal Way. WA 981003 253-946-7939 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APR 2 8 2014 April 25, 2014 Water Quality Program Construction Storm Water Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47696, Olympia, WA 98504-7696 RE: Devco/High Point Development Federal Way WA I want to be a party of record concerning this multifamily development in Federal Way. This project is being built near the headwaters of the Hylebos Creek which forms our Hylebos Wetlands Park. According to legal notice published this date in the Federal Way Mirror, it is the intent of the developer to discharge storm water into the wetland. I want to know what soils mediation and pollution control will be installed to prevent contaminants from flowing into the wetland. I would also like to read the DOE's evaluation and report on this discharge plan as well as Devco's remediation activities around the polluted soils from this former bus barn site. Thank you. H. David Kaplan 30240 27th Avenue South Federal Way, WA HDK:hs Cc: Matt Herrera, City of Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003-6325 CITY OF 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www.cityoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 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 f Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC 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 ❑ e-mailed and/or Kposted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2014. Project Name CA- File Number(s) -\�D- �? C S� Signature N —� Date -311ZeZ7,qq K:\PLANNING INTERN\Declaration of Distribution notices\Declaration of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc 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 - `plpt-e S • -37,cr ' K:\PLANNING INTERN\Declaration of Distribution notices\Declaraiion of Distribution with Posting Sites.doc 4011kk6� CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.c€tyoffederolway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION ti ►, 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 Significarce (DS) and Scoping Notice �� environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC 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 Peimit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was Xmailed ❑ faxed ,fie -mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2014. Project Name V ' 2�- ;'i us - File Number(s) ) 16 s Signature Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2-40:00 PM CITY OF Federal Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Highpoint Mixed Use FILE No:13-103506-00-SE Proposal: Multiunit housing and commercial use redevelopment of former Federal Way School District transportation facility. Proposed improvements include 308 multifamily dwelling units, 27,337 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space, surface parking, stormwater control/treatment, public streets, and landscaping. All existing buildings on the subject property will be removed. Proponent: Tom Neubauer, DevCo. Location: 1066 South 320"' Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera — Senior Planner; 253-835-2643 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(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 of issuance. Comments must be submitted by April 11, 2014. SEPA Condition Goals and policies adopted within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan serve as the basis for the city to exercise SEPA substantive authority set forth in FWRC 14.25.060 and to condition the proposed action as it relates to potential adverse impacts that would result from this project. The following goals and policies support the conditions for the development. NEG1 To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. NEP1 . Protect and restore environmental quality through land use plans, surface water management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, and development review. (Emphasis added) Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are required to mitigate potential adverse impacts: The applicant shall take the following actions to ensure that site remediation per the Washington Department of Ecology's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and underground storage tanks removal regulations occur prior to site development of the property. The applicant may choose from the following two options: High Point Mixed Use DNS March 28, 2014 Page 2 1. The applicant shall submit and receive city approval for a grading plan limited in scope to remediation of contaminated soils and underground tank removal. A copy of the No Further Action opinion from the Department of Ecology shall be provided prior to further site development and building permits; or 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for site remediation, the applicant shall fund an environmental pass -through account to pay the full cost of third party consultant charges to perform peer review of the action work plan, compliance reports and other documentation prepared by the applicant to confirm that site remediation is in compliance with the Department of Ecology rules. Prior to issuance of further site development and building permits beyond the scope of remediation, the applicant shall provide the city, for third party review paid for by the applicant, the compliance report and other documentation demonstrating the cleanup has complied with the Department of Ecology's rules for remediation and removal of underground storage tanks. Appeals Unless modified by the city, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved ofthe city's final determination may file an appeal with the city within 21 days of the above comment deadline. An appeal must be filed with the Federal Way City Clerk (address below), no later than 5:00 P.M. on May 2, 2014, stating the reasons for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make factual objections. Procedures for SEPA appeals are set forth in Federal Way Revised Code 14.10.060. Responsible Official: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen for Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development Address: 33325 8th Avenue South, 2nd Flr, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date Issued: March 28, 2014 Signature: 13-103506 Doc. I D 65104 AJi Cilv�.l Lx i" Nlil.l lWV WAR%, 1 !--\iV TV RARE, L��rli DEPT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov BRIAN ASBURY LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DIST PO BOX 4249 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 basbury@lakehaven.org LAURA MURPHY TRIBAL ARCHAEOLOGIST MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172ND AVE SE AUBURN WA 98092 laura. murphy@muckleshoot. nsn. us ATTN SEPA REVIEW PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 1904 3RD AVE STE 105 SEATTLE WA 98101-3317 sepa@pscleanair.org claudew@pscleanair.org SOUTH KING FIRE & RESCUE 31617 1 ST AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 chris.ingham@southkingfire.org gordon.goodsell@southkingfire.org RAMON PAZOOKI WSDOT SOUTH KING COUNTY PO BOX 330310 SEATTLE WA 98133-9710 ramin.pazooki@wsdot.wa.gov LAND US SVC KCDDES PIERCE CO PLNG & LAND SVCS 35030 SE DOUGLAS ST, #210 2401 S 35 TH ST SNOQUALMIE, WA 98065 TACOMA WA 98409-7460 c.l k ra co; 1 LORI KITTREDGE CITY OF AUBURN METRO TRANSIT ATTN: Planning Dept KSC-TR-0413 25 W MAIN ST 201 S JACKSON ST AUBURN WA 98001 SEATTLE WA 98104-3856 .I,,a_ 1)5 TANYA NASCIMENTO FW PUBLIC SCHOOLS 31405 18T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 tnascime@fwps.org BRANDON REYNON PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPT 3009 E PORTLAND AVE TACOMA WA 98404 bra radon. revnon2puyall u ptribe.com CITY OF DES MOINES ATTN: Planning Dept 21630 11T" AVE S DES MOINES WA 98198 MONICA ADAMS PIERCE TRANSIT PO BOX 99070 LAKEWOOD WA 98499-0070 madams@piercetransit.org go Tamara Fix F rom. Tamara Fix Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:14 AM To: 'ECY RE SEPA UNIT'; 'se a p @pscleanair.arg'; claudew@pscleanair.arg; tnascime@fwps.org; 'basbury@lakehaven.org'; Chris Ingham; Gordon Goodsell; 'brandon.reynon@puyaIIuptribe.com';'iaura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us'; ramin.pazooki@wsdot.wa.gav'; 'a#s@co.pierce.wa.us'; 'madams@piercetransit.org' Su Matt Herrera a ark Subject: Highpoint Mixed Use DNS Attachments: Highpoint DNS DOE pkt.pdf Attached is the DNS and Annotated Environmental Checklist for the Highpoint Mixed Use project. This is being issued on March 28, 2014, and the Senior Planner for the project is Matt Herrera, 253-835-2638, rnatthew.herrera cit offederalwa .com. Carol Greco and Sandra Greco Claude Anderson 31502 13`' Ave S. 31319 10' Ave S. Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 Leah Boehm Brady and Mark Brady Cole & Carrie Leras 841 S. 315`t' St. 30432 2nd Ave S Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 Dianne Ferguson & Ken Serr Raymond & Katy Sievert 920 S. 315" St. 32616 8"' Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98023 Laura Johnson Sharon D. Murchison 4615 SW 317`h Pl. 29805 2nd Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Federal Way, WA 98023 Betty Bjorkland Judith & William Dotterwick 832 S. 316'i' St. 1005 S 323rd St. Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 Sandy Linderman 840 S. 318d' St. Federal Way, WA 98003 Ken Studley 29705 53rd Pl. S. Auburn, WA 98001 Valentina & Aleksandr Savelyev 31513 l Od' Ave. S Federal Way, WA 98003 James & Julie Klouse 32249 7"' Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 ei: - i� ypnl Mrxad Use DNS!4Acsagc 1E, L.,A4 Message . Ignoi e 4 Meeting K� Upcoming Items ea4 To Manager � kJ Rules • y,, �� � a� �1 Find {} Team E-mail V Done j OneNote Related • . ,y Junk - Delete Reply Reply Forward K, More • Move Mark Categorize Follow Translate - ZOOM All Reply &Delete =3 Create New d Adiom • Unread Up - Select - bd&L --- — _-- [u---tS'-tP� _ Man — 1y:From: Tamara Tamara % Sent. Thu 3/2712014 1W7 Al To: Matt Herrera CC Occ.karen.bnz®gramwebencom';'wlllarrymoe®aol.com';'(oann.mcuwernOwmcastnet'; indigo01maera$msn.mm';'Janet2fmmerogmalLcom; Wjmo OgmaU com'; 'demsekoenlgOgmall.corn';'hvr563712A@aol-Wm';'emilelegleux®gmall com';'dotter"'k-4juno wrn;'blee320250msn.wm'; 'waluarejohnson"huo.com'; 'mlchaelawhieNremedlcal.mm'; 'brucesnyder&Aq,wln'; 'pawge®yahoa.cam' Subject: Highpoinl Mxed Use DNS ,] Message "1 Highpoint DNS•pd/ (115 K0) Attached is the Determination of Nonsignificance for the Highpoint Mixed Use project. If you have any questions regarding this project you may contact Senior Planner Matt Herrera at matt.herrera@citvoffederalway.com, S See more about Tamara Fix J � � � t- I D I, ., ay r Mail or email (BCC) signed DNS document to each party Caroline Mille Lee Moen Angela Zmijewski 1027 S. 31 St. leeimoen@p-mail.com 32657 9th PL S Federal ay, 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 25 6-6822 Laura Johnson Requested copy of decisions 4615 SW 317" Pl. emilclegieaX@gmaii.con1 Karen Bitz Federal Way, WA 98023 email received 9/22 Karen.Bitz rc grantweber.corn Betty Bjorkland Bill &Judi Dotterwick Carol Greco eE�'1 ��ecc� 832 S. 316" St. dotteswickrr.iuno.com 'L 31502 13'h Ave S. Federal Way, WA 98003 Email received 9/24 Federal Way, WA 98003 Linda Lee Leah Boehm Brady w MNa Y, 6cj� Sandy Linderman blee32025 rf�msn.com 841 S. 315`� St. 840 S. 3IS" St. email received 9/25 Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 Laura Johnson Larry Moe Claude Anderson sralauraiohnson e& ahoa.com wlllarrymoeQOaol.cam 31319 10t' Ave S. email received 9/25 Federal Way, WA 98003 Dianne Ferguson & Ken Serr Michael Falck 920 S. 315" St. Cole & Carrie Leras michael na whitmiremedical.com Federal Way, WA 98003 30432 2nd Ave S Request 1/29 Federal Way, WA 98003 Mark Brady Bruce Snyder 841 S 3 St Raymond & Katy Sievert brucesnyderag.com Fe 1 Way, WA 98003 32616 a Ave SW email received 2/24 Federal Way, WA 98023 Todd Lawson Joann McGovern Sharon D. Murchison Pavgg@yahoo.com joann.mcgovem@comcast.net 29805 2nd Ave SW Email received 3/26 Federal Way, WA 98023 Stephen Wojcie ski, Judith & William Dotterwick 1091 S 3 t, 1005 S 323`d St. FedemrWay, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 Ken Studley Marcia Silicani 29705 53`d Pl. S. indi ochimaera msn.com Auburn, WA 98001 Jan Zimmer Sandra Greco JanetArnmerAniail.com 315021 >s F Way, WA 98003 Belina F. By s 1055 S 31 St Valentina & Aleksandr Savelyev Fede ay, WA 98003 31513 10t' Ave. S Federal Way, WA 98003 Tom &Mary Willis 1092 S 317t 8003/PO Box James & Julie Klouse 6013, -6013 32249 7'�' Ave SW (2 941-7056 Federal Way, WA 98023 Letter received 9/17 Aaron Kin 104o 7a' St Denise Koenig F ra1 Way, WA 98003 denisekoenig t Mail.com email received 9/17 Tracy Fischlin 1035 S 317th L.J. Writer Federal W , WA 98003 LWr6637124gpaol.com 253-3 -5132 Email received 9/20 Doc. I.D. 07/29/2013 City of 300' Parcel notification area 33325 tFederal Way hAveS. 33325 Blh Ave S. P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way for Parcel # 082104-9188 (206) - 8Way 00Federal35-700 98063 0 www.cityoffederalway.com i87540. 26D 082104. 0a210a• 787540- 78lt, 7a7520• 7 -0I 787520.0410 7 77g)52Q.pOgO 7875P0-OOIi0 a 787520-0070 9007 9133 0285 OOHS Ot3D 7875Y.f•0515 7875240105 7a7520.0120 787=4$00 7$7520•D0a5 �,-, 787520• 0075 858808 D2t0 858800-0305 M �� 85MOO-03DD 8y7,80 AIW $50500-0370.. 658a00.0745 � 858800- D395 .t, 8586C-0-0385 8� Ma 0375 8588D0-0360 86 03508588DD-039D 0575 a5660D• 850ao0 M5 OM 851LIU1.0359 '9� 658800- aseaoo- 0 S 313TH ST 0580 oo-C g0858900.0220 082104.7RCT 3WOD•0170 356400.0100 858800.0s,0 ery 3584DU-0210 B58800- M100- 0585 84$$DD. 0245 29WDD•0160 358400-046035airA•0200 358400.0240 3584110.0260 q 358400• 35a40D-0T20 co M5 0150 35W%0230 35$s0D•0250 m 05830 4 SSB800.024D r- ^ 6 011.35M I D 358M-(Xla0 369400.0090 3584004 = 858800- � 02M &5a6004235 19400.0120 35&M-0100 35moa-w70 35St C0.004D 35&100.9910 356400- 053s 0140 3584*0090 i56400-0060 35&00-0020 a5F80D- S 317TH ST 0S 317TH ST 06D0 6 658800, 0310 858800- Q 358400.02% 358400-0330 358400-0376 03858800- 15 0305 f=.. 358400-0280 358400-0300 358400-0320 358400-0350 358400-0380 358400-0400 0605 8500- 0320 358400-0270 358400-0310, 358400-0340358400-0360 358400-0390 658800- 600400- 609400- 609400-0200.. 0180 0190 so940o-.. 0170 609400-0310 609400" 082104.9121 0300 609400- 0290 S0280 t r e t 609400- 609400- 0270 082104.9222 609400- Librar, 0260 082104.9174 S 316TH ST 082104-9264 082104.9237 082104-9077 082104-9228 Ij 082104- 082104- 9078 9229 l 082104-9196 082104-9126 V 082104-9206 609400- 082104.9234 082104.9241 082104-9082 082104-9052 0250 S 320TH- STN --j 609390-0200 609390- E09390.0190 Q 0010 172104-9117 172104-9081 1J 5 321ST PLq 609390• C6 r 1soa5o 609nG-GMw 0010 a DIM Dow WNW, 600390• 0030 N- 6=90- 0180 60MMOND 609390, ' 0170 609no- �'? 172104-9086 600390• 0050, 016D 40• ,pJ a 0010 { 150240• 150240• 0040 Celebration 1507A0• =0 Park ,5024D• ow0030 Apartments 150240-00601Smo- 0070 1502sT 150240.0080 0470 172104-9D61 150260-0040 150240-0460 150240- 150240• 0090 r 0450 r 150240-0430 150240- S 322ND PL 150240- 0100 0440 150240- S 324TH PL o110 150260.0020 150240. 150240 150240- 02% 0380 0120 172104.9077 t50240.0370 15D240.01 0 I .. A - - - - - S-320 082104-9194 150050-0040 150050-0130 [a elebrai-I 150050-0020 Center 150050-0030 150260-0030 150050-0070 15DO50-0050 150050-0110 Q 150050-0120 150050-0100 150050-0080 150050.0090 - King County Tax Parcels Scale: F�amA fty Subject Property N 0 150 300 Feet A.,-, This map is 'Ayr vu a graphical mpresonlatlon only Notified Properties Th. Coy orr yA Yr�s 1q 1^"r�to ns a==eracy. �-Uj 00 00 d• O a-- N 00 O M MI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/29/2013 and does NOT include Condominium Owners) IP1^Ly l Iuft IAAr-AT MM IVAIVIC Al IN: LINt AUUKL55 LINE FF1 AUUKLbb LINE 92 0821049082 JOO HO HYUN+KIM YOUNG SOON 1802 PT WOODWORTH DR NE TACOMA WA 9842: 0821049121 BRE/ESA PROPERTIES 11525 N COMMUNITY HOUSE RD CHARLOTTE NC 1 PO BOX 49550 0821049196 HARSCH INVESTMENT PROP LLC Attn: ATTN: TAX DEPARTMENT PO BOX 2708 PORTLAND OR 97 0821049222 KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM Attn: FEDERAL WAY 320TH 960 NEWPORT WAY NW ISSAQUAH WA 980 0821049234 FW MEDICAL -DENTAL GRP LLC PO BOX 23314 FEDERAL WAY WA 0821049241 PAK CHUN H+LI CHON 1300 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 082104TRCT 1500500010 WALLACE BRUCE R+DEBRA E 32011 40TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY WA 1500500020 MGP IX SUNSET SQUARE LLC 425 CALIFORNIA ST 11 TH FL SAN FRANCISCO C 1500500030 MGP IX SUNSET SQUARE LLC 425 CALIFORNIA ST I ITH FL SAN FRANCISCO C. 1500500040 MGP IX SUNSET SQUARE LLC 425 CALIFORNIA ST 11TH FL SAN FRANCISCO C. 1500500110 HARSCH INVESTMENT PROPS LLC Attn: ATTN TAX DEPARTMENT PO BOX 2708 PORTLAND OR 972 1721049081 CJ SHON LLC 4001 36TH ST NE TACOMA WA 98422 1721049086 DAVISCOURT JOHN C 16846 SE 47TH WAY BELLEVUE WA 980 1721049117 STEAD VOGEL & MOTLAND 1025 S 320TH SUITE 204 FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000010 WILLIS T E POB 6013 FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000020 CHAVARRIA JUAN G 1086 S 317TH ST SW FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000030 SORIANO ERLINDA R 1080 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000040 ROBINS GEORGENNE A 1072 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000050 YATES TINA 1064 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000060 PARRETT LESLIE JR+JEANNETTE 31012 20TH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000070 ROBSON HILARY C 1050 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000080 HERNANDEZ PAULINO M+RODAS H 1044 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000090 AVAIUSINI M V 2031 S 331ST ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000100 RODRIGUEZ ROSA V 1030 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000110 VENTURA MARYLOU CORPUZ+GEORGE 1024 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA C 3584000120 GRIGSBY STEPHEN+DONNA 1018 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000130 COOK JACQUELINE L 1010 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000140 TIDWELL PAULINE 7525 SE 24TH AVE SE #455 MERCER ISLANDAA 3584000270 PETERSON DANIEL L 1003 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000280 STAATS KIM PATRICK 9766 ARROWSMITH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98118 3584000290 STEPHESON ELIZABETH D+O'BRI 1015 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000300 DEVERANARCISAH+HERNANDO 1021 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 3584000310 MILLER CAROLINE LOUISE 1027 S 317TH FEDERAL WAY WA 1277 208 27 98093 98003 98023 k 94104 4 94104 k 94104 08 D6 98003 98063 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98001 98003 A 98040 98003 M003 98003 ?8002 Page 1 of 2 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/29/2013 and does NOT include Condominium Owners) # TAXLOT ID# I TAXPAYER NAME A��N; LINE ADDRESS LINE 41 35 3584000320 FISHLIN TRACY ADDRESS LINE #2 36 3584000330 MCGINTY VIVIEN 1035 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 37 3584000340 KING AARON D 1041 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 38 3584000350 BYARS BELINA+.MAUTAANOIMALO F: 1047 S 317TH FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 39 3584000360 HERNANDEZ-MEJIA PAULINO+HIG 1055 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 40 3584000370 OSTER-CHAMBERS KAREN L 1061 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 41 3584000380 MIGUEL NORBERTO B JR+CORAZON C 1067 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 42 3584000390 CORPUZ ORLARIO T 1075 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 43 3584000400 WOJCIECHOWSKI STEPHEN PATRI 1083 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 44 6093900010 1NMAN .CHARLES+HENNEKE CARY D 10919 3I 7TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 45 8588000595 ROSALES MARITES S+CARMELO L 32004 1 OTH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 46 8588000600 CARLSON ERICAA 3161 13TH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 47 8588000605 BOND O 30629 38TH AVE S AUBURN WA 9800I 48 8588000610 COLLINS CHAD 8622 36TH ST W TACOMA WA 98466 31712 13TH AVE S FEDERAL WA 98003 48 Records Returned Condo, Listing! Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/29/2013 and ONLY includes Condominium Owners) •I-W j IN\I / 1 "IN IN/ IVIL I MI I IV. LIIVC P%LJLJrRCJJ LINE: # 1 J-%LJLJYCCJJ LIIVC ihL 8682400010 YI KYONG H 1040 S 320TH ST #32 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400020 CELADON PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 25904 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400030 WADE KERRY A 1040 S 320TH ST #A34 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400040 ROSS DENNIS R 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT #35 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400050 KUAN YI-CHING 1040 S 320TH ST #36 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400060 WILLETTE ALICIA 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT A37 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400070 WINCHELL JEFFREY+SHARLENE S 1040 S 320TH ST # 38 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400080 GODINEZ ELIZABETH 1040 S 320TH ST #A-39 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400090 WIESE VEDA JOY 1040 S 320TH ST #40 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400100 MURPHY ROBERT M+ARLENE S 4350 S 156TH ST SEATTLE WA 98181 8682400110 PHILLIPS SUSAN M 1040 S 320TH #42 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400120 GOOSBY BONNIE J 1040 S 320TH ST #21 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400130 AKHMEDOVA ELMIRAA 1040 S 320TH ST #22 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400140 BROWN MARY C 1040 S 320TH ST #1323 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400150 KIM KYU+KEUM 1040 SO 320TH #24 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400160 WIESE SCOTT 1040 S 320TH ST #25 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400170 HALL DESIREE 1040 S 320TH ST #1326 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400180 HOWARD VALARIE 1040 S 320TH ST #1327 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400190 BELL ALLEN B 1040 S 320TH ST #28 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400200 HANNA EMAD 2020 ABERDEEN AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 8682400210 BERGMAN MARILYN A 1040 S 320TH ST #30 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400220 VILLANUEVA DAVID A 1040 S 320TH ST #31 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400230 WATTS LISAA 1040 S 320TH ST #1 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400240 JORDAN RAE 1040 S 320TH ST 92C FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400250 ADAMS RONALD K+LAURA 1040 S 320TH ST #A FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400260 DECKER JOAN K 1040 S 320TH ST #4 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400270 BRIGGS TRUDY J 1040 S 320TH ST #5 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400280 KREYKES MELISSA 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT 6 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400290 AGUILAR BRENDA 1040 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400300 DANIEL MILLINGTON B 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT C-8 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400310 BECKETT KRISTEN L 1040 S 320TH ST #C9 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400320 BROWN SHERMAINE N 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT 43 FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400330 KIM SUNG SOO+YOUNG MI 1040 S 320TH ST #1 OD FEDERAL WAY WA 8682400340 JONES LEE A+BLANCHE 3223 S 356TH ST AUBURN WA 98001 8682400350 WILLIS MARK J+MARJORIE K 1040 S 320TH ST 4D12 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 98093 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98023 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 98003 ?8003 Page 1 of 2 TAXLOT ID# f TAXPAYEf� NAME 36 18682400360 37 18682400370 38 18682400380 39 18682400390 40 18682400400 41 18612400410 42 8682400420 43 8682400430 Listing Of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/29/2013 and ONLY includes Condominium Owners) MALLK ABDUL G BROWN DAVIDA+DELORES R SCHICK CONSTANCE ROSAND STACIE K SOFALY MICHAEL CHOI RICHARD J HO RONALD JORDAN ALZINAR 43 Records Returned ATT Aft: C/O DANIEL LIM Mailing Label Report! ADDRESS LINE #1 116043 MILITARY RD S 1040 S 320TH #14 1040 S 320TH 15 1040 320TH S #16 1040 S 320TH ST #17 1040 S 320TH ST #18 PO BOX 4215 1040 S 320TH ST #20 ADDRESS LINE #2 SEATAC WA 98188 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 Page 2 of 2 JIW4� CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ci tvof Fe dera lway.COM DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjuryof 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 ❑ FWRC 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 Ke-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on Project Name D ti A File Number(s) .. —lb35 L Signature Date ?. -J 7 % y K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2A0:00 PM Federal Way NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Highpoint Mixed Use / FILE NO: 13-103506-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW on file with the city. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the city. Proposal: Multiunit housing and commercial use redevelopment of former Federal Way School District transportation facility. Proposed improvements include 308 multifamily dwelling units, 27,337 square feet of ground floor commercial and amenity space, surface parking, stormwater control/treatment, public streets, and landscaping. All existing buildings on the subject property will be removed_ Proponent: Tom Neubauer, DevCo. Location: 1066 South 320' Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera— Senior Planner; 253-835-2638 SEPA Condition: Goals and policies adopted within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan serve as the basis for the city to exercise SEPA substantive authority set forth in FWRC 14.25.060 and to condition the proposed action as it relates to potential adverse impacts that would result from this project. The following goals and policies support the conditions for the development. NEG1 To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. NEPI Protect and restore environmental quality through land use plans, surface water management plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, and development review. (Emphasis added) Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are required to mitigate potential adverse impacts: The applicant shall take the following actions to ensure that site remediation per the Washington Department of Ecology's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and underground storage tanks removal regulations occur prior to site development of the property. The applicant may choose from the following two options: 1. The applicant shall submit and receive city approval for a grading plan limited in scope to remediation of contaminated soils and underground tank removal. A copy of the No Further Action opinion from the Department Of Ecology shall be provided prior to further site development and building permits; or 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for site remediation, the applicant shall fund an environmental pass -through account to pay the full cost of third party consultant charges to perform peer review ofthe action work plan, compliance reports and other documentation prepared by the applicant to confirm that site remediation is in compliance with the Department of Ecology rules. Prior to issuance of further site development and building permits beyond the scope of remediation, the applicant shall provide the city, for third party review paid for by the applicant, the compliance report and other documentation demonstrating the cleanup has complied with the Department of Ecology's rules for remediation and removal of underground storage tanks. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the city will not act on the proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by April 11, 2014. The project file is available for review during normal business hours in the Permit Center at City Hall located at 33325 8th Avenue South, 2'd Fir, Federal Way, WA 98003. 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 21 days (May 2, 2014) of the above comment deadline. Doc_ I.D. 65283 Tamara Fix From: Tamara Fix Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 9:09 AM To: Jennifer Anderson Oanderson@fedwaymirror.com) Subject: Legal Notice - Highpoint Attachments: 10250168054.DOC Please publish the attached legal notice (Highpoint DNS, 13-103506) in Friday's (March 28, 2014) issue. Let me know if the attachment doesn't work and I'll cut and paste it in for you. Please confirm and issue an affidavit of publication. t� Federal Way NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFI- CANCf (DNS) Highpofnt Mbted Use 1 File No: 13.103506-00-SE The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable signifi- cant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not re• was made after review of a0comple This emnronm nn tal checklist and other information on file with the Proposal: Multiunit housing and commercial use redevelopment of former Federal Way School DFstilcl transportation facility- Proposed improve- ments Include 308 multifamily dwelling units. 27,337 square feet of ground fluor comma Xigl and amenity space, surface parking, st0rtnwaler con- trolArealment; public streets, and landscaping. All existing buildings on the subject property will be removed. Proponent: Tom Neubauer, DevCo. Location, 1066 South 320th Street, Federal Way, WA 98003 Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera — Senior Planner; 253-835-2638 March 28, 2014 1191 SEPA Condition: Goals and policies sdopted within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan serve as the basis for the ctry to exefclse SEPA substantive au- Ihordy set forth In FWRC 14,25,060 and to condi- tion the proposed action as it relates to potential adverse impacts that would result from this pro- iect. The following goals and policies support the conditions for the development. NEGi To preserve the City's natu+al systems in order to protect public health, safely, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural envlron- mem. NEP1 Protect and restore environmental quality through land use plans, surface water manage- ment plans and programs, comprehensive park plans, and development review. (Emphasis added) Based on the above policle5, the following mitiga- tion measures are required to mitigate potential adverse Impacts: The applicant shall take the 10110wing actions to an - sure that site remediallon par the Washington De- partment of Ecology's Model Toxics Control Act (MICA) and underground storage tanks removal regulatlons occur prior to site development of the Property. The applicant may choose from the lot - lowing two options: 1. The applicant shall submit and receive city approval for a grading. plan Ilmlted In scope to re - mediation of contaminated soils and underground tank removal. A copy 01 the No Further Action opinion From the Department of Ecology shall he provided prior to further site development and building permits; or 2. Prior 10 Issuance of a grading permit For site remedlallon, the applicant shall lurid an arwhon• mental pass -through accouns to pay the Full cos; of third party consultant charges 10 perform peer re• view of The action work plan, compliance reports and other documentation prepared by the applicant to confirm that site remedfation is in compliance with the Deparlmem Of Ecology rules. Prior to issuance of further site development and building permits beyond the scope OF remedFalion, the applicant shall provide the city, for third party review paid For by the applicant, the compliance [a - port and other documentation demonstrating the cleanup has complied with the Department of Ecology's rules for lemaderlon and removal of un- derground storage tanks. This DNS Is issued under WAG 197.11,340(2); the city will not act on the proposal For 14 days from the dale of issuance. Comments must be submit - led by April 11, 2014, The project file Is available for review during normal business hours in the Permit Center at City Hall located at 33a25 8th Aw en us South, 2nd Fir, Federal Way, WA 98003, unless modified. by the Cdy, this determination will become linal following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the city's determination may ilia an appeal with the city within 21 days (May 2, 20141 of the above comment deadline. Published in the Federal Way Mirror, March 28, 2014 FWM 2124 I{ I� IjF' J F) -� a 31919 1"Ave S, Suite 101 1 Federal, Way, WA 980031 253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) 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 weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by 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 — Economic Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 28th day of March 2014 , and ending on the 28th day of March 2014 , 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 164.39, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 10th day of April 2014. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Buckley A AIV,6 ►'�i� F . .•o� 9F. pc 0 NOTARY PUBLIC :� p�'•....02.10�s .• C� �� 2 4. 6>p Q/7 &AJ,1nJaurc�5 ��-�ys;s In this case the City issued a DNS, on the condition that the applicant must either get a grading permit from the city and proceed with the MTCA cleanup of the site as a stand alone action. Project construction could only commence after Ecology issues what is called a No Further Action letter, which is essentially a Department of Ecology opinion that final and permanent cleanup requirements have all been met. In my opinion this would be the most reasonable option for the site. That being that a completed site investigation, removal of tanks, buildings, footings, foundations, removal of any uncovered contamination and confirmation sampling the MTCA Method A levels have been achieved. The second option is, in my opinion not well written, with some up and down side issues. It would allow the city to charge the project proponent for third party environmental review to confirm cleanup of the site complies with Ecology rules. This requirement lacks specifics as the term Ecology "rules" appears to reference site cleanup it doesn't provide any citation to specific rules or permits they are required to comply with. The second part of the requirement also requires payment for third party consultant review, prior to commencing with the project development, demonstration of compliance with Ecology rules for remediation and removal of underground storage tanks. This is at least a bit more specific. So in general it appears the city wants to have the developer pay for the city to hire a consultant to review all the documents submitted to Ecology, and demonstrate the developer has met Ecology's "rules", before the actual development project gets underway. What is implied here, though not specifically stated (and it should be), is that there should be an additional assessment step between the cleanup of the site and implementation of the project, or the start of actual construction. The reason there is a need for this is that there are still significant unknowns related to existing contamination on this site. Simply assuming the site will be adequately cleaned u, is not prudent, or rational, at this stage of site activity. Such a determination should only be based on confirmation sampling once the site has been cleared of all structures, and sampling in previously inaccessible areas has been completed. A problem with the contemplated proposal (as per the SEPA determination) if the developer is doing the cleanup and in an independent cleanup there is very little Ecology oversight, and virtually no opportunity for public comment or participation in the process. The developer does the cleanup and only submits documentation to Ecology once the cleanup is completed. No doubt this will be characterized as a Underground (and above ground) Storage Tank cleanup of fuel and oil, the most common category of site cleanups in the state. Ecology gets so many of these reports coming in that review is not always as thorough as it should be. In addition, given the long time use of the property with shop areas, hydraulic lifts, vehicle maintenance, and fueling there are fairly good odds that once they remove the site structures and other improvements, that they will find additional, previously undiscovered contamination. This will make oversight of that phase of the cleanup (final removal of site structures and improvements), and related confirmation sampling demonstrating that contamination has been removed to or below the MTCA Method A cleanup levels critical. The current proposal is simply not good enough in this regard. The SEPA determination as put forward by the city includes only a passive review component, with no guarantee, or even consideration of active oversight of the cleanup of this site. This is critical as the developer has substantial incentive to try and rush the cleanup through as rapidly as possible. The evidence of this is already on the record as in the developers SEPA submissions they were calling for a time line that included SEPA review, issuing the permits and starting construction of the project on a scale of months (a time line that is already substantially behind). At other sites developed under similar circumstance, and known to be even more extremely contaminated this type of economic incentive pressure has resulted in serious problems. At the nearby Lora Lake Apartments site, a cleanup done in 1986 was done at a former chemical barrel washing, and auto wrecking facility. The property was purchased by a developer from the last owner/operator of the property, the auto wrecking facility. The developer proposed a cleanup and construction of apartments for the site, similar to what is proposed here. Ecology let the developer proceed without real oversight, relying on the reports submitted to document the site had been cleaned up. Ecology approved those reports, the apartments were built, also in 1986 and occupied until the site was taken over and shut down by the Port of Seattle for their third runway expansion. Environmental review required for that type of property transaction showed the site to be grossly contaminated with a variety of contaminants well over even industrial, let alone residential cleanup levels. As a result an unknown number of people were exposed to site contamination, in spite of Ecology's 1986 "all clear", that allowed the project to go forward. Another more recent case is the development of the ASARCO complex in Ruston, just south of Federal Way. The developer there was part of a brown fields proposal. Contamination on site was miss -handled, elevated levels of arsenic and other contaminants were spread to nearby residential properties and workers were found to be contaminated with arsenic, based on reports from local activists. The company, of course, tried to deny there were any problems at all, and EPA was worse than useless. There was a great paper written of the politics of the ASARCO cleanup and EPA demonstrating how badly things went wrong there, as a doctoral dissertation. In any case, another example of where development of residential and commercial buildings on a contaminated site proved very problematic, even with oversight. The point being that the lack of oversight at your project area does not bode well. Although the levels of contamination found at the Federal Way site are not extremely high, and the number of identified pollutants is relatively low, there are still reasons to be concerned about contaminants on this site, in particular under obstructions that prevented sampling in the past investigations (buildings, floors, foundations, footings, and pads). It is prudent to assume that there will be additional areas of elevated concentrations of pollutants. It is prudent to assume that the developer has a substantial economic incentive to try and rush the cleanup through as fast as possible to keep his development completion schedule as compressed as possible. It is reasonable to assume that as primarily a "petroleum" based cleanup that review by Ecology will be minimal. It is reasonable to assume based on the SEPA determination, and related condition(s), that combined oversight by the city and Ecology is not going to be sufficient to assure this site is appropriately cleaned up, prior to the commencement of construction activities. (YIT cr) D67 W\-Q C7 41k CIT F '0;:tS=5' Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www,citvoffederoiway..com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION lV�' 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 Significarce (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 ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other was Kmailed ❑ faxed 2014. ❑ Land Use Decision Letter Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner A P � ❑ 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 Project Name File Number(s) 1?> 1)2 r� Signature._ 04..' I Date -2-) K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2.40:00 PM CITY OF - Federal Way NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner will hold an open record hearing at 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter on Monday, July 28, 2014, in the Federal Way City Council Chambers, 33325 Bch Avenue South, Federal Way, WA. Project Name/File Numbers: Highpoint Mixed Use / 13-103506-SE & 13-103505-UP Description of Appeal: Appeal of agency environmental threshold determination and appeal of Use Process III decision for a proposed mixed use development that includes 300 multi -family residential units and 26,095 square feet ground floor commercial/amenity space located at 1066 S. 320th St., Federal Way, WA 98003 Scope of Appeal: The scope of the appeals is limited to the errors of law raised or the specific factual findings and conclusions disputed in the notice of appeal. The Hearing Examiner may only consider evidence, testimony, or comments relating to errors of law raised or the disputed findings and conclusions. Environmental Threshold Determination Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal on May 1, 2014, which alleges that remediation documents prepared by the applicant and the conditions placed on the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) by the city are inadequate. Use Process III Appeal Summary: The appellants filed a written appeal June 19, 2014, which alleges errors and disputes factual findings/conclusions of the land use decision related to consistency with the following: the comprehensive plan; applicable provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code; public health, safety and welfare; adequacy of streets and utilities in the area to service the anticipated demand; location and configuration of access; mitigation of traffic safety impacts; and applicable Community Design Guidelines. Participation in the Appeal: The hearing is open to the public and anyone may attend, although only those persons entitled to participate in the appeal may provide oral comments directly to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or submit written comments to the Hearing Examiner during the public hearing or deliver the written comments to the Community Development Department prior to the hearing. Those entitled to participate in the hearing are the city, the applicant, parties that signed the SEPA appeal and parties that signed the Use Process III appeal who had previously submitted comments or specifically requested a copy of the decision. Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera —Senior Planner, 253-835-2638 Doc, I.D. 65841 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7l1/2014 and does NOT include Condominium Owners) # 35 TAXLOT ID# TAXPAYER NAME VAZQUEZ MARINT JAMES ATTN: LINE ADDRESS LINE #1 1041 S 317TH ST ADDRESS LINE #2 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 3584000330 36 3584000340 KING AARON D 1047 S 317TH FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 37 3584000350 BYARS BELINA+MAUTAANOIMALO F 1055 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 38 3584000360 HERNANDEZ-MEJIA PAULINO+HIG 1061 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 39 3584000370 OSTER-CHAMBERS KAREN L 1067 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 40 3584000380 MIGUEL NORBERTO B JR+CORAZON C 1075 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 41 3584000390 CORPUZ ORLARIO T 1083 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 42 3584000400 WOJCIECHOWSKI STEPHEN PATRI 1091 S 317TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 43 6093900010 INMAN CHARLES+HENNEKE CARY D 32004 1 OTH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 44 8588000595 ROSALES MARITES S+CARMELO L 31618 13TH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 45 8588000600 CARLSON ERICAA 30629 38TH AVE S AUBURN WA 98001 46 8588000605 BOND O 8622 36TH ST W TACOMA WA 98466 47 8588000610 COLLINS CHAD 31712 13TH AVE S FEDERAL WA 98003 47 Records Returned Condo. Listing! Page 2 of 2 # ITAXLOT ID# I TAXPAYER NAME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 0821049082 0821049121 0821049196 0821049222 0821049234 0821049241 1500500010 1500500020 1500500030 1500500040 1500500110 1721049081 1721049086 1721049117 3584000010 3584000020 3584000030 3584000040 3584000050 3584000060 3584000070 3584000080 3584000090 3584000100 3584000110 3584000120 3584000130 3584000140 3584000270 3584000280 3584000290 3584000300 3584000310 3584000320 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/1/2014 and does NOT include Condominium Owners) JOO HO HYUN+KIM YOUNG SOON EXTENDED STAY HOTELS HARSCH INVESTMENT PROP LLC KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM FW MEDICAL -DENTAL GRP LLC PAK CHUM H+LI CHON WALLACE BRUCE R+DEBRA E MGP IX SUNSET SQUARE LLC MGP IX SUNSET SQUARE LLC MGP IX SUNSET SQUARE LLC HARSCH INVESTMENT PROPS LLC CJ SHON LLC DAVISCOURT JOHN C STEAD VOGEL & MOTLAND WILLIS T E CHAVARRIA JUAN G SORIANO ERLINDA R HARVEY GEORGENNE A YATES TINA PARRETT LESLIE JR+JEANNETTE ROBSON HILARY C HERNANDEZ PAULINO M+RODAS H AVAIUSINI M V RODRIGUEZ ROSA V VENTURA MARYLOU CORPUZ+GEORGE C GRIGSBY STEPHEN+DONNA COOK JACQUELINE L TIDWELL PAULINE PETERSON DANIEL L STAATS KIM PATRICK STEPHESON ELIZABETH D+O'BRI DEVERA NARCISA H+HERNANDO MILLER CAROLINE LOUISE FISHLIN TRACY ATTN: LINE Attn: ATTN PROPERTY TAX Attn: ATTN: TAX DEPARTMENT Attn: FEDERAL WAY 320TH Attn: ATTN TAX DEPARTMENT ADDRESS LINE #1 1802 PT WOODWORTH DR NE PO BOX 49550 PO BOX 2708 960 NEWPORT WAY NW PO BOX 23314 1300 S 320TH ST 32011 40TH PL SW 425 CALIFORNIA ST I ITH FL 425 CALIFORNIA ST I ITH FL 425 CALIFORNIA ST I ITH FL PO BOX 2708 4001 36TH ST NE 16846 SE 47TH WAY 1025 S 320TH SUITE 204 POB 6013 1086 S 317TH ST SW 1080 S 317TH ST 1072 S 317TH ST 1064 S 317TH ST 31012 20TH AVE S 1050 S 317TH ST 1044 S 317TH ST 2031 S 331 ST ST 1030 S 317TH ST 1024 S 317TH ST 1018 S 317TH ST 1010S317THST 7525 SE 24TH AVE SE #455 1003 S 317TH ST 9766 ARROWSMITH AVE S 1015 S 317TH ST 1021 S 317TH ST 1027 S 317TH 1035 S 317TH ST ADDRESS LINE #2 TACOMA WA 98422 CHARLOTTE NC 28277 PORTLAND OR 97208 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 PORTLAND OR 97208 TACOMA WA 98422 BELLEVUE WA 98006 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98001 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SEATTLE WA 98118 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98002 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 II 11 Pin, 11 1 !I I- - I f I• Page 1 of 2 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/1/2014 and ONLY includes Condominium Owners) r �tw A r%r-%M r!CC 1 IK1C -1% IAALU I IU* I/-VlF'NT Cr'C IVAIVIG AI I IV. LIIVC it 1 1 8682400010 YI KYONG H 1040 S 320TH ST #32 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 2 8682400020 CELADON PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 25904 FEDERAL WAY WA 98093 3 8682400030 WADE KERRY A 1040 S 320TH ST #A34 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 4 8682400040 ROSS DENNIS R 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT #35 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 5 8682400050 KUAN YI-CHING 1040 S 320TH ST #36 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 6 8682400060 WILLETTE ALICIA 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT A37 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 7 8682400070 WINCHELL JEFFREY+SHARLENE S 1040 S 320TH ST # 38 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 8 8682400080 GODINEZ ELIZABETH 1040 S 320TH ST #A-39 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 A 8682400090 WIESE VEDA JOY 1040 S 320TH ST #40 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 8682400100 MURPHY ROBERT M+ARLENE S 4350 S 156TH ST SEATTLE WA 98188 11 8682400110 PHILLIPS SUSAN M 1040 S 320TH #42 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 12 8682400120 AQUINO FERDINAND V 1040 S 320TH ST APT 21 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 13 8682400130 AKHMEDOVA ELMIRAA 1040 S 320TH ST #22 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 14 8682400140 BROWN MARY C 1040 S 320TH ST #1323 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 15 8682400150 KIM KYU+KEUM 1040 SO 320TH #24 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 16 8682400160 WIESE SCOTT 1040 S 320TH ST #25 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 17 8682400170 HALL DESIREE 1040 S 320TH ST #B26 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 18 8682400180 HOWARD VALARIE 1040 S 320TH ST #1327 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 19 8682400190 BELL ALLEN B 1040 S 320TH ST #28 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 20 8682400200 HANNA EMAD 2020 ABERDEEN AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 21 8682400210 BERGMAN MARILYN A 1040 S 320TH ST #30 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 22 8682400220 VILLANUEVA DAVID A 1040 S 320TH ST #31 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 23 8682400230 WATTS LISAA 1040 S 320TH ST #1 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 8682400240 JORDAN RAE 1040 S 320TH ST #2C FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 25 8682400250 ADAMS RONALD K+LAURA 1040 S 320TH ST #A FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 26 8682400260 DECKER JOAN K 1040 S 320TH ST #4 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 27 8682400270 HICKS JENNA 1040 S 320TH ST #5 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 28 8682400280 KREYKES MELISSA 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT 6 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 29 8682400290 AGUILAR BRENDA 1040 S 320TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 30 8682400300 DANIEL MILLINGTON B 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT C-8 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 31 8682400310 BECKETT KRISTEN L 1040 S 320TH ST #C9 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 32 8682400320 BROWN SHERMAINE N 1040 S 320TH ST UNIT 43 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 33 8682400330 KIM SUNG SOO+YOUNG MI 1040 S 320TH ST #10D FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 34 6682400340 JONES LEE A+BLANCHE 3223 S 356TH ST AUBURN WA 98001 35 8682400350 WILLIS MARK J+MARJORIE K 1040 S 320TH ST #D12 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 Page 1 of 2 Listing of Taxpayer Names and Mailing Addresses (Prepared 7/1/2014 and ONLY includes Condominium Owners) 36 TAXLOT ID# TAXPAYER NAME MA1LK ABDUL G ATTN: LINE ADDRESS LINE #1 16043 MILITARY RD S ADDRESS LINE #2 SEATAC WA 98188 8682400360 37 8682400370 BROWN DAVID A+DELORES R 1040 S 320TH #14 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 38 8682400380 SCHICK CONSTANCE 1040 S 320TH 15 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 39 8682400390 ROSAND STACIE K 1040 320TH S #16 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 40 8682400400 SOFALY MICHAEL 1040 S 320TH ST #17 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 41 8682400410 CHOI RICHARD J 1040 S 320TH ST #18 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 42 8682400420 HO RONALD Attn: C/O DANIEL LIM PO BOX 4215 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 43 8682400430 JORDAN ALZINAR 1040 S 320TH ST #20 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 43 Records Returned Page 2 of 2 SHARON D MURCHISON BETTY A BJORKLUND 298,05 2"D AVE SW RAYMOND BJORKLUND ERIC OLSON FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 832 S 316T" ST 807 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 LEE MOEN T" ANGIE ZMIJCWSKI 831 S 316ST 32657 9T" PL S MICHAEL BARCLAY FEDERALWAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 310E SW 313T" PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 MARK BRADY LEAH BOEHM-BRADY CLARA SNYDER T" T" LAURA JOHNSON 841 S 316ST 31622 8AVE S 4615 SW 317T" PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 JULIE KLOUSE JENNIFER AND ST N 32249 7T" AVE SW WOJCIECHO I MARCIA R & JAMES SILICANI FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 1091 � �' ST 1027 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROLINE L MILLER JEANNE L EPP WILLIAM E AND 1027 S 31T" 7826 S 316T" JUDITH A DOTTERWICK FEDF AY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1005 S 323RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DAVID D COLLINS TRACY FISCHLIN CLIFFORD & JILL MCCLOE FRANCINE M AND 1035 S 317T" ST 846 S 310T" PL DWIGHT T BECKER FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1074 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003-5331 BRUCE W SNYDER T" KARI A JONES 31622 8AVE S ST DIANNE FERGUSON FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 600 SW 331 ST 920 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 GARRET T TH FLORA FAINMALO 1091 S 317T" ST 1061 S 317T" ST RAMONA IC FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 2233 SW 342ND ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 SARAH & TREVOR ASAY T" SARAH COREY 1059 S 316ST 1067 S 316T" ST LAURA LOVE FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1079 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DIANA BOSSHART ERIC LUND 1082 S 316T" ST T" BELINA BYARS 1050 S 316 ST 1055 S 317TH FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 EARL JENNINGS T" LILANE MAQUEZ 1201 S 3151018 S 317T" ST KAT THIESSEN FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1017 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 .JOHN & DONNA WHISLER JAN MOE 1003 S 316T" ST 1333 S 315T" KAREN BITZ FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1073 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SUSANA GUADALUPE 1206 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ALETHA JEAN KIRWAN 1273 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PAT MONAGLIAN 1264 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ELISE CRICK 1281 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROL & ALBERT OLSON 1265 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JAMES SALLY 31503 10T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98002 AARON KING CAROL & SANDRA M GRECO 1047 S 317T" BELINDA F BYANS FEDER AY WA 98003 31502 13T" AVE S 1055 S 317r" FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FED AY W, 9i�03 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 CITY OF 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 Federal Way www.cityoffederaiwqy.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that ❑ 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 ❑ FWRC Interpretation Other 61. was mailed ❑ faxed A2014. Project Name ❑ 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 File Number(s) Signature Date 7-3_r K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution,doc/Last printed 7/3/2014 2:25:00 PM Matt Herrera From: Matt Herrera Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:21 AM To: Carol McNeilly Cc: Kim Adams Pratt (kim@kenyondisend.com); Jack Hunden oack.hunden@devcoapts.com); 'blynn@gth-law.com'; leahboehm@hotmail.com; Amy Jo Pearsall; Isaac Conlen Subject: Highpoint Prehearing Conference Carol Will you please contact the Hearing Examiner to schedule a Prehearing conference for the Highpoint DNS/Use Process III appea I hearing as allowed under item #8 of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure. Thank You Matt Herrera, AICP — Senior Planner Community Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 253.835.2638 (p) / 253.835.2609 (tj Matt.I�errer ci offederalwa _com SHARON D MURCHISON BETTY A BJORKLUND 29805 2"D AVE SW RAYMOND BJORKLUND ERIC OLSON FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 832 S 316TH ST 807 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 LEE MOEN T" ANGIE ZMIJCWSKI 831 S 316ST MICHAEL BARCLAY 32657 9T" PL S 3108 SW 313T" PL FEDERALWAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 MARK BRADY LEAH BOEHM-BRADY CLARA SNYDER T" T" LAURA JOHNSON 841 S 316ST 31622 8AVE S 4615 SW 317T" PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 JULIE KLOUSE JENNIFER AND STEPHEN 32249 7T" AVE SW WOJCIECHOWSKI MARCIA R & JAMES SILICAMI FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 1091 S 317T" ST 1027 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROLINE L MILLER T" JEANNE L EPP WILLIAM E AND 1027 S 317ST 826 S 316T" JUDITH A DOTTERWICK FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1005 S 323RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DAVID D COLLINS TRACY FISCHLIN CLIFFORD & JILL MCCLOE FRANCINE M AND 1035 S 317" ST 846 S 310T" PL DWIGHT T BECKER FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1074 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003-5331 BRUCE W SNYDER T" KART A JONES 31622 8AVE S 600 SW 331 ST ST DIANNE FERGUSON FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 920 S 315T" FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 GARRET THOMAS T" FLORA FAINMALO 1091 S 317ST 1061 S 317T" ST RAMONA IC FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 2233 SW 342ND ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 SARAH & TREVOR ASAY T" SARAN COREY 1059 S 316ST TH LAURA LOVE FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1067 S 316 ST 1079 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DIANA BOSSHART ERIC LUND 1082 S 316T" ST 1050 S 316T" ST BELINA BYARS FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1055 S 317T" FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 EARL JENNINGS LILANE MAQUEZ KAT THIESSEN 1201 S315T" 1018S317T"ST 1017S317T"ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JOHN & DONNA WHISLER 1003 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SUSANA GUADALUPE 1206 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JAN MOE 1333 S 315T" FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PAT MONAGLIAN 1264 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 KAREN BITZ 1073 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROL & ALBERT OLSON 1265 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ALETHA JEAN KIRWAN ELISE CRICK JAMES SALLY 1273 S 315T" ST 1281 S 315T" ST 31503 10T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98002 Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityofederalway.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 ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other. ❑ Land Use Decision Letter 1K 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 Kmailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2014. Project Name File Number(s) Signature v Date. 7- 7 r / Y K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /22/2014 2:40.00 PM Matt Herrera From: Matt Herrera Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 3:19 PM To: Kim Adams Pratt (kim@kenyondisend.com); Jack Hunden oack.hunden@devcoapts.com); biynn@gth-law.com; Amy Jo Pearsall; leahboehm@hotmail.com; Paul Green (Paul@mailagc.com) Cc: Isaac Conlen; Patrick Doherty Subject: FW: Highpoint Prehearing Conference Email Order From: Phil Olbrechts fm ilto:olbrechtslaw@amail.com Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:47 PM To: Carol McNeilly Subject: Fwd: Prehearing Conference Email Order It's my understanding you need an order for me to set the prehearing conference requested by City staff below. I'm currently out of state battling holiday traffic into Los Angeles and do not have an opportunity to reference the hearing examiner rules or a computer to write a foimal order. Given the short time frame between now and the appeal hearing, I agree it is imperative to issue an order as soon as possible. Please construe this email as an order setting the prehearing conference for the Highpoint DNS/Use Process III appeal for July 10, 2014 at Federal Way City Hall at 11:00 am. SHARON D MURCHISON BETTY A BJORKLUND ERIC OLSON '29805 2ND AVE SW RAYMOND BJORKLUND T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 807 S 316 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FE LEE MOEN ANGIE ZMIJCWSKI MICHAEL BARCLAY 831 S 316T" ST 32657 9T" PL S 3108 SW 313T" PL FEDERALWAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 MARK BRADY CLARA SNYDER LAURA JOHNSON LEAH BOEHM-BRADY 31622 8T" AVE S 4615 SW 317T" PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 STH FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FE JULIE KLOUSE JENNIFER AND STEPHEN MARCIA R & JAMES SILICANI 32249 7T" AVE SW WOJCIECHOWSKI T" ST TH FEDERALL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 1091 S ST 1027 S 317FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROLINE L MILLER JEANNE L EPP WILLIAM E AND 1027 S 317T" ST 826 S 316T" JUDITH A DOTTERWICK 100E S 323 RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DAVID D COLLINS CLIFFORD & JILL MCCLOE FRANCINE M AND TRACY FISCHLIN 846 S 310T" PL DWIGHT T BECKER 1035 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 1074 S 316T ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003-5331 BRUCE W SNYDER KARI A JONES DIANNE FERGUSON 31622 8T" AVE S 600 SW 331 ST ST 920 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 GARRET THOMAS FLORA FAINMALO RAMONA IC 1091 S 317T" ST 1061 S 317T" ST 2233 SW 342ND ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 SARAH & TREVOR ASAY SARAH COREY LAURA LOVE 1059 S 316T" ST 1067 S 316T" ST 1079 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DIANA BOSSHART ERIC LUND BELINA BYARS 1082 S 316T" ST 1050 S 316T" ST 1055 S 317T" FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 EARL JENNINGS LILANE MAQUEZ KAT THIESSEN 1201 S315T" 1018S317T"ST 1017S317T"ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JOHN & DONNA WHISLER JAN MOE KAREN BITZ 1003 S 316T" ST 1333 S 315T" 1073 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SUSANA GUADALUPE 1206 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ALETHA JEAN KIRWAN 1273 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PAT MONAGLIAN 1264 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ELISE CRICK 1281 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROL & ALBERT OLSON 1265 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JAMES SALLY 31503 10T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98002 AARON KING CAROL & SANDRA M GRECO BELINDA F BYANS 1047 S 317T" ST 31502 13T" AVE S 1055 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JUN 1 D 2014 This letter is to give the City of Federal Way our intentions to appeal file #13-103505-00-UP use process III project approval for High Point Mixed Use 1066 S 320th street, Federal Way. We do not agree with the project as proposed and the conclusions based on the decision able criteria. 1. The City has stated that, "The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." We homeowners disagree, this proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan for a number of reasons. The buildings that are proposed for this 9.8 acre site are out of scale to all the existing buildings In the area. On the east side is a three story motel building, on the west side is a two story condominium complex. To the north is a fifty year old development of small single family one level residences. The proposed six, five, and four story buildings are out of character with the rest of the existing buildings, they are in fact twice as tall, and nowhere else in Federal Way in existing City Frame residential do the buildings rise more than three stories. In addition, the high density apartments that are two and three stories high just south of 312th near Walmart have the benefit of several high quality city streets, for traffic dispersion. This High Point proposed development is in effect a 'cul de sac' of high density, with the single exit to the south on on one of the busiest streets in town (320th), with the only exit out to City Center is a left turn lane on one of the busiest roads in the city. This proposal does not integrate into the local architecture and is an arbitrary and capricious design. No where else in City Frame do residential buildings rise to 6 stories. In the back, at the north boundary, by granting variances to the usual City Frame buffers and vegetation, this proposal actually makes the situation worse for the neighborhood, as the variances actually bring the buildings closer to the property line. This does not comply with the comp plan and all variances should be denied. Our city has told us, "Preserving existing neighborhood is an Important community value In Federal Way. One of the reasons the community Incorporated was to have more control over maintaining the character of its existing single-family neighborhoods. The FWCP recognizes that neighborhoods are special places and are valuable and important to the quality of life for many citizens. In particular, new development in established neighborhoods must be sensitively designed and constructed. Likewise, new multi -family or mixed use development located along arterials running through or adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods should be designed to minimize adverse impacts to its surrounding". But this development has no positive impacts to the neighborhood, rather the opposite. The City must follow through on these words and promises and protect the north neighborhood. No variances that reduce the buffer, parking, planting whatsoever should be permitted, because It negatively affects the single family neighborhood to the north. Another reason this proposal is not consistent with the Comp plan is that the city is going to allow all vegetation on the entire property to be removed. The buffer on the north side is mature and will help mitigate the impacts of the apartments. The City bases its decision to allow ALL the vegetation to be removed on the North side, based on one arborist report, declaring that "23 of the 25 trees along the north property line are either dead, dying or in poor condition." We homeowners have read this report, and the arborist clearly says that the alleyway (called buffer)on the north has excellent quality English Laurel and several healthy fir trees. The developer's arborist has in fact tagged trees that are not on the School District's land, that are in a legal alleyway. This property is written into the plat of their development, as an alley/easement. Their water and sewer lines run through there. The developer has no right to remove ANY vegetation at all in this area. Much vegetation and buffer has grown up in this area, and residents wish to retain as much as possible of this vegetation to screen the view of the buildings and the lights at night. In addition, we want a second opinion on the health of the trees on the north border. We want an arborist of our choice for this second opinion, not one acquired by the School District or the Developer. We feel for a city that prides itself on being `green' every vital tree should be preserved where City Frame zoning abuts a neighborhood. We homeowners can clearly see a healthy living vegetative tree/shrub hedge that is a large, lovely buffer. The School District and DEVCO cannot claim the neighbors land, take out any vegetation on land they do not own. We want to see a survey, and exact accounting of exactly where the School District's land ends, so every single living tree on our side is spared. This survey should be fully paid for by the School District. This property, according to Matt Herrera from the Planning Department, is the only location in the City where CF zoning abuts a one level single family neighborhood. This unique neighborhood has been the same for over 50 years. Federal Way City should have to adjust the CF design in this particular place, and instead of maxing it out with variances, they should be protect the neighborhood integrity by scaling it down. Saving trees is part of this. Protecting the buffer is vital. 2. The City contends that, "The proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) " Our objection to this point Is the fact that the developer is being granted variances to the code, apparently because he could not shoehorn in the super high density without exceptions to the rule. These variances harm the neighborhood. The homeowners oppose the City's proposed "departures" from the required yard and residential zone setbacks. We oppose this elimination of space distance between the new buildings and the residential neighborhood on the north. The `streetside amenities" traded for do not protect our neighborhood integrity, and are a poor bargain for the negative impact on the North side. The homeowners oppose the reduction of the landscaping along the North boundary of the proposal. The developer, according to the city will be granted a variance from the required 15 foot buffer to an 11.25 foot buffer. No variance to the 15 foot buffer of landscaping should be permitted. CF code says, "Landscaping 15 feet in width is required along property lines adjacent to residential zoning" We oppose the 25 percent screen reduction proposed. This variance makes the buffer much smaller, and the CF zone 15 foot buffer already is inadequate to shield the neighbors from the lights and windows of the proposed high rise buildings. The homeowners oppose the decision to allow only a wood fence on the north side. The proposed six foot high wood fence Is not adequate to protect our neighborhood Integrity. It is far too easy to climb a fence of this type. We feel the developer should have to put in a solid six foot concrete block type of fence to separate this City Frame development from single family residential, with the design subject to the approval of the homeowners. A wood fence is not adequate to protect the neighborhood from increased vehicle uses and high density noise and activity. The homeowners disagree with the City's findings that the parking spaces are adequate to the needs of the High Point property. The parking modification from 1.7 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces is completely inadequate to the demand. We fear that if the City allows the developer puts in inadequate parking at the apartments along with pedestrian access to our neighborhood as in the current plan, overflow parking will happen in front of our homes, with people coming and going at all times of day or night. This will not protect our neighborhood integrity. In fact, we have consistently opposed the pedestrian access, there is NO ONE AT ALL in our neighborhood who wants this access. It Is only the school district pushing for it. Better protection for our neighborhood integrity would be to NOT open a pedestrian access, and have children use the existing public sidewalks through the library to go to school. Moreover, if the streets and sidewalks in front of the proposed development are unsafe for kids to walk, then the developer should have to make the needed improvements. The homeowners also feel that if the City plans to bargain away parking places for future transit passes, then the formula for these passes should be articulated clearly, in perpetuity, for the residents. Matt Herrera said the developer would decide the amount of savings, we feel this is inadequate and the City should protect future residents better. The actual formula, the amount of transit pass reduction should be spelled out for future residents. Another variance is with the planter and utility strips are being omitted on the North side of the property. This reduction of vegetation and space separating the new buildings from our homes is not acceptable to the neighbors. The homeowners feel no variances should be granted on the north side, abutting the neighborhood, that in any way diminish vegetation and space between the new buildings and our homes. 3. The City has stated that 'the proposal is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare." The homeowners do not feel this proposal is consistent with public health, safety and welfare. The proposal only asks for `regular' style grading and dozing. However, this property is polluted. This is a known toxic site. A SEPA appeal has already been filed, requesting additional testing for contamination after the buildings are removed. We feel, in light of the known contamination at the site, clearing and grading activities should be modified for this property, above the regular FW expectations, to protect the neighborhood from hazardous dust, when the site is graded and developed. The developer should have to wet down the land to keep the dust from rising, and collect and either treat onsite the contaminated water or haul it away for disposal. The City has a responsibility to the neighborhood to protect from the migration of hazardous dust. A similar site in Burien at Lora Lake Apartments has far more stringent public protections than what the City is proposing. Since the High Point property is polluted with similar contaminants, the `best practices' ways of dealing with spreading of contamination should be implemented. This is the only way of taking precautions to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Another reason this development is not consistent with public health, safety and welfare is that the street in front, 320th, is a dangerous road to walk on. As a result, it is the School District's solution to open a pedestrian walkway into our development from the far end of the property. No other property in the city frame has an access like this, with the exception of the library. Worst of all, the variance the developer is receiving to required improvements along 320th do it does nothing to address the unsafe conditions on 320th which of course will be increased by allowing the high density, variance enabled, ill-advised project. This is a poor place to put high density residential homes. 4. The City has stated that "The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. " The homeowners completely disagree. We feel if the City wants this property to be developed High Density as the current plan demonstrates, they should have to complete the Ring Road shown on the Comprehensive plan, taking 11 th place down the hill to connect with the city road on 14th, allowing a back entrance/exit from the High Point property. If this road is not completed now, then when? This property should not be allowed to be city standard high density without an equivalent development of road access for City traffic. This road extension will benefit all the residents, the police and fire department, and allow for better neighborhood integrity for the adjacent single family home neighborhood. When this property was zoned CF, the road was part of the plan. It should be developed with the property. In the existing plan there is no road that points directly to the city center, all exits point away from the center way, only the single turn lane from 11th heads toward the city center. The City of Federal Way states that, "The current network of collector roads and arterials, the disjointed grid, and large block sizes contribute to significant traffic congestion within the City Center. The solution is not necessarily to construct wider roads. Streets become less efficient as the numbers of lanes increases. Building new streets versus widening existing streets is more cost effective, yields greater capacity, and will have less impact on the City Center. Automobiles are likely to continue as a dominant mode of transportation. A comprehensive network of collector arterials and other streets must be developed to distribute this traffic and create more driving choices. To the extent possible, the City should connect streets to form a tighter grid within the City Center, especially in the core, by negotiating new public rights -of -way and building new streets. This `interconnectivity"serves to shorten and disperse trips, and consequently reduce travel on existing congested arterials" The city road 11th must be completed in the ring road connection in the comprehensive plan should and must be completed to make the access at "optimal location and configuration". Residents should be able to drive down the hill, out the back of the property, to connect with 14th. In this way they can access Pacific Highway, and 312th. This back way out will reduce the pressure on 320th. This solution should be in place BEFORE high density is installed. The inadequate roads proposed are not consistent with the City's own standards. The homeowners do not feel that the streets are safe unless the city completes the connection to 14th. 5. The City has stated that, "The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration". We homeowners disagree. The configuration of the access is very poor. The only way in or out is on one of the busiest streets in the city. To improve access, The city road 11 th must make the ring road connection to 14th avenue. Residents should be able to drive down the hill, out the back of the property, to connect with 14th. This will offer a much more acceptable configuration. 6. The City has stated that, "Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site are adequately mitigated." The homeowners disagree. Traffic safety impact have not been mitigated, the developer is not going to have to make improvements along 320th at all. 7. The City has stated that, "It is consistent with the site design standards set forth for all zoning districts and applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in the community design guidelines." We homeowners disagree. Prior to this proposal, Federal Way community design guidelines have so far resulted in wonderful designs throughout the city. Well designed high density on 312th in CF is much more in scale to neighboring buildings and houses. Here we are asked to have 9 giant 4-6 story buildings jut up above all the neighborhood, out of scale for the entire area, since it is at the `high point" of the City and will tower over everything else, the residents of the apartments will look down into our homes. This is poor design. This is completely out of scale. In conclusion, we appeal the proposed development completely. It is out of scale for its location, the proposal `steals' land from the neighbors, coming into the homeowner's legal alley clearing vegetation that does not belong to the subject property. The developer is trying to squeeze in this super high density development that cannot be built without variances from the city, variances that directly harm the neighborhood as a result of reduced space from our homes to the proposed buildings. We strongly object to the City's preferential treatment of this developer by granting these variances that harm the neighborhood, as explained in detail in our appeal. A development of much less density would be far better, and would integrate with all the architecture nearby. However, If this property is allowed to go high density, then the ring road should be mandatory. We, the undersigned, appeal file #13-103505-00-UP use process III project approval for High Point Mixed Use 1066 S 320th street, Federal Way. 2 �Q,ucg SN Y DE ]2� 3/4 z Z s� ��� S.-O.F��Q Ry �3 zs3-9 -7937 3. 31Gg�z 3 a 7 5 �� l w� r cI goo 3 � st.— �L , �eu� r 5. 4, V"�' -5hrr-1 /t"Z�W-t LOA 2 OG 6 D L CiC! LSO & �`yvmw5 s- Y Y'� �b6 -'7a`C V/-Z 9. iF scvk t i v� �t� ! ova � ► � � 10. to 11. -yrr7 ���n1A �3 � �. O WG�42 2� 12. C -3NIML L 13.P�1 L bi�L( Ned v� 3/726' �4ve f�Gle��4 '�7 We, the undersigned, appeal file #13-103505-00-UP use process III project approval for High Point Mixed Use 1066 S 320th street, Federal Way. 14. T /i A kl Ci nl M /fir ;7� �'0 31L `` L�' � 53 83`J y..2� � L 7a , -rC a- L c,l A 4JA °< a r e v-N 16. farce -lam �17. MwA GO F FC' oitiQ�r V`�y 1 18. rr1'G it TaCU u�' TO 14J-bv\ --- ���20�%8 '5IH 2 i 10TV, SD K 19. gebr a-, `�a/is _ �rc�/ lC/a�, 6c1/� 98nD3 20. - --121. F�de� L 4,�r w4Q�3 22. 23. l L i c, 24.c�--� �4 . .-- 5 7 cIyu---I 25. [1 We, the undersigned, appeal file #13-103505-00-UP use process III project �� approval for High Point Mixed Use 1066 S 320th street, Federal Way. ,/26. '/6Is S0 -317� Al a-s.3-6�r -037 A. V6 28.. ('14by1VE- ;To ffiWalu l 3133? / � � �`E � 2�3 7.2 7, &j13 �29.�ni�-e,�v� •c�2c,�c��sk1 30 41 J32, Q, Le t' _cI \%33. } l— J34. L G Ma J35. 1091 Sa , �� ,1 003 31 3�,—/J ut -t+ A�+t S . W WA . �j�3(�D"3 A-►-c - S - ao� Lit Le Ito F C7-�) S—r`c8 —C)?�:74 253- 639- A* OS 2,S3_3z6— C'aIV We, the undersigned, appeal file #13-103505-00-UP user process III project approval for High Point Mixed Use 1066 S 32001 strgt, Federal Way. 40. �►� D��X GE 31a4q g�}gvs, & ,�.�d•� a53 - 835 a5a-0 V-)-147 41. (ddtA Q 42. 43. Lv z, LA Q1 44 2r�i i eo- Vo zq.3 SCO0 349 95 ID'?')- S 766 1041 S 31T " -5+ 3yhi'a \Jq-eque3 . 45. 14ar �'A I Oq t 3 11CO0 331 k f 2 3 46. 7� 47. 49 C� 3 IT" 15+ R�4cra 1 It 0:� '� (I 8XOS UJQJ saki q8003 We, the undersigned, appeal file #13-103505-00-UP use process III project approval for High Point Mixed Use 1066 S 320th street, Federal Way. 50. �. L46�c� �' 51. � 1 s4 Y,,l., . /YfuSe-[.r �s3� 52. Z0"7 53. 54.�1 S, ����inS� ��U�.1��1 C(0003 j �55,�' v�] ��`�� 3�� Q � � � ���b3 .�ZS� V 0 0 Aa r on �5 J o� r �"�'� 3� 2 Z t s ve CK Id s 56. k an qs 9 fob_�13 ✓- p,��jv�� boo — pfl��� L eoe- n rtc r 58-Do NJ Le io,7z, �l Q112. qFo 0 `� 3 DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY HALL MANAGEMENT SERVICES 33325 8TH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA. 98003 Reg# #/Rcpt#: 001-00096438 [ JT ] Accounting Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 Date/Time: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 3:20 PM 8018\APPEAL - ADMIN DECISION 001-0000-073-345-61-000 APPEAL HIGHPOINT MIXED USE FEE AMOUNT: $ 182.50 RECEIPT TOTAL = $ 182.50 Payment Data: Pmt# :1 Payer: LEAH BOEHM-BRADY Method: CASH Ref#: N/A AMOUNT = $ 182.50 RECEIPT SUMMARY TOTAL TENDERED - $ 182.50 RECEIPT TOTAL = $ 182.50 -------------------- CHANGE DUE = $ 0.00 HAVE A NICE DAY! DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE u:1.0.3980 We appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of Non Signif icance (DNS) f or the Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel # 08210491881 owned by federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 The DNS that was prepared by Matt Herrera is incomplete, false and misleading. We have hired a respected environmental specialist, Greg Wingard, to review the SEPA documents and render us an opinion, based on his decades of work with Ecology and similar properties in the Puget Sound area. Greg Wingard is a Seattle native, and life long environmental advocate, having worked on issues such as uranium mining and milling, toxics, Clean Water Act litigation, environmental restoration, is the President of Waste Action Project and much more. Greg works directly with Larry Phillips in Icing County, directing environmental remediationsI in particular regarding the Soos Creek and Green River. He founded the Green River Coalition. Here is what our expert has told us... RECEIVED MAY 01 2014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ADS H Mr. Wingard told us that the contamination to the property in question is likely worse than what the S initial data has shown. The extent of contamination -will -become clearer -once -buildings and other impervious surface barriers that prevented sampling over the entire area where f uel and other hazardous materials have been spilled over the decades are removed. Given the long time use of the property for shop areas, hydraulic lifts, vehicle maintenance, and fueling there are fairly good odds that once they remove the site structures and other improvements, that they will f ind additional, previously undiscovered contamination. This will make oversight of that phase of the cleanup (f inal removal of site structures and improvements), and related confirmation sampling demonstrating that contamination has been removed to or below the MTCA Method A cleanup levels critical. The current proposal is simply not good enough in this regard. Mr. Wingard indicated that the key to this site is credible verification. The city and the school district appear to be counting on either Ecology approval, or20 their passive review of reports to be adequate. It is Mr. Wingard°s experience with these types of sites, where a developer is chomping at the bit to turn the 2 developed property over f or a prof it, that it is simply foolish to rely on the developer to provide an adequate information base to assure -the job was done right, and 9 that future -residents and business owners- have a saf e place to live and work. The contamination at this site is significant, with chemicals that are dangerous to human life. Petroleum hydrocarbon chemicals of particular concern are benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Benzene causes lymphatic and blood -borne cancers like leukemia. Toulene exposure is linked to liver, kidney and brain damage. Xylenes damage the liver and kidneys. Ethyl benzene has been grouped by EPA as a class ® carcinogen. The list of chemicals found so far contaminating the property also includes Benzo Anthracene, Tetrachloroethylene, Naphthalene, P- Isopropyltoulene, N-Butyl Benzene, 5-Butyl benzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, isopropyl benzene, m,p-Xylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, propyl benzene, and many are linked to cancer and disease. The site is surrounded by residential uses on three sides and residential use is planned f or the site, so stringent cleanup levels must be established, monitored and tested before development is allowed. If this property is not properly cleaned up the Federal Way School District and the City will be assuming liability and opening themselves up to lawsuits to -future--inhabitants of the- property and the neighborhood. The City of Federal Way and Federal Way School District can expect lawsuits involving injuries that these people may suf f er as a result of improper cleanup. The City of Federal Way and the Federal Way School District have knowledge of the hazardous contaminants on the property and therefore must do everything possible to make sure that all hazardous waste f rom this property is properly cleaned. By the school district relying on a subsequent purchaser of the property to cleanup the hazardous materials, the School District and the city are taking a great risk! If the developer fails in any way to remove all cancer causing materials from this property and future inhabitants of the property become ill as a result of the incomplete cleanup, the school district and the city can expect numerous lawsuits. To resolve these issues, additional steps are needed to be protect the safety of the residents of the property and the neighborhood, and to make sure that all contamination is gone. There s-hould be additio-nal -assessment steps after the buildings are removed, before the start of actual construction. Resampling for contamination under the structures in particular is vital, and neighbors are also want retesting of the NE corner along the fence line, at the site of chemical storage shed, where significant contamination was uncovered. And, if more contamination is found, it must be cleaned up. We want the Washington State Department of Ecology, not a third party signing off on the cleanup. We want an open, transparent, public process to this cleanup, a Public Participation Plan. A third party would not have the same responsibility to the community. We want, and deserve, to see the results of sampling after the buildings are removed, where there is likely additional contamination. We all join together in this appeal, to save our health and our neighborhood and for the sake of our city. Sincerely, We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way --Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for the Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 ___Z' 1_7 D 117ct 2. Z-47 y a 1, ojo JkU/V Yo - a _ 17 3.' 3 YO 4. Ze-o- Al 042 gai :fs' « 51-4; 5, AAjj 3 � 5 7 Vtll 6 IZ, F ecicr l Wcty, qS-003 6. Mi cl a{ -I BaV- C_!Q qP1.a•J ,310V jW .313 �' kt 1""e.' J a r, � W 7 Wk 9 3O Z3 , Z 15 3— `T i V� 6 d, !. MARK aRP,0Y /'O;�'-? /'3'� S 4 1` S 31 S-A sr 2- D 6` t l q -- S- 6 S) Fej�-_44- L `7 , wA • q,'?-0v3 SO We appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for the Highpoint Mixed Use File No: 13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel # 0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 Page two of signature sheet - 8. e&c4m - Oy-�x- &'� &-aA &-I'- � �fl 5 �Sst �, rtl� �'�Da 3.3 aoLo- �/ i 5 - V5-3y 9. %. oG I Fern e'o-J � i �q gbo 3 12. -54`? t�-' 0o <«'-" LOs FcWc -4-4— gYo�3 13. d 11 C'•(d� rt I r c,g-r� mac& I-d 4Ajl Wff �8 0.3 u3g9 dC)G.- pq- 6tW( 4 14. 2-2-� �oS, 317' Fe- ra( 1/ 4 j) WA Rvoa3 We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination --of Non Significance (DNS) for the Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 15. 192b IS, F&t 3 Louji, fib. CI '63 16. 1,1, LL ► r,�►� �. rr src r 17. 44 lq D H r-lv 14 /00,5- .9 --3;33 Sf� ""93 Fder� r ► GC 18. 3 t7 F 19. _jrac q l ( Vj I t :3 [-7-+L, �=t - f 31 20. �1;�' or_d mC-G'0 3 PL CX(0 �I no We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for the-H-ighpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 21.-�� L-�-- ��``• 22. 23 24. 25 � 017 Y i6' S i r�d1..3ta.�I j 1,Jc3. qfj'®0'J•'✓3 3 L r," cr) 26. �,ti� A Ct� Ka a� n �s 666 � 315 s --- 41af W3 q - fEdAeai VV(Aj WA 9K-2-3 We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination -of Non Significance (DNS) -for- t-he Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 27.b(�" he, j 9a D 1-252) ,WAS 1 28. �14 Sd. �/W., s7jY7-Z/092 29. 9- T�4b Coat s 317 �k s-� GO(O-rA W a j � 01�z_ gJ1601 317-M Fc� V A Y WA San 31. 00 ram- 6i V�deltclv( , OA 32. �� U Wig, -2-2-OD-5 5 i,--) 3 `J Zy0. �. ( L__;A 1 ",6LZ� S i )0 We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of Non Significance (DNS) -for the- Highpoint -Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 33. (��a�n _k(� �j�.Q ,,,��VJh °►�66�I 34. 35.�- 36. / 37. v _6f,Uh(L AAX GCS% 5 3 �q 7K� -<7 F6a,4( ti/V r tjA 7 8'co3 sckfa'k Neel Pfdebd WaJ , WA 900S Laura, Notre_ 1079 5.316t-" Stv }-ederal Wo, y) A 9B0o3 Lai t&I On qlKO03 We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for the Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way. Public Schools, 1-066 So.- 320th St. 98003 39. A y , O't /V 40, �JA 41. 317'` W wa y vf� 42. 0 -] S, I �1^ St. '7( 43. ) �l ©'v� �� /� r �/ �-DL- ` `S A 44. 316-7(-A 45. fc>6 -/X 1 a- We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for the Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools,--- 1066 So. -320th St. 98003 46� 47. 9 48. 49 51. nus6'�a CjUadq\jv!q- TQA��k l200)tI 2-2-'3q y y fwr j10Ma'%q', t; 66 g 5 3 i y 5,� i•eay KI'V—WCr'7 .3/9- oil vo �edzy-a� 7 13 We, the undersigned, appeal the City of Federal Way Determination of -Non Significance (DNS) for the Highpoint Mixed Use File No:13-103506-00-SE. This refers to Parcel #0821049188, owned by Federal Way Public Schools, 1066 So. 320th St. 98003 r- �_ p � 53 >, A'. '�_A/ !f J 17 SY-ovz H INVOICE City of Federal Way Ph: (253) 835-7000 CITY or Invoice Date: May 1, 2014 V:N�Federal Way Bill #: 186460 Permit #: 13-103506-00 Project Name: HIGHPOINT MIXED USE Applicant Name:DEVCQ INC *JACK_HUNDEN FEE DESCRIPTION Site Address: 1066 S 320TH ST SEPA APPEALS(8018)............................................................ 001-0000-073-345-81-000 TOTAL DUE: 4. Lu Q U 1--t � d F M W } p � Q O '• Q� co co a-Q—J-Z C1 CiJJQ-cc W Q :9- U O 2 S W } W L L } pp Q .0 3 Q LL 1 C.0 U O U N J i--1 J } co Cl- I--- m W ---) F-i Q 0 U W LL W Q J a 0 O CD co {t} C_3 O u ic- Z T a� � I� N •� O O ¢ M- O -* O =5. 4(-C7 W O - C/J C/1 Ot W O O LL 41- Cu H CXl -- O I O C'") Cu x CJ •� -. � I I 1--i \ C E J ti Z * E 13 � Q O 4 O W I 60 # # U \ - W 0 0 al U CU -* CL O LO [O / O O 3E Q )F W T I 3E 3F CO C-D AMOUNT $120.50 $120.50 n O L O to -Y, O' O -x- 4, U-)I I O -3E •3E CD Q 1 �F O �E- 1 U 4(- -x- I O W I— � U ca iF Q 7 jE Q iE H O = LU O I! rn O m CU II S I— II II -3E a !1 Z 4E W o 4(- �E mjF 0- U -iF L1J -3F 1U-1 J Q W 4E Q\ F- O O W W 1-- L -O W -)(- c~L 3E Lu - CO 41 Of� F— J 0- U _ L-u J :rt4- 0-O Q U Q - CY Q- E=- O 1 _ # �E aF U �F O CL ¢ 1 SHARON D MURCHISO BETTYA BJORKLUND ERIC OLSON ,C1 29805 2ND AVE SW � RAYMOND BJORKLUN❑� 807 S 316T" ST 1 u� FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 832FEDEE 316 ST RAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 LEE MOEN C--�Yv� 831 S 316T" ST FEDERALWAY WA 98003 ANGIE ZMIJCWSK� 32657 9T" PL S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MARK BRADY CLARA SNYDER LEAH BOEHM-BRADYsu C, ` 31622 8T" AVE Ste` 841 S 315 TH ST ����" `� FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JULIE KLOUSE S� P, 32249' 7T" AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 CAROLINE L MILLERSv`?_ 102 7 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JENNIFER AND STEPHEN WOJCIECHOWSKI 1091 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JEANNE L EPP 826 S 316T" FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DAVID D COLLINS� I t3_ CLIFFORD & JILL MCCLO TRACY FISCHLIN 846 S 310T" PL 1035 S 317T" ST cam'+\ FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 BRUCE W SNYDEF!�A,� 31622 8T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 GARRET THOMAS4� 1091 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SARAH & TREVOR ASAY�� 1059 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 DIANA BOSSHART�.� 1082S316T"ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 KAKI A JONES C�k 600 SW 331IT ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 FLORA FAINMALO 1061 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SARAH COREY 1067 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ERIC LUND 1050 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 MICHAEL BARCLAY�,av 3108 SW 313' PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 LAURA JOHNSONS05*,�v� 4615 SW 317T" PL FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 MARCIA R & JAMES S[LICANIa"t� 1027 S 317T" ST u 4v, FEDERAL WAY WA 98003`�..-� WILLIAM E AND JUDITH A DOTTERWICK 1005 S 323RD ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FRANCINE M AND DWIGHT T BECKER 1074 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003-5331 DIANNE FERGUSO s� v 920 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 RAMONA IC 2233 SW 342ND 5 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 LAURA LOVE 1079 S 316T" ST �� FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 BELI NA BYARSS;F-- 1055 S 317T" FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 EARL JENNINGS��A,,- LILANE MAQUEZ C KAT THIESSEN 1201 S315T" 1018S317T"ST 1017S317T"ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JOHN & DONNA WHISLER� JAN MOE KAREN BITZ sc:5;kI v� 1003 S 316T" ST 1333 S 315T" 1073 S 316T" ST `` FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 SUSANA GUADALUP 1206 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ALETHA JEAN KIRWANI,,�— 1273 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 PAT MONAGLIAN 1264 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ELISE CRICK 1281 S 315T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 CAROL & ALBERT OLSONG—r- 1265 S 316T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 JAMES SALLY 31503 10T" AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98002 AARON KING CAROL & SANDRA M GRECO BELINDA F BYANS1 v� 1047 S 317T" ST 31502 13T" AVE S Vim- 1055 S 317T" ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 December 10, 2013 ES-2712.02 DevCo, Inc. 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Jack Hunden Subject: Bioretention Evaluation Proposed High Point Mixed -Use Development 1066 South 320th Street Federal Way, Washington L hns C Earth Solutions NW LLC Reference: Azure Green Consultants Site Plan sheets 2 through 7 of 30, dated August 5, 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study Project No. ES-2712, dated July 5, 2013 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences RESUBMITTED FEB 112014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), dated January 9, 2009 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Online Web Soil Survey (WSS) resource Geologic Map of King County, March 2007 Dear Mr. Hunden: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter summarizing our evaluation of bioretention infiltration feasibility for the subject site. This infiltration evaluation was prepared in response to the City of Federal Way request for soil infiltration characteristics related to bioretention facility design. Subsurface exploration was completed on November 19, 2013 for purposes of characterizing site soils near areas of proposed rain garden installation and determining long-term infiltration design rates. A summary of the subsurface exploration, along with the results of in -situ infiltration testing, is provided as part of this evaluation. 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 0 (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 DevCo, Inc. December 10, 2013 Project Description ES-2712.02 Page 2 We understand site redevelopment will include a series of mixed -use building structures, access driveways, and associated infrastructure improvements. For drainage considerations, three stormwater detention vaults are proposed near the south-central and southwestern site margins and two rain gardens are proposed near the north -central and east -central site margins. The proposed mixed -use structures will be constructed at -grade and likely consist of three to five stories of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations or first -level post -tensioned slabs. Below -grade construction and underground parking levels are currently not proposed as part of planned development activities. Due to the relatively gentle topographic relief across the site, we anticipate cuts and fills on the order of six to eight feet or less will be required to achieve design subgrade elevations. Rockeries or modular block retaining walls will likely be utilized at some locations throughout the site as part of final grading plans. Site Conditions The subject site is located north of the intersection between South 320th Street and 11th Place South in Federal Way, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map). The square -shaped property consists of a single tax parcel totaling approximately 9.84 acres. Surface The site is bordered to the north by single-family residential homes, to the west by a dentistry office and residential housing, to the south by South 320th Street, and to the east by a hotel and medical office. The property is currently developed with two building structures and related outbuildings associated with Federal Way Public Schools; however, the site and existing structures are devoid of operational activities. The remainder of the site is comprised of asphalt and gravel surfaced driveways and parking areas. Site topography ascends to the west with an estimated total elevation change of 10 feet or less. Vegetation across the site is characterized as sparse and consists primarily of trees around the site perimeter and isolated areas of grass. Subsurface An ESNW representative observed, logged, and sampled four test pits on November 19, 2013 using an excavator and operator retained by our firm. The test pits were completed for purposes of assessing soil conditions and classifying site soils near areas of proposed rain garden installation. Test pit TP-101 was completed to characterize subsurface and groundwater conditions near the proposed stormwater vault installation area east of Unit B. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. ES-2712.02 December 10, 2013 Page 3 The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 (Test Pit Location Plan). Please refer to the attached test pit logs and sieve analysis data for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions and soil characteristics. For completion, test pit logs and sieve analysis data are attached for subsurface exploration activities completed on June 13, 2013 during a previous phase of this project. Underlying approximately two inches of asphalt, fill was encountered consisting primarily of crushed rock and loose silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). The fill was encountered in a moist condition and observed to be primarily free of organic and deleterious material. Fill depths were observed on the order of two to three feet below existing grades at the test pit locations. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisted primarily of medium dense silty sand with gravel (SM). At test pit location TP-101, native silty sand deposits became dense and gray in color at approximately five -and -one-half feet below existing grades. In our opinion, native soils at depth can be characterized as unweathered glacial till. The native soils were in a moist condition and extended to the maximum exploration depth of 16 feet below existing grades. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies Vashon subglacial till (Qvt) deposits across the site and surrounding areas. As reported on the geologic map, subglacial till deposits typically consist of a compact mixture of silt, sand, and subrounded to well-rounded gravel, which was glacially transported and deposited under ice. The referenced online WSS resource identifies Alderwood material (AmB) as being present on the site and surrounding areas. The Alderwood series formed in glacial till plains. Based on our field observations, the native soils on -site are primarily consistent with Vashon subglacial till deposits. Medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel encountered at depth during our fieldwork was the primary basis for this characterization. Groundwater During our subsurface exploration completed on November 19, 2013, groundwater seepage was not encQ_untere� at the test lagations; however, during previous raxplorat�an activities completed on June 13, 2013, groundwater seepage was encountered at test pit location TP-12 at approximately 12 feet below existing grades. In general, iron oxide staining was not encountered at the test pit locations. In our opinion, perched groundwater may be encountered during on -site excavations, particularly within utility excavations at depth. Seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. December 10, 2013 Bioretention Evaluation ES-2712.02 Page 4 The City of Federal Way recognizes the referenced KCSWDM for design of rain gardens, otherwise known as bioretention systems. The recommendations in this evaluation are based on the referenced KCSWDM. Infiltration Testing We understand in -situ infiltration testing for proposed bioretention systems is required by the City of Federal Way. Accordingly, an ESNW representative visited the site on November 19, 2013 to conduct infiltration testing at each proposed rain garden location. Testing was completed in accordance with the EPA Falling Head Percolation Test Procedure outlined in the referenced KCSWDM. �X Each test pit was excavated to an approximate depth of three fee below extstin grades.` Based on the USDA textural classification system, native soils present at in titration test {�f j surfaces consisted primarily of very gravelly sandy loam. Infiltration characteristics typically exhibited by sandy loam deposits can be characterized as low. According to the attached sieve analysis data, native sandy loam silt contents were on the order of 24 to 33 percent. Testing was conducted until consecutive six-inch drop periods were within acceptable consistency limits. The testing measured infiltration rates between a rox' atel 1.2 to yielded 1.7 inches er hour. As identified in the Subsurface section above, native soils underlying likey infi ration elevations primarily consist of gravelly loam and gravelly sandy loam. Adverse conditions that may further negatively impact infiltration characteristics and design rates were r not observed, including evidence of confining soil layers such as "hardpan", groundwater �f seepage, or mottling; however, in general, native soils are dense and will only be feasible for infiltration in a limited capacity. I,,,- Design Infiltration Rate - Determination of the design infiltration rate was primarl y bassoon the results of our fieldwork. We utilized the lowest measured rate of 1.2 nDhes ep r hour and applied a correction factor of 4.0 to account for soil density and potentially unforeseen soil conditions that may be present through localized areas of proposed rain garden locations. In our opinion, a design infiltration rate of 0.3 inches per hour should be utilized. Limitations The recommendations and conclusions provided in this letter are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. The opinions and recommendations provided in this report do not cover unforeseen of changed conditions. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. December 10, 2013 Additional Services ES-2712.02 Page 5 ESNW should be contacted to provide additional geotechnical services in association with this project, including testing and consulting services during construction and the installation of bioretention facilities. ESNW should have an opportunity to review final project plans with respect to geotechnical recommendations provided in this evaluation. We trust this evaluation meets your current needs. Should you have questions, or if any additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Keven D. Hoffmann, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Principal Attachments: Plate 1 —Vicinity Map Plate 2 — Test Pit Location Plan Test Pit Logs Grain Size Distribution Earth Solutlons NW. LLC L L K N� 11�=1 a, r MALWA PNP.Y s,lxucl,. z ]e r-l�. r,...i j s s Sr I �xres 5 3T Im 6 1 s _'�lilf 7.i s �i v, s, rrl l� q � s s ,iiil' �+ rpri k—' ; � S 1 517f .L p Pd RY [F ,'Al1RrS �IrlAllA� ' ^ �[ J PhD h i T T 151 SITE i - xT' ._ war 4 9 S T * 0 - Aiu xr ss:Lnl - PJAK M �[ �S g l ST i,sssu. i i rrauw —► —' ' Reference: NORTH King County, Washington Map 745 A"qN.- By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition i4 1i NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. N;xIT! ►. L�XF �, S y I M J_ L'pr: VL x � Ti It - 0 0 0 oM Z o o Z 0 S s N m o ,O •� N o O•-.:, c) €- v �� s 3 1� U0_ > @ UdN m N d a€� S w a N a� a N .�. 7 o a a m O` Q c (0 O G ESN f0' E>�N 0_ 0_ C E W Oz� O>f` N - O O O N 'a QZN W n to tO aZN : N a (n aJ � x d f0= lC o 2 m � m a. �` � W 8 � Lo J QWW QWW Cn W 0_ Q� QC7 l ogo �Tro 3JP E s o H W i�aa �T� c, n d H z�mm y s zE2 v _— I �r 2 C-- —c- � 1 I r; I it � Al M1 I '� N ti cl , F If id ' o I r Q 'S " Id Hill I � !' ZZ.. � I y J. a ilr uo;6u!yseM `�(eM!e�apa� ;oafad ash-pax!w;u!od y6!H � m � Y N ,� � c Z N � N ue!d uo!;eool 3!d lsal t o � e N - o c� o � a � Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH I LETTER GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ip - " � s� GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES , ; ❑° Q °0 GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORETHAN50% OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH FINES ° oD�GM °ar.-T 0 SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SILT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) GL. CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES SAND AND CLEAN SANDS SW WELL- GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES LARGER THAN SI NO. SIEVE SIZE SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)`SP SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORETHAN50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) SIC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY FINE GRAINED SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSCLAYS, SANDY S, SILTY SOILS — —� OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS NO.200 SIEVE CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT LAYDS GREATER THAN 50 OH I ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ,`i��,,'��`11 �,1'' PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-101 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Mown Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. PROJECT NAME High Point Mixed -Use Project PROJECT NUMBER 2712.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 11/19/13 COMPLETED 11/19/13 GROUND ELEVATION 452 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES 2" Asphalt AFTER EXCAVATION w x � . U _ EL w TESTS v = a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z U a FILL D 5 Asphalt and Crushed Rock (Fill) 451.5 Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) SM - MC = 10.90% 449.0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) 5 -becomes gray, dense (unweathered till) = MC 8.80% SM 10. MC = 7.70% MC = 7.90% 13.0 439.0 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 13.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-102 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. PROJECT NAME High Point Mixed -Use Project PROJECT NUMBER 2712.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 11/19/13 COMPLETED 11/19/13 GROUND ELEVATION 453 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES 2" Asphalt AFTER EXCAVATION — w EL _ w �w UJ Co TESTS x O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z Cd M C9 0 FILL 0.5 Asphalt and Crushed Rock (Fill) _ 452-S Brown silty SAND with gravel and cobbles, loose, moist (Fill) SM 2.5 450.5- 3.0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) 450.0 MC = 11.20% _I SM Fines = 24.00% Infiltration Test surface at 3' (USDA Classification: very gravelly sandy LOAM] Test pit terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 3.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-103 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449.4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT DeyCO, Inc. PROJECT NAME High Point Mixed -Use Project PROJECT NUMBER 2712.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Washington DATE STARTED 11/19/13 COMPLETED 11/19/13 GROUND ELEVATION 454 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _NW Excavating _ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS - EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES _ Z Asphalt _ _ AFTER EXCAVATION w _ Lu U a~ -- Lu M TESTS U vi 2 0-0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION wo o_ � Qz Qq 0 FILL 0.5 Asphalt and Crushed Rock (Fill) 453.6, Brown silty SAND with gravel and cobbles, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill) SM 2.0 452.0� Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Tilly MC = 11.60% SM 3.0 -Infiltration Test surface at 3' 451.0 Fines = 32.50%u (USDA Classification: very gravelly sandy LOAM] Test pit terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 3.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-104 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425A49-4711 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. PROJECT NAME Hi h Point Mixed -Use Project PROJECT NUMBER 2712.02 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 11/19/13 COMPLETED 11/19/13 GROUND ELEVATION 455 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES 2„ Asphalt _ _ _ _ AFTER EXCAVATION — w It U dW M TESTS p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ZIL Q C7 w 0 FILL 0.5 Asphalt and Crushed Rock (Fill) 454.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) SM 1.5 453.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Weathered Till) SM MC = 9.20% -Infiltration Test surface at 3' 45210 Fines = 26.60% jU5DA Classifiption: ve graved sandy LOAM] Test pit terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 3.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT _DeyCo. Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washinatan DATE STARTED 6113/13 COMPLETED 6113113 GROUND ELEVATION 451 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatina GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Asphalt 3" AFTER EXCAVATION - R w EL _ wu � W TESTS C6 _ (L O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a z 2 a C9 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist SM -cobbles 460.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist SM MC = 10.30% 5 fi.D 446.0 Test pit terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 5.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 VANBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. _ PROJECT NAME Fegral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 452 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR MW Excavating_ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- _ LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION --- _ NOTES ATB 1" AFTER EXCAVATION -- _ w (L� U w I—LU W g TESTS � Lj (L O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a:3 o z zi c9 a co Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist MC = 5.70% SM -becomes gray 6.8 446.6 Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. f i I I I 1 I 1 I I I Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 2712 DATE STARTED 6/13113 COMPLETED 6/13/13 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH NOTES ATB 3" w a. W U _ w I— w g TESTS u. 2 O M z C7 MC = 10.40% SM Fines = 34.90% TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington_ GROUND ELEVATION 454 ft TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION AT END OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION -- Brown silty SAND with gravel, MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -1" dark brown organic layer, roots -cobbles -becomes gray Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater e excavation. Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 'WEBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevC�� _ _ _ ...._ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6113/13 COMPLETED _6/13113 GROUND ELEVATION _456 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES De Qth L.2psoll & Sod_ 1":_ATB and Gravel.4" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w o- U w v W im TESTS c Cj _ ¢ J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z c� a 0 Brawn silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -cobbles -roots, wood debris SM 5 - -storm drain utility encountered, undisrupted, not located 449.5 MC = 20.50% s s Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist MC = 7.40% SM -becomes olive gray 447.0 - Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. i i i i i Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 r 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Room Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo,.Inc. _ _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way, School District Slte PROJECT NUMBER 2-719 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13113 COMPLETED 6113/13 GROUND ELEVATION 457 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES ATB and Gravel 4" _ _ AFTER EXCAVATION --- _ w (LLu U w F—Lu J g TESTS co C3 2 O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q z Cd C7 U) 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -root intrusions, 1" dark brown organic layer -becomes gray SM MC = 8.20% 5 -cobbles, large gravel 7.3 A4�i. S Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. I i i r Bottom of test pit at 7.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc._ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, WashiR ton _ DATE STARTED 6/13113 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 459 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of To soil & Sod 1": gravel, grass _ AFTER EXCAVATION w U _W aE w m TESTS U a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z C9 Cn 0 Olive gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -interbedded brown and olive gray sand layers SM 5 -becomes very dense -becomes olive gray MC = 8.00% -large gravel, cobbles gA 451.0, Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 VANBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 2712 DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6113113 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH NOTES ATB and Gravel 4" ui a U _ W U) = V, w _j g TESTS y O 2z ni a SM SM MC = 8.40% MC = 10.00% Fines = 29.80°% TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington GROUND ELEVATION 461 ft TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --• AT END OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION — MATERIAL DESCRIPTION brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist {Fill} 1.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -large root 11 5 -becomes gray, very dense -becomes dense -becomes very dense Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.5 feet. n5y 449.51 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 �BIMFMWI1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washin tog n _ DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 459 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES Gravel AFTER EXCAVATION —. w 0- U w, w g TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z C7 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -cobbles -becomes gray, dense SM 5 -becomes very dense MC = 11.20% Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc, _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13113 _ GROUND ELEVATION 456 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -» LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 1": gravel, sparse grass AFTER EXCAVATION w of U aCQ TESTS S O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 z C� 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -cobbles SM MC = 11.70% -becomes gray, dense 5 4gg,0 — 7.0 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-10 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6113/13 COMPLETED 6113/13 GROUND ELEVATION 455 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES ATB and Gravel 4" AFTER EXCAVATION --- w U _ EL j W W TESTS v) U vi °- O qa� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w� CL a z c� 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -becomes gray -becomes dense SM -brown and gray interbedded layers 5 -cobbles, large gravel MC = 8.40% g 5 _ 448.5 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-11 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site _ PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 450 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating`_ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION _ LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6":.grass AFTER EXCAVATION — W a. }W H W . U a- LJJ g TESTS (LO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q z vUi C7 0 pSt = �' 0 5 Brown TOPSOIL with roots 449.5, Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -becomes gray, very dense -sizeable rocks, large gravel SM --5 MC = 10.50% g 444.0 Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-12 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 MWBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way_School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6113113 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 448_ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Gravel 12" AFTER EXCAVATION — w � W U a v W g TESTS N a. O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION M z C9 N FILL MC = 10.10% SM 10 MC = 9.80% MC = 8.80% Fines = 35.50% MC = 6.40% Fines = 39.50% s 1.0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -sizeable rocks, large gravel -oxide staining -becomes gray -becomes dense to very dense -becomes very dense -seepage at 12', becomes wet 447 01 R32.0 Test pit terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 12.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 16.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 2712 DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6113/13 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating_ EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH NOTES Gravel Pine Needles ATB Z' _ TEST PIT NUMBER TP-13 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District_Site PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington GROUND ELEVATION 446 ft TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION AT END OF EXCAVATION M AFTER EXCAVATION --- � U_ x TESTS 0-0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -root intrusions -sizeable rocks SM -oxide staining MC = 9.00% -becomes gray, dense to very dense e o -becomes very dense Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-14 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 VANBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Q@MP . Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral WaySchool District Site ^2712 PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington _ DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6113/13 GROUND ELEVATION 447 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH_ _ AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Asphalt and Gravel 12" _ ` AFTER EXCAVATION --- w vi 0- Lu Co TESTS (L MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a �¢ zRIM O c7 0 Asphalt and 5/8" Minus Crushed Rock FILL 446,0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -cobbles -becomes dense 5 MC = 8.50% -becomes gray, very dense SM -becomes dense 70 MC = 10.60% 10'0 437.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 r, Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. PROJECT NUMBER ES 2712.02 _ I I C AIG\/F nPFNINf: IN INCHFS H c� } m Q' W Z U. F- Z W U W W a 1 COBBLES GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PROJECT NAME High Point Moved Use PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL F coarse �_ SAND SILT OR CLAY fine coarse medium fine ecimen Identification Classification _ Cc CU TP-102 3.Oft. USDA: Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam. USCS: SM with Gravel. TP-103 3.0ft. USDA: Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam. USCS: SM with Gravel. TP-104 3.0ft. USDA: Brown Very Gravelly Sandy Loam. USCS: SM with Gravel. ecimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Silt TP-102 3.0ft. 37.5 1.518 0.131 24•0 TP-103 3.0ft. 37.5 0.608 32.5 TP-104 3.0ft. 37.5 1.659 0.106 26.6 Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE • :. Bellevue, WA :.. 00 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. PROJECTNAME Federal Way School District Site HIM I111111■M In :, I[ n � ■ 11111[III■ � [[ln1 ■Ill ONE Il111■■1 M 010 ■ :, ■MI[II11 l�l 111 1 IMMIIIIII■ ■■1 n 111-1 null l[IIII■■MIIIIII■ I1■MI 111■■M�IlIIII� =, lf[I111■■limil■■In III II ■I IIII ■MINI � 1■�irfl!�11ME [ 111 ■■11111■1IN I■ 1I■■ [ II M111IIII ■ 1 I1 1111I11 11111ON 1,1,11 ''�1111.■111111 II■ ■MIIIIIII■ ■■ln II ' 11■011 ■Illl 11■ IlI� =� 111111■■ 1111 ■I ■11 II■ IIII�: 1,11111 ON11 III■■ ■■M[Illl I 1111 lllll I111 M11I11I■■ 1 111 ■ I Ill ■ Il ■�1l 1 ■M[II MINE Mull In 1ll11 Mlllll 1■■[III 1 ■M111111■■ M1n11 ll !II ■M11 111■■ 1 ■11111A111 M1 1 111■■11111■■■ 1 11111■MI II 1■ 11 ■ 111r111■MI11111■■ 1I1I111■M1 11■M[[!I 1 ■■IIIIII■■■IIIIIII■■ 1 ■■Mill llIIII■■mIl[I111■E „III■■�I , RAVE COBBLES � coarse fine coarse mediumfine . • _Loam.■ -_USDA: Brown Very Gravelly Loam. USCS: SM. SILT OR CLAY fine f— r- Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring GEOTEGHNIGAL LNUINF-F-KINU 51UUY PROPOSED MIXED -USE DEVELOPMEN HIGH POINT (FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT SIT 1066 SOUTH 320TH STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-2712 AF W,.Ab 1■ 180 5 t N, 5.) 4 49'_ RESU BMITTED 2 014 OF FEDERAL VVAy PREPARED FOR DEVCO, INC. July 5, 2013 Keven D. Hoffmann, E.I.T. Staff Engineer 43 + Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT HIGH POINT (FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE) 1066 SOUTH 320TH STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-2712 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone:425-449-4704 Fax:425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 � Geotechnical Engineering Report � Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnlcal engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Re opt Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that 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. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: ■ the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineeping Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstructibn conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redpaw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers 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 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. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering 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 the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient timeto perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenviponmental Concerns Aire Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- menta/study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, an Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE Toe Best people ea Earth 8811 Golesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright =4 by ASFE, Inc. Oupiication, reproduction, or copying of this document in whole or in part, by any Means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's spesiffc wfitten permission. Excerpling, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFF and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members otASFEmay use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M July 5, 2013 ES-2712 DevCo, Inc. 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Jack Hunden Dear Mr. Hunden- Earth � LSolutions NW,,, Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Mixed -Use Development, High Point (Federal Way School District Site), 1066 South 320th Street, Federal Way, Washington". In our opinion, the proposed mixed -use development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our subsurface exploration indicates the site is underlain by Vashon subglacial till (Qvt) deposits. Dense to very dense silty sand with gravel was encountered beneath isolated areas of fill and topsoil. The fill was identified as medium dense silty sand with gravel. At the time of the subsurface exploration (June 2013), locally perched groundwater seepage was encountered at test pit TP-12 at a depth of approximately 12 feet below existing grades. In our opinion, the proposed mixed -use buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on the competent native soils identified at the test pit locations. In general, competent native soils suitable for foundation support were encountered at depths of roughly two to four feet below existing grades. It should be noted that several of the proposed building structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing constructed at -grade. In this respect, competent native soil deposits or structural fill used to modify site grades can be considered for support of these lightly loaded wood frame structures. However, where heavier post -tensioned slab building construction is proposed, foundation support should be derived on the dense to very dense native soil deposits. Recommendations for foundation design, site preparation, subsurface drainage, and other pertinent geotechnical design parameters are provided in this study. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Since' ly, EARTH SOLUT N {V C Ra moaA. o s, E. J Principal 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 0 FAX (425) 449-4711 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES-2712 INTRODUCTION PAGE General...................................................................... 1 Proiect Description....................................................... 1 SITECONDITIONS.................................................................. 2 Surface.... ,................................................................... 2 Subsurface.................................... ............................... 2 Fill and Topsoil ................................................... 2 NativeSoil.......................................................... 3 Geologic Setting .................................................. 3 Critical Area Assessment ...................................... 3 Groundwater................................................................. 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 4 General....................................................................... 4 Site Preparation and Earthwork ....................................... 4 Site Stripping Recommendations ................................ 4 General Site Preparation (Existing Building Removal).. 5 Foundation Subgrade Preparation ............................. 5 StructuralFill................................................................. 5 In -Situ Soils ........................................................ 6 ImportedSoils............................................................... 6 Modular Block Retaining Walls (or Rockeries)......... 6 Erosion Control ................................................... 7 Foundations............................................................ . .. 7 Post -Tensioned Slab Building Construction............ 8 Lightly Loaded Buildings (Wood Frame At -Grade).... 8 Seismic Design Considerations ...................................... 8 Slab -On -Grade Floors .................................................... 9 Retaining Walls......................................................... , . 9 Excavations and Slopes.......................................................... 10 DetentionVault............................................................. 10 Drainage....................................................................... 11 UtilityTrench Backfill...................................................... 11 Pavement Sections....................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS......................................... , ............................. 12 Additional Services..............,........................................ 12 Earth Solutions NW, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont'd ES-2712 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY HIGH POINT (PROPOSED MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT) FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE 1066 SOUTH 320TH STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-2712 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed mixed -use development to be completed at 1066 — South 320th Street in Federal Way, Washington. The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical recommendations for the currently proposed mixed -use development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: Completing subsurface explorations for purposes of characterizing site soils; • Completing laboratory testing of soil samples collected at the test pit locations; • Conducting engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: ■ Geologic Map of King County, dated May, 2006, and; • King County NRCS Soil Conservation Survey. 2009 King County Stormwater Design Manual Proiect Description We understand the currently proposed development will include a series of mixed -use building structures, access drives, and associated infrastructure improvements. Site improvements will also include construction of a stormwater facility and related detention vault structure currently proposed near the west limits of the property. The proposed mixed -use structures will be constructed at -grade, and likely consist of three to five stories of relatively lightly -loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations or (first level) post -tensioned slabs. Below grade construction and underground parking levels are currently not proposed as part of the planned development activities. Due to the relatively gentle topographic relief across the site we anticipate cuts and fills on average of five feet or less will be required to achieve design subgrade elevations. Rockeries or modular block retaining walls will also likely be utilized at some locations throughout the site as part of the final grading plan. DevCo, Inc. ES-2712 July 5, 2013 Page 2 Based on our experience with similar developments, wall loads for the proposed wood frame structures supported at -grade will likely be on the order of 3 to 5 kips per lineal foot. With respect to building structures that incorporate a first level post -tensioned slab, column loads are estimated to be on the order of 200 to 300 kips. Slab -on -grade loading for all buildings is estimated to be on the order of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to confirm that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located north of South 320th Street between 10th Avenue South and Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Washington. The approximate location of the property is illustrated on Plate 1 (Vicinity Map). The property is approximately 10 acres, and roughly square in shape. The site is bordered to the north by residential developments, to the west by a dentistry office and residential housing, to the south by South 320th Street, and to the east by a hotel and a medical office. The property is currently developed with two building structures (and related outbuildings) associated with the Federal Way Maintenance, Operations, and Transportation Center. The remainder of the site is comprised of asphalt and gravel surfaced driveway and parking areas. The site topography ascends to the west with an estimated 10 feet or less of total elevation change. Vegetation throughout the site is characterized as sparse, consisting primarily of trees around the site perimeter and isolated areas of grass. Subsurface ESNW representatives observed, logged, and sampled 14 test pits excavated at accessible locations within the property boundaries using a trackhoe and operator retained by our firm. The test pits were completed for purposes of assessing soil conditions and classifying the site soils. The approximate locations of the test pits are depicted on Plate 2 (Test Pit Location Plan). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Fill and Topsoil Fillwasencountered at test pit locations.-TP-4 and TP-7 and consisted of medium dense silty sand with gravel (Unified oil Classification SM). The fill was in a moist condition with depths ranging from approximately two to seven feet below existing grades. Due to the asphalt and gravel surfacing, crushed rock fill was generally encountered to approximately 12 inches below the asphalt grade, with an average thickness of approximately four inches. At test pit TP-12, the thickness of crushed rock was on the order of 12 inches. Topsoil was encountered at test pit location TP-11 to a depth of six inches below existing grades. In general, however, due to the existing gravel and asphalt pavement surfacing, topsoil thicknesses throughout the site were limited, and typically on the order of one inch or less. Earth Solutions NK LLc DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 Native Soil ES-2712 Page 3 The native soils consist primarily of dense to very dense brown to gray silty sand with gravel (SM). Cobble sized particles were encountered at several test pit locations at approximately three feet below existing grades, near the transition between the dense and very dense native silty sand. The native soils were in a moist condition, and were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of 16 feet below existing grades. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies Vashon subglacial till (Qvt) deposits across the site and surrounding areas. As reported on the geologic map, subglacial till deposits are a compact mixture of silt, sand, and subrounded to well-rounded gravel, which was glacially transported and deposited under ice. The referenced NRCS soil survey identifies Arents and Alderwood material (AmB) as being present on the site and surrounding areas. Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the on -site native soils are generally consistent with the soil survey mapping of the site. In general, the Vashon subglacial till deposits would be primarily associated with Alderwood type deposits. The presence of compact, cemented silty sand with gravel was the primary basis for this interpretation. Critical Area Assessment As part of this geotechnical study, a critical area assessment was completed. Potential landslide and erosion hazards with respect to the planned development were evaluated. This study concludes that landslide hazard areas are either not present, or are sufficiently setback from the development and will remain undisturbed. A similar conclusion regarding erosion hazards is also made. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was encountered during our fieldwork (June 2013) at test pit location TP- 12 at a depth of 12 feet below existing grades. Locally perched groundwater seepage may be encountered during excavations on the site, particularly deeper excavations associated with underground utility or stormwater facilities. It should be noted that groundwater seepage elevations may fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater seepage levels are generally higher during the wetter, winter months. Extensive measures for controlling groundwater and temporary dewatering are not anticipated. However, standard construction techniques for temporary dewatering of excavations may be necessary at some locations. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION General ES-2712 Page 4 Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed mixed -use development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include preparation of foundation subgrade areas, structural fill placement and compaction, rockery or modular block wall construction (where necessary), underground utility (and vault) installations, and pavement subgrade preparation. In our opinion, the proposed mixed -use buildings can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on the competent native soils identified at the test pit locations. In general, competent native soils suitable for foundation support were encountered at depths of roughly two to four feet below existing grades. It should be noted that several of the proposed building structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing constructed at -grade. In this respect, the competent native soil deposits or structural fill used to modify site grades can be considered for support of these lightly loaded wood frame structures. However, where the heavier post -tensioned slab building construction is proposed, foundation support should be derived on the dense to very dense native soil deposits. Recommendations for foundation design, site preparation, and structural fill placement are provided in the following sections of this study. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of DevCo, Inc. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site preparation activities will include removing existing structural improvements and installing temporary erosion control measures and establishing grading limits. The primary geotechnical considerations during the proposed site preparation and earthwork activities will involve cut and fill activities, structural fill placement and compaction, underground utility installations, and final building and pavement area subgrade preparation. Site Stripping Recommendations Stripping will likely be limited to the asphalt and gravel parking and drive areas currently surfacing most of the development. Asphalt thickness ranged from one to three inches below existing grades. Topsoil was encountered at test pit location TP-11 to a depth of six inches below existing grades. Stripping near areas of grass or planters should expect the presence of topsoil. Topsoil and organic -rich soil is not suitable for support of foundations, nor is it suitable for use as structural fill. Topsoil and organic -rich soil may be used in landscaping areas, if desired. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. ES-2712 July 5, 2013 Page 5 General Site Preparation (Existing Building Removal) Following site stripping and removal of the existing structures, cuts and fills will be completed to establish the proposed subgrade elevations throughout the site. ESNW should observe the subgrade during the initial site preparation activities to confirm soil conditions and to provide supplement recommendations for subgrade preparation. The process of removing the existing building structures may produce voids where the old foundations are removed, and where basement or crawl space areas may have been present. Thorough restoration of voids from old foundation or basement areas must be completed as part of the overall subgrade and building pad preparation activities. The following guidelines for preparing subgrade areas should be incorporated into the final design: Where voids and related demolition disturbances extend below the planned subgrade level, restoration of these areas should be completed. Structural fill should be used to restore voids or unstable areas resulting from removal of existing building structures. Re -compact or overexcavate and replace areas of existing fill (if present) exposed at the building subgrade elevation. ESNW should confirm subgrade conditions and the required level of re -compaction or overexcavation and replacement during the site preparation activities. Overexcavations should extend to competent native soils and be replaced with structural fill. • ESNW should confirm overall suitability of the prepared subgrade areas following the site preparation activities. Foundation Subgrade Preparation The building foundations should be supported on the dense to very dense native silty sand deposits underlying the relatively shallow existing fill deposits. Based on the test pit data collected at the site, competent native soils suitable for foundation support are expected to be exposed at depths of approximately two feet to possibly four feet below existing grade. As previously noted, several of the proposed building structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing constructed at -grade. In this respect, the competent native soil deposits or structural fill used to modify site grades can be considered for support of these lightly loaded wood frame structures. However, where the heavier post -tensioned slab building construction is proposed, foundation support should be derived on the dense to very dense native soil deposits. The geotechnical engineer should observe the foundation excavations to confirm conditions. Structural Fill Structural fill placement throughout the site will largely coincide with the final grading of the building pads and pavement areas. Structural fill should meet the following specifications and guidelines for placement: Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 • Structural Fill Material • Moisture Content Relative Compaction • Lift Thickness ES-2712 Page 6 Granular Soil (Native or Import)* Optimum or 2 to 4 Percentage Points Over** 90 Percent (Modified Proctor)*** 12 Inch Max. Loose Lifts * Geotechnical Engineer To Confirm Suitability Of Structural Fill Materials ** Soils Shall Not Be Placed Dry Of Optimum *** Upper Foot Of Pavement Subgrade And Utility Trench Backfill (Where Applicable), Should Be Compacted To 95 Percent Relative Compaction. With respect to offsite underground utility installations and backfill, local jurisdictions may dictate the soil type and compaction requirements for the backfill. In -situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the native silty sand deposits likely to be encountered during site excavation activities are generally suitable for use as structural fill, provided the moisture content of the soil is near the optimum level during placement and compaction. Laboratory testing will be necessary to confirm the moisture contents of soil intended for use as structural fill. Once placed and compacted, the soil will degrade if exposed to moisture and construction traffic. The in -situ soils may require moisture conditioning in order to be successfully placed as structural fill. If the on -site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported Soils Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Modular Block Retaining Walls (or Rockeries) The proposed grading activities will likely incorporate modular block retaining walls or rockeries along the margins of the proposed structural fill areas. Wall heights likely would range from roughly four to five feet (possibly higher in some locations). The geotechnical engineer should observe and confirm suitability of the subgrade and foundation soils for these structures. Where applicable, a formal plan incorporating the following design parameters should be prepared as part of the final design: • Angle of Friction (Retained Soils) 32 degrees • Angle of Friction (Reinforced Soils) 32 degrees Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 • Soil Unit Weight (Retained Soils) ■ Soil Unit Weight (Reinforced Soils) • Relative Compaction (Reinforcement Zone) • Drainage Material • Drainpipe ES-2712 Page 7 125 pcf 130 pcf 95 percent (Modified Proctor) Clean Crushed Rock 4-inch Diameter (Rigid) Modular block walls and rockeries should incorporate a free draining zone that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 to 24 inches behind the wall (or rockery). The upper one foot of the wall/rockery backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the walls and rockeries, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. The geotechnical engineer should observe the wall/rockery construction and provide compaction testing throughout the reinforcement zone. As necessary, supplement geotechnical recommendations for the wall/rockery construction, including supplement drainage, may be recommended by the geotechnical engineer during construction. Erosion Control Surface water runoff will need to be controlled around the site perimeter and onsite excavations. Surface water should not be allowed to flow into excavations or construction areas. Temporary swales, silt fencing, and temporary ponds may be necessary for controlling surface water runoff around the site. In general, erosion control measures for the site will likely incorporate silt fencing, swales, temporary ponds, and plastic sheeting, as necessary. Additionally, exposed earth surfaces should be protected, as necessary, during construction to help reduce the potential for erosion. Construction entrances should consist of quarry spalls underlain by a non -woven filter fabric. Quarry spall thickness will depend on subgrade stability at the entrance, but should typically be at least six inches. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed building structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings. Due to the relatively heavy foundation load requirements associated with buildings incorporating post -tensioned slab construction, foundations should be supported on the underlying dense to very dense native soil deposits. These deposits are expected to be exposed at depths of roughly two to possibly four feet below existing grades. We understand several of the proposed building structures will also consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing constructed at -grade. In this respect, the competent native soil deposits or structural fill used to modify site grades can be considered for support of these lightly loaded wood frame structures. With respect to the heavier (post -tensioned slab) construction and the lighter wood frame construction at -grade, the following parameters should be used for the foundation design: Earth Solutions INK LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 Post -Tensioned Slab Building Construction Foundation Subgrade • Allowable Bearing Capacity • Friction • Passive Resistance ES-2712 Page 8 Competent Native Soil (Dense) 8,000 psf 350 pcf (equivalent fluid)* *Assumes foundations backfilled with structural fill or poured neat against competent native soils. Lightly Loaded Buildings (Wood Frame At -Grade) a Foundation Subgrade Allowable Bearing Capacity • Friction • Passive Resistance Competent Native or Struct. Fill 3,000 psf 0.40 350 pcf (equivalent fluid)* *Assumes foundations backfilled with structural fill or poured neat against competent native soils. For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed. A factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been applied to the friction and passive resistance values. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch or less over a typical building width. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Design Considerations The 2009 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. If the project will be permitted using the 2009 IBC, based on the soil conditions observed at the boring location, Site Class C, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 20'12 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.1-1 of ASCE, Minimum design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class C, should be used for design. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or loose soils suddenly lose internal strength in response to increased pore water pressures resulting from an earthquake or other intense ground shaking. In our opinion, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. The dense to very dense nature of the native soil deposits is the primary basis for this conclusion. Earth Solutions NW. LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 Slab -On -Grade Floors ES-2712 Page 9 Slab -on -grade floors for the proposed mixed -use developments should be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free -draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free -draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three- quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor retarder below the slab should be considered. If a vapor retarder is utilized, it should be a material specifically designed for use as a vapor retarder, and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining Walls With respect to conventional concrete retaining and building foundation walls, the walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge loads. The following values should be used for concrete retaining and foundation wall design: i Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) i At -Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) • Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) • Passive Resistance Allowable Bearing (Dense Native) • Allowable Bearing (Struct. Fill) • Coefficient of Friction 35 pcf (equivalent fluid / granular fill) 50 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 8,000 psf 3,000 psf 0.40 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design, as appropriate. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall designs to confirm that appropriate earth pressure values have been incorporated into the design and to provide additional recommendations, as necessary. Concrete retaining and foundations walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. A typical retaining drainage detail is provided as Plate 3 of this study. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 Excavations and Slopes ES-2712 Page 10 The Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) provide soil classification in terms of temporary slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test pit locations, the medium dense fill encountered at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-7 is classified as Type C by OSHA and WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils must be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Beneath the fill, cemented native silty sands encountered without the presence of groundwater would be classified as Type A by OSHA and WISHA. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils should be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). A representative of ESNW should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions, and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations, as necessary. If the above slope gradients cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be required. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. Detention Vault Due to typical excavation depth requirements for vault structures, competent native soils suitable for support of the vault foundations are anticipated to be exposed at the vault subgrade elevations. For vault structure design, the following geotechnical parameters are recommended: • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity • Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) • At -Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) • Soil Unit Weight • Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) • At -Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ko) • Traffic Surcharge (passenger vehicles) 8,000 psf (Dense Native) 35 pcf 50 pcf 125 pcf Al 11 70 psf (rectangular distribution) The geotechnical engineer should observe the vault excavation to confirm soil and groundwater conditions. A perimeter drain system should be installed around the vault perimeter to reduce possible hydrostatic pressures around the structures. Where installation of a perimeter drain is not feasible due to elevation and inability to achieve "fall", the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to review conditions and to provide supplement recommendations, as necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC DevCo, Inc. July 5, 2013 Drainage ES-2712 Page 11 Perched groundwater should be anticipated in site excavations depending on the time of year grading operations take place. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps. Finish grades should be designed to direct surface water away from structures and slopes. Water must not be allowed to pond adjacent to structures or slopes. Perimeter foundation drains should be installed around the outside perimeter of the proposed building structures. Plate 3 of this report depicts a typical drain pipe detail for sections of the building where foundation retaining walls will be constructed. Plate 4 depicts a typical. drain detail for a conventional shallow footing condition. Utility Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. Excessively loose, unstable, or organic soil conditions encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. Areas of existing fill should be re -compacted or overexcavated, as necessary. In general, suitable onsite till soils observed at the test sites should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. In no case, however, should the utility trench backfill be dry of optimum prior to placement and compaction. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the city or county jurisdictions, as appropriate. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas containing unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions will require remedial measures such as overexcavation and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. For lightly loaded pavement areas subjected primarily to passenger vehicles, the following preliminary pavement sections can be considered: Is Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRIB), or; • Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). Earth Solutions Nw, LLC DevCo, Inc. ES-2712 July 5, 2013 Page 12 For relatively high volume, heavily loaded pavements subjected to occasional truck traffic, the following pavement sections can be considered: Three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; Three inches of AC placed over four inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The AC, ATB and CRIB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All soil base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Final pavement design recommendations can be provided once final traffic loading has been determined. City of Federal Way road standards may supersede the recommendations provided in this report. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC r- r- r- NORTH Reference: King County, Washington Map745 ByThe Thomas Guide || Rand McNally32nd Edition 410 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. LAk r vol AV IL WTI I TP-9 _I_ TP-8 TP-10 _ i TP-5 Parking Area _I_ 7 TP-7 TP-11 j LJ TP-6 I i Parking Area I �I TP-13 I W I _ITP-1 TP-3I I Parking Area ! _ITP-2 TP-4I —.-1TP-14 z I ! S. 320TH STREET LEGEND TP-1— --Approximate Location of ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-2712, June 2013 Subject Site Existing Building NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Earth Solutions_ NWLLc Not - To - Scale Test Pit Location Plan Federal Way School District Site Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 06/21/2013 Proj. No. 2712 Checked KDH Date June 2013 Plate 2 A 18" Min. 0. 0 0 0 o c o° '°°, %O °°O '�°° o °o° 0 °` i o°° , o o° o° o° o 0 0 ° vo 0. .0- Z o 0 ...0 0 oV o % o°v 000vo oo° o o° o e° 00 0 ° f Sheet Drain (See Note) ° .0 o / 'o ° o o ° , o o P, S o° *0 °o o D°O °p a o 0 0 000° ° o 0 o V v r Floor Slab o , �o 0 0° ° , ° ° o ° ° ', (Where Applicable) , ° %Z�o o o / ° oo ° v ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 'O ' a III — III—o°oo °o oa° 8 0❑ �° B o ° D000 o Oo O n NOTES: ■ Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: 000 ° 0 oq Free Draining Structural Backfill v v° ti•ti•ti•ti 1 inch Drain Rock .r.r.r.r. Structural Fill Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Federal Way School District Site Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 06/24/2013 Proj. No. 2712 Checked KDH Date June 2013 Plate 3 r- r- r-- r- Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. ■ Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. d•f•r•r•d S•ti•ti•S• f•t•r•r•T n r:. zrtis:� 1 Drain Rock L- f L SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING A FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Federal Way School District Site Federal Way, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 06/24/2013 jProj. No. 2712 Checked KDH Date June 2013 Plate 4 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs ES-2712 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on June 13, 2013 by excavating 14 test pits using a trackhoe and operator retained by our firm. The approximate locations of the subsurface exploration test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. The subsurface test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 16 feet below existing grades. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Earth Solutions I VWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER CLEAN ' �� ' �0 WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - GRAVEL GRAVELS �� GW FSAND NESMIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO AND � oO° POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVELLY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) a bQo ❑ GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE c4 OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH °� '° ° < ❑ GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SOILS MORE THAN50% FINES SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE a C FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4SIEVE (APPRECIABLE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY MORE THAN 50% SAND SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SANDY SOILS SIZE ( LITTLE OR NO FINES) FINES SANDS WITH SM SMIXTURESSANDS, SAND - SILT MORE THAN 50°h FINES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE AND LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLAST CITY, SITYLLY GRAINED CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS SOILS _ — _ OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC — — SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR OF MATERIAL IS MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS NO. 200 SIEVE CH CLAYS OF HIGH SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN50 PLASTICITY CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS +!..+�..� . PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS ,+ +� +�+� DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. - ___ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13113 _ COMPLETED 6/13/13 _ GROUND ELEVATION 451 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating_ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES . Asphalt 3" _ AFTER EXCAVATION --- w a U a Urr TESTS C6 CL O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION v 2 zco U' Q Blown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist SM -cobbles Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist 61 T1I MC = 10.30% 5 - 15_0 •snsA Test pit terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 5.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 Earth Solutions NW r 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 452 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES ATB 1" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w Q. U a JCo TESTS Cj O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w�Cd 2 Z C9 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist MC = 5.70% SM -becomes gray 5 446.5 5.5 _ Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. i i i i i Y i i Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wav Washington__ DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 454 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION _ LOGGED BY KDH _ _ CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES ATB 3" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w a v a L TESTSco o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a a- 2 z C7 a a Brawn silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -1" dark brown organic layer, roots -cobbles MC = 10.40% SM Fines = 34.90% -becomes gray 5 -- 5.5 Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1605 136th Place N.E_, Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. _ PROJECT NAME Fgdral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 _ PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wa Washin tan DATE STARTED 6/13/13 _ _ COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 456 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR KW Excavatina GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -T LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH _ AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 1": ATB and Gravel f AFTER EXCAVATION -- w a 0uj a w g TESTS ui iL O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION wv a03 Z C7 Q Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist [Fill] -cobbles -roots, wood debris SM 5 -storm drain utility encountered, undisrupted, not located 419.5 MC = 20.50% s 5 Light brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist MC = 7.40% SM -becomes olive gray 9 0 447.0 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. i i i i i i i i 7 Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc- _ _ _ _ - PROJECT NAME Fed ral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 _ PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washinaton DATE STARTED 6/13113 COMPLETED 6/13/13 __ GROUND ELEVATION 457 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD ! _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION = _ LOGGED BY KDH _ CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES ATB and Gravel 4" AFTER EXCAVATION — w a o: v EL `� TESTS co N MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w a 2 z O c9 Q N 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -root intrusions, 1" dark brown organic layer -becomes gray SM MC = 8.20% 5 -cobbles, large gravel 5. 449.s Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 7.5 feet. N y 7 2 C7 C [7 ..1 a s m w z w rs TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 VANBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way. Washington _ DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION T459 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH — AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoil& Sod 1": gravel, grass AFTER EXCAVATION — w U w TESTS N = (L J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION M z c� a 0 i Olive gray silty SAND with grave$, dense, moist interbedded brown and olive gray sand layers - SM 5 _ -becomes very dense -becomes olive gray MC = 8.00% -large gravel, cobbles e,0 45tQ Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. i I i j Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6113/13 COMPLETED 6/13113 GROUND ELEVATION 461 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH _ AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES ATB and Gravel 4" AFTER EXCAVATION — w o- o: v Lu 00 TESTS v o- O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (L � 2 z C9 Q 0 Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -large root -becomes gray, very dense 5 SM MC = 8.40% -becomes dense 10 MC = 10.00% -becomes very dense Fines = 29.80% 449.5 Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. M Bottom of test pit at 11.5 feet. a 4 7 U' a ch N N ,SJu a r- x m w z w Q Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site. PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 459 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Gravel AFTER EXCAVATION --- w Lu Lu a vi v a +K Lu u TESTS (L O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a :D 2 zco C9 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel. medium dense, moist -cobbles -becomes gray, dense SM 5 -becomes very dense MC = 11.20% B 0 451.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. s i i S S i i i 7 — TEST PIT NUMBER TP-9 Earth Solutions NW r 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 _ GROUND ELEVATION 456 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION --- LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 1": g_r4v(ej sparse grass AFTER EXCAVATION -- w a Lu w m TESTS rn v a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w�- a2 vi �J 2 z c9 fl Brawn silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -cobbles SM MC = 11.70% -becomes gray, dense 5 � U 448.a Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. i Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-10 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE t OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT _D_evCo, Inc_._ PROJECT NAME Fed ral Way School District Site _ PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6113113 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 455 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES ATB and Gravel 4" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w a v a E W 00 TESTS U M O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ° 2 z c9 a 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -becomes gray -becomes dense SM -brown and gray interbedded layers 5 -cobbles, large gravel MC = 8.40% s.s as.s Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. Na groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.5 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-11 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo Inc. _ _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 450 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH _ _ AT END OF EXCAVATION _ NOTES De th of To of[ &Sod 6": rass AFTER EXCAVATION — w o_ v a W W M TESTS N (L O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w" o 2 z c7 0 TPSL '�' p.� Brcnnrn TOPSOIL with roots _ 449,5 Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -becomes gray, very dense -sizeable rocks, large gravel SM - 5 MC = 10.50% s.a aaa.o Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. N f0 Q U' r�r 2 C7 C7 N N J 0. N fD W 2 W L7 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-12 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. _ PROJECT NAME ,Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 448 ft _ TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Gravel 12" AFTER EXCAVATION — w a v a. j LU W TESTS ui IL O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Ed ° 2 z ° c� a 0 5M" Minus Crushed Rack FILL f.0 _ Brown silly SAND with gravel, dense, moist -sizeable rocks, large gravel -oxide staining -becomes gray -becomes dense to very dense MC = 10.10% SM -becomes very dense 10 MC = 9.80% MC = 8.80% Fines = 35.50% -seepage at 12', becomes wet 15 MC = 6.40% l6.0 432 Q Fines = 39.50% Test pit terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 12.0 feet during excavation. i i Bottom of test pit at 16.0 feet. TEST PIT NUMBER TP-13 Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 inEarth Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo, Inc. PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6/13/13 GROUND ELEVATION 446 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Gravel Pine Needles ATB 2" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w a v _ a �w w m TESTS v _ a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w a� 2Z 0 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -root intrusions -sizeable rocks SM 5 -oxide staining -becomes gray, dense to very dense MC = 9.00% -becomes very dense 438.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. n 0 c7 z 0 'a C7 [V ti N J a x m a x w L7 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-14 Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT DevCo. Inc. _ PROJECT NAME Fedral Way School District Site PROJECT NUMBER 2712 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way. Washington DATE STARTED 6/13/13 COMPLETED 6113/13 GROUND ELEVATION 447 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatina GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY KDH CHECKED BY KDH _ AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Asphalt and Gravel 12" AFTER EXCAVATION --- w aW a v w M TESTS (L J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 zCO c� 0 Asphalt and 5/8" Minus Crushed RtiCk FILL 01.0 Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -cobbles -becomes dense 5 MC = 8.50% -becomes gray, very dense SM -becomes dense - 1 MC = 10.60% — 10.0 437.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 Feet. M 0 V Z L7 a. C? N N J r am a W 2 W Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-2712 Earth Solutions NW, LLC i ■MITI -m m1 111111■01lIIIII■� IIIIII IIIII �lllllll■■ ■■lln ■ 0111M �Ilip n■■ 111 ■ :, ■�i[[ll ■ n , I■�flluu=I [lI ■■miiu 11 ME 111■I lllll■■■I Hills Hilll■ ■� 111■■M1lllll , = Mlll millill■■Elilllll■ ,1 `-.; III !1I■ 11■E11111■� ��Il �Illl ■ :, 1 ■I l 1■■mllllll ��11.n11■�Il ■� 1 11■ ■liimilm 1 llll■ illillli�l�ai��■11 1 ■M Ili 11■ II ■m n 1 ll[III■■mIilllil1� Mill - 11 1 11111■�IIIlIlI0llllil� � IIlII1■� ,III . ■m Iu 1 MIImIIMIln 1 1110 i ill■■ ll 111■■ ■�il[IIII oil [II ■■mII111 ►. !111 Emil III■ mi[IiIII ■1 II ■■� II lll■�ifHE ■ I I ■ 1 ■Illill■ Mill I■■m 11 11I■milHil■■ 111■� Il 1■�illllll■�IilIl11■�IIIIIII■�11 ■ 1■�111 MINE 1■mIl[ill■■■II ill■■m ilill IN 1[ 1 ■mlll 1■mmIII[III�� II ■■miillll ■MINIM I III ■EIII III■oi llll■■� lominiii1■ .11 [III ■�R 111■�I illl 1 .: coarse - . : �■■■■�■■■ o Report Distribution ES-2712 EMAIL ONLY DevCo, Inc. 11100 Main Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Jack Hunden EMAIL ONLY Azure Green Consultants, LLC 409 East Pioneer Puyallup, Washington 98372 Attention: Mr. Paul Green Earth Solutions NW, LLC r I V E N V I R O N M E N T A L 295 NE Gilman Boulevard, Suite 201 Issaquah, Washington 98027 ph 425.395.0010 PARTNERS INC Interim Action Work Plan FaItZ0% GTi`( OF FGDESL\NPS Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 3201" Street Federal Way, Washington Prepared For: Mr. Jack Hunden DevCo, Inc. 11100 Fain Street, Suite 301 Bellevue, Washington 98004 October 21, 2013 Prepared By: Environmental Partners, Inc. 295 NE Gilman Boulevard, Suite 201 Issaquah, Washington 98027 (425) 395-0010 Douglas Kunkel, L.G., L.H.G. Principal Hydrogeologist EPI Project Number: 64302.0 CR l TR Eric L. Caddey, Senior GEcM. Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background...............................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Subject Property Description........................................................................................2 1.1.2 Previous Investigations.................................................................................................2 1.2 Work Plan Organization............................................................................................................4 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................5 2.1 Geology.....................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Ground Water..........................................................................................................................5 2.3 Surface Water...........................................................................................................................6 2.4 Contaminant Locations and Concentrations in Soil and Ground Water....................................6 2.4.1 Area 1...........................................................................................................................6 2.4.2 Area 2.........................................----..............................................................................7 2.4.3 Area 3...........................................................................................................................7 2.4.4 Area 4...........................................................................................................................8 2.5 Natural Resource and Ecological Receptors.............................................................................8 2.6 Contaminants of Concern and Selected Cleanup Levels..........................................................9 2.6.1 Cleanup Level Selection.............................................................................................10 2.6.1.1 Soil..............................................................................................................10 2.6.1.2 Ground Water............................................................................................. 11 2.6.2 Selected CULs...........................................................................................................12 2.6.3 Final COCs.................................................................................................................13 3.0 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................14 3.1 Area 1 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes.. ............................................................... 16 3.2 Area 2 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes.................................................................16 3.3 Area 3 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes.................................................................16 3.4 Area 4 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes.................................................................17 4.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH................................................................................................................17 4.1 Permitting................................................................................................................................17 4.2 Site Preparation.......................................................................................................................18 4.3 Excavation, Soil Handling, and Dewatering............................................................................18 4.3.1 Area 1---...................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Area 2.........................................................................................................................19 4.3.3 Area 3.........................................................................................................................20 4.3.4 Area 4.........................................................................................................................20 ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320`° Street, Federal Way. Washington October 21, 2013 4.4 Infiltration Gallery Installation..................................................................................................20 4.5 Compliance Monitoring............................................................................................................21 4.5.1 Protection Monitoring..................................................................................................21 4.5.2 Performance Monitoring.............................................................................................22 4.5.3 Confirmational Monitoring...........................................................................................24 4.6 Post -Remedial Ground Water Monitoring Well Installation.....................................................25 4.6.1 Geologic Logging and Field Screening Procedures...................................................25 4.6.2 Monitoring Well Construction......................................................................................26 4.6.3 Monitoring Well Development.....................................................................................26 4.7 Interim Action Report...............................................................................................................26 5.0 SITE CLOSURE................................................................................................................................27 6.0 LIMITATIONS...................................................................................................................................27 7.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................28 TABLES (EMBEDDED) Table 1 Summary of Detected COPC Maximum Concentrations in Soil and Ground Water ..........9 Table 2 COCs and Site -Specific CULs..........................................................................................12 FIGURES Figure 1 General Vicinity Map Figure 2 Subject Property Representation Figure 3 Approximate Extent of Excavations for Areas 1 Through 3, Maintenance Building Figure 4 Approximate Extent of Excavation, Area 4, Former Waste Storage Area Figure 5 Potential Infiltration Galleries and Post-Remediation Ground Water Monitoring Wells ATTACHMENTS Attachment A JEM Input Parameters and CUL Comparison Table Attachment B VI Predictive Tool ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Abbreviation/ Definition Acronym bgs Below ground surface BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC Contaminant of concern COPC Contaminant of potential concern cPAH Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon CUL Cleanup level DevCo DevCo Inc. DRO Diesel -range organics Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EHSI EHS-International EPI Environmental Partners, Inc. ESNW Earth Solutions Northwest FWSD Federal Way School District GRO Gasoline -range organics HASP Health and Safety Plan HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response IAWP Interim Action Work Plan IAR Interim Action Report LUST Leaking underground storage tank MDL Method detection limit MTCA Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D and WAC 173-340) NFA No Further Action Nowicki Nowicki & Associates, Inc. ORO Oil -range organics OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PCE Tetrachloroethene PID Photoionization detector SL Screening level TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons UST Underground storage tank VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program VI Vapor intrusion VOC Volatile organic compound VPH Volatile petroleum hydrocarbon WAC Washington Administrative Code WISHA Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN ERS I N C Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTION Environmental Partners, Inc. (EPI) is pleased to submit this Interim Action Work Plan (IAWP) for implementation of an interim remedial action for soil and ground water for the former Federal Way School District (FWSD) Maintenance Yard, located at 1066 South 3201h Street, Federal Way, Washington (Subject Property). FWSD was the former owner and occupant of the Subject Property and DevCo, Inc. (DevCo) is in the current owner. The activities described in this IAWP will be conducted as part of the redevelopment of the Subject Property by DevCo into multi -family residential structures. The location of the Subject Property is shown on Figure 1. As defined by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-340-200 of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) regulation, a "Site" is "...any area where a hazardous substance... has... come to be located." For the purposes of this IAWP, the "Site" shall refer to the eastern portion of the Subject Property that contains four separate areas of environmental contamination resulting from separate releases of hazardous substances. Based on currently available information, the Site does not extend beyond the boundary of the Subject Property. This IAWP presents the objectives, methodology, and technical approach for conducting an independent interim remedial action to address previously documented impacts to soil and ground water at the Site. This interim remedial action will be conducted to meet the requirements of MTCA as defined in WAC 173-340-430. The interim remedial action may constitute the cleanup action for the Site in accordance with WAC 173-340-430 if it can be demonstrated through performance and compliance monitoring that it complies with the requirements for a cleanup action as defined in WAC 173-340-350 through WAC 173-340-390. The objectives of this IAWP are to: • Provide a description of the methodology and technical basis for the interim remedial actions to be conducted at the Site; • Provide a detailed description of the individual components of the interim remedial action and how they will be conducted; and • Provide a general description of the performance and compliance monitoring approach for soil and ground water. 1.1 Background Several environmental assessments have been conducted at the Site by consultants for FWSD. The Site was further assessed by EPI on behalf of DevCo in support of its pre -purchase due diligence of the Subject Property. Impacts to soil and ground water have been confirmed at the Site as a result of historical releases related to the FWSD's use of the Subject Property. These releases include releases of petroleum products from three underground storage tanks (USTs) that were removed in 1989, from a former ENVI RONMENTAL PARTNERS I N C Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 waste oil UST removed in 1992, and from storage of hazardous substances in the northern portion of the Subject Property. There are also potential releases associated with two large commercial vehicle hoists with belowground hydraulic oil reservoirs. According to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) database, the Site was registered as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facility in 1989 and assigned LUST No. 1312. Ecology subsequently assigned the Site with Ecology Site I.D. No. 8899181, and Ecology Cleanup I.D. No. 7825. The Site was designated by Ecology as a Reported Cleaned Up (RCU) Site in 1995. However, Ecology has recently reviewed the LUST file and has determined that soil contamination "above regulatory levels" is still present on the Site. The Site is currently listed on the Hazardous Site List (HSL). 1.1.1 Subject Property Description The Subject Property is an approximately 10-acre parcel located in the City of Federal Way, King County, Washington as shown in Figure 1. The Subject Property was used by the FWDS as a maintenance center since it was first developed in 1964. The Subject Property is located in an area of primarily retail and commercial development with some residential development to the north. The central portion of the Subject Property is paved with asphalt with gravel parking areas located to the north and south of the paved areas. The Subject Property is improved with three main structures: a two-story vehicle maintenance building located on the east side of the Subject Property; a two-story warehouse building located on the west side of the Subject Property; and a smaller single -story classroom -type building located adjacent to the east of the warehouse building as shown in Figure 2. Three 12,00.0-gallon-USTs containing diesel fuel and -unleaded gasoline ire cqrrently located on the east side of the vehicle maintenance building. -One 1,000-gallon and one 1,700-gallon UST were removed from the east side of the vehicle maintenance building in 1989. These two USTs reportedly contained gasoline and/or waste oil. One additional 1,000-gallon waste oil UST was removed from the northwest corner of the vehicle maintenance building in 1992. This waste oil UST was replaced with the existing aboveground storage tank (AST) for waste oil, which is located approximately 100 feet ; north of the vehicle maintenance building. Two large commercial vehicle hydraulic hoists with belowgrade reservoirs are located inside the vehicle maintenance building, and two air compressors are located outside the building along the east side, Ari''open-sided canopy structure is located along the northern property boundary in the northeast area of the Subject Property. This covered area was used for the storage of drums and pails containing waste oil and other maintenance -related chemicals- 1.1.2 Previous Investigations Petroleum impacts were first discovered near the 1,000-gallon and 1,700-gallon USTs in 1989. In March 1989, RZA conducted an initial assessment after water was found inside one of the USTs. The E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L P A 9 7 N E R S I N C 2 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320th Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21. 2013 assessment identified a release of gasoline that had impacted both soil and a "perched" ground water layer at approximately 1 to 3 feet below ground surface (bgs). The two USTs were removed in June 1989. RZA indicated that the 1,700—gallon UST appeared to be in good condition with no visible holes, but the 1,000-gallon UST, formerly located on the south side of the installation, contained several holes and petroleum impacts were observed in the soil and ground water surrounding the tank. Soil samples collected from the sidewalls indicated total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations exceeding the MTCA Method A Soil Cleanup Level in effect at that time and exceeding the current MTCA Method A Soil Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Uses (Method A Soil CUL). Benzene was also detected at concentrations greater than the Method A Soil CUL in effect at the time. RZA excavated impacted soils based on field indications of contamination. A limited number of soil samples were collected from the sidewalls and at the bottom of the final limits of the excavation but the excavation was apparently not guided by laboratory analytical results. TPH was detected at concentrations greater than the Method A Soil CUL then in effect. The confirmation samples were not analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, or total xylenes (BTEX). Based on available information, residual contamination may have been left in place at the completion of the remedial action. In March 1992, the 1,000-gallon waste oil UST located on the northwest corner of the vehicle maintenance building was removed by Nowicki & Associates, Inc. (Nowicki). The excavation was guided by analytical results from a thin layer chromatography field instrument. Diesel -range and gasoline -range petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in samples collected from the bottom of the excavation and in the east sidewall at concentrations greater than the MTCA Method A Soil CULs in effect at the time. These impacted areas were not excavated further and the TPH impacts likely remain in place. In August 1998, Nowicki installed an oil -water separator on the north end of the three existing USTs, which were installed after the 1,700-gallon and 1,000-gallon USTs were removed in 1989. Petroleum - impacted soils from an unknown source were discovered, and those soils were excavated and placed in a stockpile. A soil sample collected from the bottom of the excavation at a depth of 6 feet contained gasoline -range TPH at concentrations greater than the Method A Soil CUL. There is no documentation that this soil was removed or whether the extent of these impacts was characterized. EHS-International, Inc. (EHSI) conducted a limited Phase II Site Assessment of the Subject Property in 2012. A total of 13 soil borings were advanced and sampled. Five of the soil borings were drilled around the existing and former USTs located on the east side of the vehicle maintenance building. Three soil borings were drilled adjacent to the underground hoists located inside the vehicle maintenance building. The remaining borings were shallow borings located around the Subject Property to assess various other chemical storage areas. No borings were drilled in the area of the former waste oil UST in the northwest corner of the vehicle maintenance building. During the limited Phase II of EHSI, one boring was drilled near the approximate center of the former UST excavation located to the east of the maintenance building. Analytical results indicated concentrations of gasoline -range organics (GRO) greater than the Method A Soil CUL. The other ENVIRON MENTAL PARTN ERS I N C 3 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 samples collected from the borings around the LISTS were analyzed using the hydrocarbon identification (HCID) method, but were not analyzed for BTEX. The soil borings around the UST pit were not sufficiently deep to delineate the vertical extent of impacts below the UST excavation. In February 2013, Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) completed three soil borings within the vicinity of the USTs located on the east side of the vehicle maintenance building, and one soil boring located on the northwest corner of the building near the former waste oil UST. The depth of the borings was generally limited due to dense soil conditions and due to the drilling methods used (i.e., direct -push technology [DPT] and limited capability hollow -stem auger). ESNW was able to complete one soil boring to a depth of 22 feet in the area of the waste oil UST. The analytical results for the soil sample collected at the terminal depth indicated diesel -range organics (DRO) and oil -range organics (ORO) at concentrations greater than the Method A Soil CUL. EPI conducted a review of Ecology's LUST file for the Site and identified field inspection reports for on - site visual inspections conducted by Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel in 2003, 2008, and 2011. The FWDS was cited for numerous administrative violations as well as failure to comply with UST and product piping leak detection requirements. While not identifying releases, the citations suggested a pattern of poor UST system management by the FWSD. EPI also reviewed Ecology's Site Status Update Letter to the FWSD dated February 28, 2013. The letter stated that "contamination exists" and "Further investigation or cleanup action is required to comply with Washington State laws and regulations." In April and May 2013 EPI performed a subsurface investigation of the Site to address all data gaps that were identified based on a review of existing historical documents and regulatory files discussed above. The data generated during EPI's investigation of the Subject Property on behalf of DevCo are documented in a Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) and Subsurface Investigation Report, dated August 15, 2013. The historical documents referenced above are listed in Section 7.0, References. 1.2 Work Plan Organization The remaining sections of this IAWP are organized as follows: • Section 2.0 provides a description of the Site conditions including contaminants of concern (COCs) and cleanup levels (CULs); • Section 3.0 provides a description of the methodology for implementation of the selected remedial alternative; • Section 4.0 provides a detailed description of the individual technical components of the remedial alternative; ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN E R 3 I N C 4 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320`h Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 • Section 5.0 provides a general description of additional activities necessary to achieve Site closure; • Section 6.0 provides the limitations to this IAWP; and • Section 7.0 provides a list of references for this IAWP. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS Soil and ground water investigations have been performed at the Subject Property and provide an appropriate level of site characterization, which satisfies the requirements of MTCA for a completed RI. No data gaps exist in the RI that preclude the development or implementation of an interim action at the Site. The Subject Property is located in a developed area of mixed commercial/retail and residential development, and a major thoroughfare (South 320th Street). The central portion of the Subject Property is paved with asphalt or concrete, with the surrounding portions covered with compacted gravel. Landscaping is limited to the perimeters of the Subject Property. The ground surface at the Subject Property and in the vicinity of the Subject Property slopes gently toward the south-southwest. 2.1 Geology The general geology of the Subject Property and vicinity is recessional outwash from the most recent glacial retreat and consists of a mixture of sand and gravel with some silt. Soils in approximately the upper 5 to 10 feet at the Subject Property are generally Well -Graded Sand with gravel (SW) or Well - Graded Sand with silt (SW-SM). The upper soils are underlain by Well -Graded Sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM), Poorly Graded Sand with gravel (SP), or Well -Graded Sand with gravel (SW) at the terminal depth of borings performed by EPI. These soils types differ primarily by subtle gradational changes in the percentages of sand and gravel and these changes occur both laterally and vertically throughout the soil column. The glaciofluvial depositional environment and the observed conditions indicate that individual soil descriptions are not laterally continuous across the Subject Property. 2.2 Ground Water Ground water was not encountered in all areas of the Subject Property. In areas where ground water was encountered, the rate of recharge of ground water into wells and borings was very slow. Based on the slow recharge rates of ground water in the two existing monitoring wells, and based on the absence of ground water down to a depth of 25 feet in an area east of the existing USTs, it is interpreted that local shallow ground water is laterally discontinuous and of generally low yield. Ground water may also be locally perched based on the gradational changes in soil type described above. Where encountered, the depth to ground water at the Subject Property ranges from 9 feet to 16 feet. Based on a review of local topography and estimated ground water elevations, the ground water flow direction, to the extent that there is a continuous water table aquifer, is anticipated to be to the south- southwest. ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 5 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 Souih 320'h Street, Federal Way. Washington October 21, 2013 Ground water at the Subject Property is not used for drinking water. The Subject Property is served by the City of Federal Way municipal drinking water and current city codes prohibit the installation of drinking water wells at the Subject Property. Based on city code restrictions, the discontinuous low yield, and the likely perched nature of shallow ground water, there is no reasonable potential for potable use of shallow ground water at the Site. 2.3 Surface Water The closest surface water body to the Site is the Steel Lake, which is approximately 0.75 miles to the northeast. Stormwater on the unpaved areas of the Site is allowed to infiltrate and there are no obvious indications of runoff from those areas. Stormwater on the paved portion of the Subject Property is directed to multiple catch basins, which reportedly discharge to the municipal stormwater system located in 320th Street. The Subject Property is not located within a 100-year flood plain. Based on the characterization of the dissolved -phase ground water contaminant plumes associated with the Site, the contaminant plumes do not extend to surface water and surface water exposures are not a potential exposure pathway for the Site. 2.4 Contaminant Locations and Concentrations in Soil and Ground Water Environmental investigations performed at the Subject Property identified contaminant impacts at concentrations greater than regulatory screening levels in soil and ground water samples from several locations. The impacted areas are grouped into four areas (Area 1 through Area 4) of likely contiguous impacts from an individual source. Areas 1 through 4 are discussed individually below and are as indicated on Figures 3 and 4. For the purposes of the following discussions of nature and extent of impact in each of the areas, the Method A Soil CULs and the MTCA Method A Ground Water CULs have been used as screening levels (SLs). The final CULs to be used for performance and confirmational sampling during interim action implementation are discussed in Section 2.6. 2.4.1 Area 1 Area 1 is located immediately east of the vehicle maintenance building (Figure 3). This area currently contains an oil water separator and three 12,000-gallon LISTS containing diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline, dispensers, piping, and a canopy. Prior to the current UST system this area contained a 1,000-gallon and a 1,700-gallon UST, which were removed in 1989 and reportedly contained gasoline and/or waste oil. Three ESNW soil borings and six EPI soil borings were advanced and sampled in Area 1. The analytical results for a soil sample taken from boring EPI-B4 at 10 feet bgs indicated gasoline -range organics (GRO), ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and naphthalene at concentrations greater than their respective SLs. Analytical data from deeper soil samples (20, 25, and 35 feet bgs) from this same boring demonstrate that impacted soil exceeding SLs does not extend to depths greater than approximately 20 feet. ENVI RON MENTAL PARTN ERS I N C 6 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21. 2013 The ground water sample from boring EPI-134 contained detections of GRO, DRO, and benzene at concentrations greater than their respective SLs. Figure 3 identifies the estimated area of impacted soil that will be excavated from Area 1. Additional impacted soil and/or ground water may be encountered during decommissioning and removal of the existing USTs located in the southern part of Area 1 and the dispensers and piping located under the canopy. These areas were not accessible to sampling and analysis. Performance sampling results will determine the final extent and depth of the remedial excavation in Area 1, as described in Section 4.5.2. Based on the results of previous investigations, excavation of impacted soil below the ground water table will likely be necessary. Given the low apparent yield of ground water at the Subject Property, excavation of impacted soils below the water table and extraction of high concentration water from the open excavation are the most viable remedial option for Area 1. Excavation below the ground water table and necessary dewatering, containment, treatment, and disposal of potentially impacted ground water will be performed as described in Section 4.3. 2.4.2 Area 2 Area 2 is located at the northwest corner of the vehicle maintenance building. This area formerly contained at 1,000-gallon waste oil tank that was removed in 1992. Two monitoring wells (MW-3 and MW-4) are located in this area. One ESNW soil boring and four EPI borings were also advanced in this area. Analytical data or samples from Area 2 indicate that the apparent extent of contamination is well characterized. Analytical data for the soil samples from the ESNW soil boring (ESNW-B1) indicate detections of GRO and ORO at concentrations greater than SLs and the soil sample from 15 feet bgs in EPI boring EPI-133 also contained detections of GRO and ORO at concentrations greater than SLs. Soils do not appear to be impacted at concentrations exceeding SLs at 20 feet or deeper. Figure 3 identifies the estimated area of impacted soil that will be excavated from Area 2. Performance sampling results will determine the final extend and depth of the remedial excavation in Area 2, as described in Section 4.5.2. The ground water sample from boring EPI-63 contained DRO and ORO at concentrations greater than SLs. Impacts to ground water appear generally localized around EPI-133 and (as with Area 1) it is anticipated that due to low ground water yield it will be possible to excavate soils below the water table and thereby address the limited ground water impacts. Excavation below the ground water table and necessary dewatering, containment, treatment, and disposal of potentially impacted ground water will be performed as described in Section 4.3. 2.4.3 Area 3 Area 3 is located within the footprint of the vehicle maintenance building and represents potential soil and/or ground water impacts associated with the two large hydraulic vehicle hoists inside of the ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 7 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 building. The hoists extend east to west across the drive -through portions of the building and appear to be at least 9 feet deep with belowgrade hydraulic reservoirs and piping. Prior hand auger sampling inside the building did not identify the presence of impacts but the depth of the available samples was limited and borings were not optimally placed to identify the presence of impacts. Based on experience with similar large commercial vehicle hoists and hoists of the construction type and age used at the Subject Property, it is likely that some leakage of hydraulic oil has occurred. Leakage may be either from the reservoir or from associated piping. Due to the low clearance and depth to the bottom of the hoists, and the presence of difficult subsurface drilling conditions, the most cost-effective approach is to conduct the assessment activities at the time of building demolition and hoist removal during redevelopment. Figure 3 shows two areas of potential impacts to soil and/or ground water below the vehicle hoists in Area 3. These areas will be investigated further during hoist decommissioning. The need for remedial excavation will be based on the results of performance sampling at the time of decommissioning and necessary remedial excavation will be guided by the results of sampling. Performance sampling is described in Section 4.5.2. 2.4.4 Area 4 Area 4 is located at the northeastern corner of the Subject Property in an area of apparent chemical storage. This area is located beneath an open metal canopy with 55-gallon drums and pails containing waste oil and other unidentified vehicle maintenance fluids and chemicals over bare soil. Stained soil and strong petroleum odors were noted in Area 4 during the initial property assessment. Impacts to soil in Area 4 consist of GRO, DRO, ORO, BTEX, and tetrachloroethene (PCE) at concentrations greater than their respective SLs. Data for Area 4 indicate that the impacts are localized and limited to shallow soils, with no impacts to ground water. This conclusion is based on shallow soil borings and a deeper boring that included ground water sampling. The mechanism of contaminant release is likely isolated minor releases from drums and other containers that would be limited to surface and shallow soils. Figure 4 indicates the estimated area of impacts to soil in Area 4. EPI proposes to remove visibly stained surface and near -surface soil. Performance sampling results from the limits of the initial excavation will be used to determine the need for additional excavation and to guide the final extent and depth of the remedial excavation in Area 4. 2.5 Natural Resource and Ecological Receptors In accordance with WAC 173-340-7490, a terrestrial ecological evaluation (TEE) was performed for the Site to determine if the known impacts pose a threat to the terrestrial environment. The TEE is a tiered process that includes potential exclusions and off -ramps for simplified or site -specific evaluations. E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L P A R T N E R S I N C 8 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 All impacts observed at the Site will be located beneath asphalt parking and buildings after redevelopment and, therefore, there is no potential pathway for terrestrial exposures. The Site, therefore, qualifies for a TEE exclusion based upon WAC 173-340-7491(1)(b), which states: "All soil contamination with hazardous substances is, or will be, covered by buildings, paved roads, pavement, or other physical barriers that will prevent plants or wildlife from being exposed to the soil contamination." Therefore, potential ecological exposures do not require further consideration. 2.6 Contaminants of Concern and Selected Cleanup Levels For the purposes of this interim remedial action, if a compound was detected in soil or ground water, then that compound is considered a contaminant of potential concern (COPC). Table 1 below presents a summary of the COPCs and the maximum detected concentration of the COPCs in soil and ground water in at the Site. No contaminant concentrations in the ground water sample collected from Area 4 exceeded the laboratory method detection limit (MDL); therefore, no ground water remediation will be necessary in Area 4. Table 1 Summary of Detected COPC Maximum Concentrations in Soil and Ground Water Compound Maximum Detected Soil Concentration (mg/kg) Maximum Detected Ground Water Concentration (pg/L) Gasoline -range Organics 7,300 8,300 Diesel -range Organics 54,000 7,800 Oil -range Organics 9,300 4,500 Benzene 5.4 16 Toluene 300 4.3 Ethylbenzene 120 320 Total Xylenes 850 132 Naphthalene 110 6.6 PC E 0.064 ND Lead 7.08 1.9 Note: ND The compound was not detected at a concentration exceeding the MDL. Site -specific CULs for soil and ground water have been evaluated in accordance with MTCA requirements and take into consideration exposure pathways and receptors based on current and likely future uses of the Site. The Subject Property will be redeveloped as a residential development and the ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 9 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 primary remedial action objective of DevCo for the interim action presented herein is to support a No Further Action (NFA) determination for the Site without the need for an environmental covenant, deed restrictions, or institutional controls. The following selection of CULs reflects this objective. When determining the applicable Site -specific CULs the following potential exposure pathways were evaluated: • Direct human contact with impacted soils; • Soil -to -ground water migration; • Ingestion of impacted drinking water; and • Vapor intrusion of contaminants in soil and/or ground water to indoor air. As described in Section 2.3 there is no potential for contaminant migration to surface water and this pathway is not considered further. Similarly, as discussed in Section 2.5, the Subject Property qualifies for an exclusion from the Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation and this pathway is not considered further. 2.6.1 Cleanup Level Selection The following sections discuss the selection of CULs for the COPCs identified above. The selected CUL is the lowest value available for each of the pathways evaluated. The range of CULs evaluated included MTCA Method A and Method B values for soil and ground water ingestion available within the Cleanup Levels and Risk Calculation (CLARC) database maintained by Ecology. Those values are considered protective of a range of exposures including direct contact, ingestion, and protection of the soil -to -ground water migration pathway using conservative default assumptions. Where CULs based on carcinogenic and non -carcinogenic health effects were available, the lower (i.e., carcinogenic effect) value was used. Evaluating the protectiveness of potential vapor intrusion (VI) requires the use of specialized tools provided by Ecology. Those tools and their use are discussed below. 2.6.1.1 Soil The soil CULs were established to ensure protectiveness of all potential exposure pathways at the Site. Table 2 in Section 2.6.3 summarize the Site COCs and selected CULs for Areas 1 through 4. In evaluating soil cleanup levels, the MTCA Method A CULs were used to evaluate both the direct contact to soil pathway and the soil -to -ground water migration pathway. The MTCA Method A values for the COPCs were developed by Ecology using the MTCA Method B formulas and conservative default assumptions for the soil -to -ground water leaching pathway. In order to evaluate soil CULs protective of indoor air for all COCs except GRO, EPI used the most current version of the Johnson & Ettinger Model (JEM). The JEM incorporates a number of conservative and simplifying assumptions regarding contaminant distribution and occurrence, subsurface characteristics, transport mechanisms, and building construction. Since the location of E N V I R 0 N M E N T A L P A R T N E R S I N C 10 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 future structures and development characteristics are not yet finalized, the use of the conservative assumptions contained in the model is reasonable and appropriate. Default input parameters were used in the model as specified. Site -specific input parameters included soil type and average depth to soil impacts. The soil type used was Sand (S) consisting of 90 percent sand and gravel and 10 percent silt. Slab -on -grade construction with no basement was assumed. All other input parameters were JEM defaults. The site -specific input parameters are summarized in Attachment A. The JEM evaluates CULs and risks for individual compounds due to potential inhalation exposures. Since GRO is a blend of numerous individual compounds, the JEM cannot be used to evaluate a CUL for GRO. The appropriate tool to evaluate a GRO soil CUL for indoor air is the MTCA TPH11.0 Tool developed by Ecology. The MTCA TPH11.0 Tool uses analytical data from volatile petroleum hydrocarbon (VPH) analysis as the primary input for the ranges of hydrocarbons present in a GRO blend. However, because no VPH analysis is available for individual hydrocarbon ranges, it is not possible to develop a GRO soil CUL that is predicted to be protective of indoor air quality. Nonetheless, it is necessary to establish a soil CUL for GRO that is protective of the vapor intrusion pathway. As presented in Table 2, the calculated soil CUL for benzene that is protective of the vapor intrusion is 0.000306 mg/kg. In EPI's experience, if a soil CUL for benzene is established based on the protection of indoor air exposure pathway, then the use of the Method A Soil CUL for GRO of 30 mg/kg is also sufficiently protective of the vapor intrusion pathway. Therefore, a GRO CUL of 30 mg/kg is appropriate. 2.6.1.2 Ground Water For ground water, the potential exposure pathways are direct ingestion and protection of indoor air. The CULs to be used must be protective of human health and the environment based upon the exposure pathways that remain after completion of the selected remedial action. The ground water CULs used for the direct ingestion and exposure pathway are the Method A Ground Water CULs. The ground water CULs used for the indoor air exposure pathway are the screening levels provided in Table B-1, Appendix-8 of Ecology's DRAFT Guidance for Evaluating Soil Vapor Intrusion in Washington State: Investigation and Remedial Action dated October 2009; publication 09- 09-047 (DRAFT VI Guidance). These ground water screening levels were developed by Ecology to be protective of indoor air quality using conservative assumptions. In order to evaluate a ground water CUL for GRO, EPI used a tool provided by Ecology titled 'Predicting_VI_Petroleum_Ground_Water' (VI prediction tool). This tool was developed by Mr. Charles San Juan at Ecology to predict a concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in ground water that would be protective of indoor air. The VI prediction tool projects the various concentration distributions between aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons based upon fuel type (i.e., gasoline or diesel) and a relative degree of weathering (ranked from 1 to 7). ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN E KS I N C 11 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way. Washington October 21, 2013 After adjusting the spreadsheet to the specific fuel type and weathering, the vapor attenuation factor (VAF) is adjusted to meet site -specific conditions. In accordance with the DRAFT VI Guidance, the default VAF is 0.001. The ground water concentration is then adjusted until the hazard quotient is equal to 1. Using this process, a ground water CUL for GRO protective of indoor air to a residential exposure is predicted. A copy of the VI prediction tool used for this project is enclosed in Attachment B. 2.6.2 Selected CULs Table 2 COCs and Site -Specific CULs Soil Ground COC CUL 7BasisRationale Water CUL Basis Rationale (mglkg) (Ng/L) Protective of Ground VI GRO 30 MTCA Water 40 Prediction Protective of Vapor Method A Quality and Tool Intrusion Vapor Intrusion Protective of MTCA Ground MTCA Protective of Ground DRO 2,000 Method A Water 500 Method A Water Quality Quality Protective of MTCA Ground MTCA Protective of Ground ORO 2,000 Method A Water 500 Method A Water Quality Quality Johnson & Protective of DRAFT VI Protective of Vapor Benzene 0.01a Ettinger Vapor 2.4 Guidance Intrusion Model Intrusion Johnson & Protective of DRAFT VI Protective of Vapor Ethylbenzene 4.11 Ettinger Vapor 700 Guidance Intrusion Model Intrusion Johnson & Protective of DRAFT VI Protective of Vapor Total Xylenes 0.446 Ettinger Vapor 310 Guidance Intrusion Model Intrusion ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN E KS I N C 12 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320'" Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 Soil Ground COC CUL Basis Rationale Water CUL Basis Rationale (mglkg) (Ng/L) Johnson & Protective of MTCA Protective of Ground Naphthalene 1.5 Ettinger Vapor 160 Method B Water Quality Model Intrusion I Johnson & Protective of PCE 0.05 Ettinger Ground NA NA PCE not detected in Water ground water Model Quality Notes: a Cleanup level will revert to the practical quantitation limit (PQL) as allowed in WAC 173-340-707. Default PQL for benzene in soil is 0.01 mg/kg. b Not applicable. PCE was not detected in ground water and remediation for PCE in ground water is not necessary. 2.6.3 Final COCs Based upon the data collected and reported to date and the CULs selected for the Site the final soil COCs are: • GRO; • DRO; • ORO; • Benzene; • Ethylbenzene; • Total xylenes; • Naphthalene; and • PCE. It is important to note that PCE was not detected in Areas 1 through 3 and is not a COC for those areas. PCE is only a COC for soil in Area 4. The final ground water COCs are: • GRO; • DRO; • ORO; • Benzene; • Toluene; • Ethylbenzene; • Total xylenes; and • Naphthalene. ENVI RON M ENTAL PARTNERS I N C 13 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 COCs for ground water apply only to Areas 1 through 3. No COPCs were detected in ground water at Area 4, therefore no ground water remediation is required in Area 4. It should be noted that even though lead was detected in soil and ground water from Areas 1 through 3, the detected concentrations did not exceed the CULs. Therefore, lead is not considered a COC for soil or ground water at the Site. Investigative actions have resulted in a thorough characterization of the impacts to soil and ground water. The level of characterization satisfies the requirements of MTCA for evaluating and implementing appropriate remedial actions. No additional data gaps exist that would prevent the implementation of an effective remedial action. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The selected alternative for the interim action at the Site is direct excavation of impacted soil with off - site disposal, and monitored natural attenuation of ground water. When applicable, extraction of ground water from the open remedial excavation will be used to remove readily accessible and highly impacted ground water from the area of remediation. This will decrease the contaminant load on ground water and facilitate the natural attenuation process. This remedial approach is consistent with the requirements of MTCA and will facilitate the future attainment of an NFA determination. The selection of this remedial alternative is based on the following Site conditions: • The depth and lateral extent of COCs at concentrations greater than applicable CULs is limited; • The COC exceedances in soil are limited to soil that is readily accessible to direct excavation; • Impacts to ground water appear limited and coextensive with impacts to soil near and within the local water table; • The presence, extent, and yield of ground water at the Subject Property is limited; Excavation is practicable, immediate, highly effective, and its effectiveness is quantifiable through direct sampling and can be completed simultaneously with the redevelopment of the Site; • Excavation of impacted soil below the ground water table is practicable and will significantly reduce the mass of COCs in the source area making monitored natural attenuation an appropriate remedial strategy for ground water; and • Where recoverable ground water is present, extraction, treatment, and disposal of highly impacted ground water will serve as additional source removal. ENVIRONMENTAL P A ft T N E R S I N C 14 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320'h Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21. 2013 Implementation of this remedial strategy will include the following elements: • Obtain a Minor Discharge Authorization (MDA) from King County Industrial Waste to allow discharge of dewatered ground water resulting from excavation below the ground water table into the sanitary sewer system. This may require treatment of water prior to discharge and the MDA will require sampling and reporting of volumes and attainment of discharge limitations and criteria; • Decommission wells MW-3 and MW-4 per Ecology regulation WAC 173-160-460(2) because they are located in proposed excavation areas; • Decommission the current UST system including three 12,000-gallon USTs, dispensers and piping in Area 1. This task includes necessary UST assessment, completion of applicable Ecology checklists, collection and analysis of soil and/or ground water samples, and completion of the UST Site Assessment Report for submittal to Ecology. Such a report may be combined with the remedial action report that summarizes the implementation of the interim action; • Excavation and off -site disposal of soil containing COCs at concentrations greater than the CULs, and performance and confirmational sampling and analysis to demonstrate attainment of the CULs at the points of compliance for soil; • Dewatering the excavations if needed, including (if necessary) treatment of impacted ground water on -site prior to discharge to municipal sanitary sewer system; • Installation of infiltration galleries to allow for potential future in situ ground water remediation activities in Area 1, Area 2, and possibly Area 3 prior to backfilling; • Site restoration; • Installation of post -remedial monitoring wells in Areas 1, 2 and possibly 3. Well locations will be based on performance and confirmation sampling results as well as site redevelopment structures; Preparation of an Interim Action Report documenting the actions described above; • Performance monitoring of natural attenuation of the residual ground water impacts using the new well network; and • Preparation of necessary reports and submittal of a petition to Ecology for a NFA determination for the Site upon attainment of CULs at the points of compliance for all affected media. ENVIRONM E N T A l PARTNERS I N C 15 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 3.1 Area 1 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes Based on the estimated area of soil impacts shown on Figure 3, the excavation dimensions in Area 1 will be approximately 60 feet by 40 feet and will be excavated to a depth of 15 feet. This preliminary estimate calculates to approximately 1,300 cubic yards of soil. Because ground water is impacted in this area, excavation of impacted soil below the ground water table will likely be necessary. Dewatering, containment, treatment, and disposal of potentially contaminated ground water may be performed during construction and is described in Section 4.3. Based on sampling results for soil samples from locations ESNW B-2, EPI-65, EPI-136, and EPI-137, which show no impacts to soil in the areas to the east, south, and west of the three 12,000-gallon USTs it is anticipated that no additional soil excavation to remove impacted soil will be required during UST decommissioning. The 12,000-gallon USTs are likely approximately 25 feet long and 9 feet in diameter and will require an approximate 15-foot-by-25-foot excavation to approximately 15 feet bgs to decommission and remove the three USTs. This preliminary estimate calculates to approximately 208 cubic yards with approximately 50 cubic yards of this volume estimate taken up by the USTs themselves for an estimated total of 150 cubic yards of material to be excavated. 3.2 Area 2 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes Based on the estimated area of soil and ground water impacts shown in Figure 3, the excavation dimensions in Area 2 will be approximately 50 feet by 30 feet and will be excavated to a depth of approximately 22 feet. This preliminary estimate calculates to approximately 1,200 cubic yards of soil. Because ground water is impacted in this area, excavation of impacted soil below the ground water table will likely be necessary. Dewatering, containment, treatment, and disposal of potentially contaminated ground water may be performed during construction and is described in Section 4.3. 3.3 Area 3 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes Area 3 has no confirmed impacts to soil or ground water but contains two large underground hydraulic vehicle hoists. Past experience with similar hydraulic hoists indicates that hydraulic oil leaks are common with this equipment and soil impacts are likely. Ground water impacts are also possible. It is unlikely that extensive ground water impacts exist in Area 3. Hydraulic oil leaks are generally low volume releases because significant hydraulic oil releases affect operation of the hoists and would be identified. In addition, hydraulic oil has a relatively high viscosity compared to any fuel that might have been released from USTs at the Site. However, if ground water impacts are encountered In Area 3 such impacts will be addressed in a manner similar to Areas 1 and 2. The potential dimensions of remedial excavation in Area 3 represent conservative estimates based on the dimensions of the actual vehicle hoists and past experience at similar releases. Based on Figure 3 the subsurface portions of the two vehicle hoists appear to be approximately 40 feet long, 5 feet wide, and 9 feet deep. For purposes of this interim remedial action, it is conservatively assumed that ENVIRON MENTAL PARTNERS I N C 16 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 approximately half of the area beneath each hoist footprint will be impacted by hydraulic oil at concentrations greater than the CULs to approximately 5 feet below the bottom of the hydraulic reservoirs (i.e., 14 feet). These assumed dimensions calculate to an impacted soil volume of approximately 100 cubic yards. 3.4 Area 4 — Estimated Dimensions and Soil Volumes Impacts in Area 4 are expected to be limited to surface and near surface soil. Impacts are likely limited to the visibly stained surface soil, which is estimated to extend to average depth of 4 feet with a radius of approximately 10 feet. This calculates to a soil volume of 45 cubic yards of impacted soil. 4.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the activities that will be completed during the interim remedial action at the Site. 4.1 Permitting A UST Closure Notice will be submitted to Ecology prior to removal of the three 12,000-gallon USTs. Proper permits with the Federal Way fire authorities will also be obtained. The remediation work will be performed simultaneously with the redevelopment of the Site. The Site redevelopment contractor will obtain a Grading License from the City of Federal Way and a Construction Stormwater General Permit from Ecology. The work hours and hauling periods will comply with the City of Federal Way Grading License and the project will comply with requirements for street cleaning, truck cleaning, or scaling (as applicable) prior to transport. There are no permits required for off -site disposal of contaminated soil. Impacted soil will be transported to an off -Site disposal facility licensed to accept petroleum -contaminated soil and the transportation activities will comply with the requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation. If contaminated ground water is encountered during dewatering, the water will be treated to comply with applicable discharge requirements. A King County Metro Minor Discharge Authorization will be obtained prior to disposal of ground water to the sanitary sewer system. No permits are required for worker health and safety issues; however, any on -Site activities involving the handling of contaminated soil and ground water must comply with the provisions of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) subpart 1910.120 that governs Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). Occupational exposures by on -site workers to petroleum hydrocarbon vapors will be monitored as a component of on -Site health and safety monitoring. ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN E R 3 I N C 17 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 3201h Street, Federal Way. Washington October 21, 2013 4.2 Site Preparation Prior to any excavation, site preparation will be necessary. Site preparation activities will comply with the requirements of the City of Federal Way Grading License and will be subject to periodic inspection by city personnel. The Grading License may require such items as protective fencing, limiting ingress and egress, and protection of catch basins from runoff. The requirements contained within the Grading License will most likely be appropriate for use during this interim remedial action. As part of site preparation, ground water monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-4 will be decommissioned in accordance with WAC 173-160-460(2) and with all local, state, and federal regulations before the start of excavation work. 4.3 Excavation, Soil Handling, and Dewatering The goal of the remedial excavations is to properly excavate, handle, and dispose of soil contaminated to concentrations greater than applicable CULs. Excavation will be performed primarily using a track -mounted excavator. Other equipment may include rubber -tired backhoes, front-end loaders, vibratory rollers, or other machinery appropriate to project circumstances. 4.3.1 Area 1 As discussed in Section 3.1, the total volume of soil to be excavated is estimated to be approximately 1,300 cubic yards. The actual volume of soil excavated will depend on performance and confirmational sampling results as described in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, respectively. Clean overburden and other excavated soil that is field screened and preliminarily designated as "not impacted" will be stockpiled on -Site separately from soil that is not impacted. Field screening will include visual and olfactory indicators of impacts and sheen testing. Soil that is field -designated as "not impacted" will be further characterized to assess whether it complies with Site -specific CULs. If the soil complies with Site -specific CULs and is determined by a Geotechnical Engineer to be suitable as backfill it may be reused during redevelopment. Soil that is visibly impacted or otherwise known to be impacted based on analytical results will also be further characterized and transported off -Site for disposal in a manner appropriate for the characterization data and as required by the accepting facility. All soil disposal will be in compliance with applicable regulations. EPI will provide a Washington -Certified UST Site Assessor to document the removal of the three existing LISTS and collect assessment soil samples, photographs, and appropriate documentation as required by the UST regulations. The Site redevelopment contractor will provide the Washington State Certified UST Decommissioner and will perform the UST decommissioning activities. EPI will collect the required number of soil and ground water samples for assessment of the UST system and the remedial excavation. Sampling will be performed in accordance with Ecology Guidance ENVI RON MENTAL PARTNERS I N C 18 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320`h Street, Federal way, Washington October 21, 2013 for Site Checks and Site Assessments for Underground Storage Tanks dated February 1991, revised April 2003. The excavation and soil samples will be field screened to assess the presence of impacts. Field screening may consist of a combination of visual and olfactory inspection, sheen testing and/or photoionization detector (PID) measurements of volatile organic vapors. Soil samples will be submitted to a Washington State licensed laboratory for analysis of GRO, DRO, ORO, BTEX and naphthalene analyses based on previously detected COCs in this area. During excavation, impacted soils will likely extend below the top of the water table. Dewatering will; therefore likely be necessary to allow exposure and excavation of the deeper soils. Dewatering will consist of pumping water into an 18,000-gallon fractionation tank, or equivalent, for storage and settling. If the water is found to exceed the MDA discharge criteria for organic constituents the tank will also be used for air sparging treatment prior to discharge in compliance with the MDA. Prior to discharge, it will be necessary to obtain a King County Metro Minor Discharge Authorization. If there is sufficient recharge within the open excavation, the ground water may be repeatedly pumped and allowed to recover. This will serve as a method of removing additional contaminated water and contaminants from the subsurface, which will decrease the contaminant load to be naturally attenuated. Recharging ground water may be sampled and submitted for analysis in order to demonstrate improving ground water quality as a result of serial pumping and recharge. This technical approach may also be used in Area 2 and/or Area 3 depending upon the occurrence and abundance of local ground water. 4.3.2 Area 2 Prior to initiating excavation work in Area 2 existing monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-4 will be decommissioned in compliance with WAC 173-160-460(2). Decommissioning will be performed by a drilling contractor licensed in Washington State and will be overseen by a licensed geologist or professional engineer from EPI. The depth of the remedial excavation in Area 2 is estimated to be approximately 22 feet bgs over an irregularly shaped area of approximately 50 feet by 30 feet. The total volume of soil to be excavated is approximately 1,200 cubic yards. The actual volume of soil excavated will depend on performance and confirmational sampling results as described in Section 4.5.2 and Section 4.5.3, respectively. Soil samples will be submitted to a Washington State licensed laboratory for GRO, DRO, ORO, BTEX and naphthalene analyses based on previously detected COCs in this area. Clean overburden and other excavated soil will be field screened, characterized, and disposed of in the same manner as described in Section 4.3.1. Ground water will also be treated and disposed of in the same manner as described in Section 4.3.1. E N V I R O N M E N T A L P A R T N E R S I N C 19 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School Districl i%Iaintenancc Yard 1066 Soolh 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 4.3.3 Area 3 Area 3 will be addressed after demolition of the maintenance building. The two belowgrade hoists will be removed and subsurface conditions will be assessed in a manner consistent with the UST regulations. If impacts are identified, EPI field staff will use field screening methods consisting of a combination of olfactory and visual inspection and sheen testing to assess the apparent extent of contamination and to guide the removal of obviously impacted soils. The final limits of the remedial excavation (if required) will be determined by laboratory analysis of DRO and ORO based on a release of hydraulic fluid. Initial testing may also assess the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), naphthalenes and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs) as required by MTCA (WAC 173-340-900 Table 830-1). If impacts to soil under the hydraulic vehicle lifts are confirmed, EPI field staff will oversee the excavation work and initiate performance and confirmational monitoring as described in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, respectively. Because soil impacts have not been confirmed in Area 3, it is unlikely that ground water has been impacted. If the excavation must be extended into the water table and dewatering is determined to be necessary, it will be accomplished following the procedures outlined in Sections 4.3.1. 4.3.4 Area 4 Area 4 contains an area of surficial staining that has been conservatively estimated to contain no more than approximately 45 cubic yards of impacted soil. Based on available information for Area 4 there will be no clean overburden to stockpile and all excavated soil will be characterized for transport to an appropriate offsite disposal facility. The actual volume of soil excavated will depend on performance and confirmational sampling results as described in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, respectively. Soil samples will be submitted to a Washington State licensed laboratory for GRO, DRO, ORO, BTEX PCE, and naphthalene analyses based on previously detected COCs in this area. Analytical results indicate PCE in the shallow soil sample from HA-1:2 at a concentration greater than its MTCA Method A CUL potentially resulting in the requirement for disposal as a dangerous waste at a Subtitle C landfill. 4.4 Infiltration Gallery Installation Based on the potential need for additional remedial actions to address residual soil and/or ground water impacts, an infiltration gallery will be installed within the open remedial excavation in Areas 1 and 2 prior to backfilling, and potentially in Area 3 if impacts to ground water are identified. Infiltration piping will consist of 2-inch- or 4-inch-diameter Schedule 40 PVC. Screened intervals will be machine slotted at 0.020 inches (20-slot) and screened across appropriate intervals based upon the available data. The horizontal piping and screened interval will be placed in the middle of a 2-foot-thick bed of pea gravel. The pea gravel will be overlain by a permeable geofilter (e.g., Marafi fabric) to ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 20 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320tl1 Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 prevent fine particles from entering and clogging the screened intervals. The piping will be manifolded to one or more pipes that will be placed in a common 2-foot-deep trench that will extend vertically to the surface inside a flush -mounted, traffic -rated monument at an accessible location. A schematic of a possible layout of the infiltration gallery is presented on Figure 5. Piping and screen placement will be dependent on actual field conditions observed during the excavation activities. The actual location of the monument will be dependent on the final redevelopment configuration. It may be necessary to have more than one access monument. The final orientation and construction of infiltration galleries will be documented in the interim action report. Although termed an "infiltration" gallery, this network of piping has a number of potential uses such as injection of chemical media, air sparging, ozone injection, or ground water extraction. The cost of installing this broad network of pipes in the open remedial excavation is very low and placement of such piping is technically straightforward when combined with remedial excavation and backfilling. The benefit -to -cost ratio of having such a network of piping in place, and the potential beneficial uses and flexibility of such a piping network, if needed, is very high. Decisions regarding the potential future use of the infiltration gallery to treat residual soil and ground water impacts will depend upon the results of confirmational ground water sampling and analysis discussed in Section 4.5.3. The specific design of a remedial approach (i.e., media, placement frequency, monitoring protocols) will similarly be based upon the results of performance and compliance sampling and will be proposed (if required) at some future date. 4.5 Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring has three components: (1) protection monitoring, (2) performance monitoring, and (3) confirmational monitoring. Compliance monitoring is intended to fulfill the requirements of Sections 410, 740, 810, and 820 of the MTCA Cleanup Regulations (WAC 173-340). The following sections present the activities that will be performed for the three components of compliance monitoring during implementation of the remedial activities. 4.5.1 Protection Monitoring Protection monitoring is intended to confirm that human health and the environment are protected during implementation of the remedial action (WAC 173-340-410(a)). Protection monitoring for human health will be performed through the implementation of a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the WISHA standards for hazardous waste site operations (29 CFR 1910.120 and WAC 296-62 Part P). The HASP will pertain only to those activities relating to handling and management of impacted soils and ground water and related hazards, and will have no relation to any other phases of the project. The HASP will establish the general health and safety practices for EPI personnel performing the remedial action and will be provided to the on -Site contractors solely for their information. EPI will not be responsible for the health and safety of other on -Site personnel. EPI is not the general contractor for this project and does not control the jobsite. However, EPI will be available to advise other on -Site workers on the health and safety measures that EPI personnel will be using, and EPI will share all of its ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 21 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October21, 2013 monitoring data and will advise other workers when EPI personnel are upgrading or modifying their level of personal protective equipment. The HASP will also be provided to subcontractor personnel for informational purposes. Implementation of this level of on -Site health and safety monitoring is considered to meet the requirements of WAC 173-340-410(1)(2)(a) for the following reasons: • Site access will be limited to authorized personnel with documentation of required HAZWOPER certifications; • The field monitoring and mitigation measures called for in the HASP are protective of on - Site worker health and safety and should therefore also be adequate to protect the health of workers potentially occupying nearby buildings; • Conditions imposed on the remedial action contractors by applicable federal and state regulations and laws require that specific measures be taken to prevent the occurrence of discharges that may pose a threat to human health or the environment (e.g., surface water runoff, earth moving equipment dragout, and wind-blown dust emissions). These same regulations also require that contingency plans be prepared and implemented in the event of an accidental discharge of contaminants (e.g., overturned haul truck). Work will be conducted in accordance with applicable OSHA and WISHA regulations. Contractors on this project will be required to develop and implement their own health and safety procedures in accordance with applicable laws and regulations; and • Soil excavation activities associated with this project will be of a relatively short duration (i.e., 2 to 3 weeks) and health risks associated with long-term exposures to on -Site COCs are not a concern. Considering the protection measures and monitoring called for during soil excavation, the risk of non -workers being subjected to appreciable short-term chemical exposure will be negligible. The HASP will contain provisions for on -Site worker protective equipment and for monitoring atmospheric concentrations of volatile compounds. The HASP will also provide the criteria for upgrading personal protective equipment and the air monitoring equipment to be used. 4.5.2 Performance Monitoring Performance monitoring is used to determine whether and where the remedial action has attained the applicable CULs as noted in MTCA (WAC 173-340-410(b)). Because the four excavation areas depicted in Figures 3 and 4 are conservative estimates of the likely maximum extent of impacts, the site -specific soil CULs might be attained prior to reaching the estimated limits of the excavation as drawn. As such, performance monitoring will not only assess attainment of CULs, but will also be used to identify COCs that might remain in place at concentrations exceeding applicable CULs. During the remedial action, performance monitoring will consist of collecting and analyzing soil samples from excavation sidewalls and bottoms to demonstrate compliance with the CULs at the defined point of compliance. The CULs will be a deciding factor when making soil disposal decisions within the estimated limits of the remedial excavations. As noted above, the final limits of the excavation will be ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 22 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320th Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21. 2013 terminated or extended as necessary to remove soil with concentrations of COCs greater than the CULs in the direct contact zone between the surface and a depth of 15 feet to the maximum extent practicable. It is unlikely that any of the planned remedial excavations will encounter limits of practicability for the removal of soil with concentrations of COCs exceeding the CULs. Soil boring data delineating the four remedial excavation areas indicate that compliance with the CULs will most likely be attained prior to encountering physical or legal limitations to excavation such as right-of-ways, buildings, or the property boundary. During the excavation activities, if soil with concentrations of COCs exceeding the CULs is identified extending to an area that cannot practically be excavated, the excavation will be terminated at the limits of practicability and the soil will be left in -place. The decision to excavate additional soils will be based upon Site -specific calculations, professional judgment, and Site conditions. As stipulated in MTCA (WAC 173-340-740(f)), in determining compliance with any particular cleanup level it is necessary to demonstrate that: (i) No single sample concentration is greater than two times the soil CUL; (ii) Less than 10 percent of the sample concentrations exceed the soil CUL; and (iii) The true proportion of samples that do not exceed the soil CUL shall not be less than 95 percent using a Type I error level of 0.05. During excavation, soil samples from the excavation sidewalls and bottoms will be field -screened using a PID and sheen testing. PID readings of volatile vapors will be measured by placing a soil sample into a sealed plastic bag, disaggregating the soil, and allowing the sample to sit undisturbed for approximately five minutes. The PID sampling tube will then be inserted into the bag to measure the presence and concentration of volatile vapors within the bag headspace. Sheen testing will be performed to screen for the presence of separate -phase hydrocarbons within the soil matrix. A small sample of the soil will be disaggregated and placed into a clean pan with distilled water. The visual observation, and subjective measure of intensity, of the resulting hydrocarbon sheen will serve as a field indication of the presence and relative degree of contamination in the soil sample. When field screening results indicate that relative impacts have decreased to a level where compliance with CULs has likely been attained, performance samples will be collected. Performance samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis (either on -site or fixed -base) to establish compliance with cleanup levels and disposal requirements. Final performance soil samples will be collected from the sidewalls and bottom of the excavation. Two sidewall performance samples (sidewalls based on the cardinal directions, north, east, south, and west) will be collected from each sidewall for each 20 linear feet of excavation sidewall. The sidewall samples will be from different depths and will be used to characterize the vertical distribution of impacts in the sidewall. ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN E KS I N C 23 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 Sousti 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21. 2013 At a minimum, one bottom -of -excavation performance sample will be collected from each of the four excavation areas for bottom areas of up to 200 square feet. If the remedial excavation extends beyond 200 square feet, one sample will be collected for each additional 200 square feet, or a portion thereof. Performance samples will be analyzed for the following COCs: • GRO using the NWTPH-Gx analytical method; • DRO using the NWTPH-Dx analytical method; • ORO using the NWTPH-Dx analytical method; • BTEX by EPA Method 8021 B; • Naphthalene using EPA Method 8260C (Area 1 only); and • PCE by EPA Method 8260C (Area 4 only). As noted above, additional analyses for PCB or cPAHs may be required in Area 3 depending upon the findings of assessment samples during the hydraulic hoist decommissioning. Soil samples will be collected in pre -cleaned, laboratory -supplied glass jars. Samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) will be collected using EPA Method 5035 kits supplied by the laboratory. Due to sample depths and health and safety considerations, it will not be possible to collect samples directly from the excavation sidewalls. Therefore, an excavator will be used to remove soil from a particular area and the soil sample will then be collected from the excavator bucket. Decontaminated stainless steel spoons will be used to remove about 6 inches of slough from the soil in the bucket and a sample will be collected from the soil beneath. No composite samples will be collected for performance sampling purposes. Sampling equipment will be single -use disposable equipment that will be decontaminated prior to use and disposed of after use. EPI personnel will document field activities in a field notebook. The field notebook will document pertinent field activities as well as the times, dates, identification numbers, and sampling locations of performance samples and other samples. The field notebook will also contain notations of pertinent observations, field screening results, protection monitoring measurements, and any other observations deemed important by the .field personnel. Entries will be made in ink and each page of the field notebook will be dated. Photographs will be taken of unusual circumstances encountered during excavation and the photos will be identified and documented in the field notebook. 4.5.3 Confirmational Monitoring The soil excavation activities are intended to remove the source soils for shallow ground water impacts. Confirmational monitoring is intended to confirm the long-term effectiveness of the remedial action (WAC 173-340-410(c)). For the Site, confirmation monitoring will require the installation and periodic monitoring of several appropriately sited monitoring wells. The locations of monitoring wells will be ENVIRONMENTAL PARTN E R S I N C 24 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 based upon the final limits of remedial excavation and accessibility after completion of Subject Property redevelopment. Natural attenuation will likely be sufficient to address residual impacts to ground water after the source materials at the Site have been removed. EPI anticipates that ground water monitoring wells will be installed after completion of contaminated soil excavation, as described in Section 4.6. After the new monitoring wells are installed and developed, a ground water monitoring program will be implemented to demonstrate that applicable ground water CULs have been attained and/or that a conditional point of compliance at the property boundary is warranted. The compliance ground water monitoring program will include, at a minimum, four quarters of ground water sampling and analysis from the new monitoring wells to demonstrate attainment of the ground water CULs at the standard or conditional points of compliance, pending approval by Ecology. 4.6 Post -Remedial Ground Water Monitoring Well Installation Monitoring wells will be installed at the Site to demonstrate that ground water associated with Areas 1 and 2 achieves and maintains COC concentrations in compliance with the Site -specific CULs. Proposed locations for these new wells are shown in Figure 6, although actual locations will be dependent on the location of newly constructed structures and utilities after redevelopment is complete. The new wells will be installed using standard hollow -stem auger drilling techniques in accordance with all Ecology well construction regulations under WAC 173-160. Boreholes for the new wells will be sampled and logged following the procedures described below. 4.6.1 Geologic Logging and Field Screening Procedures Soil samples will be obtained for geologic logging as part of the drilling and well installation task. Samples will be obtained using decontaminated split -spoon samplers. The split -spoon sampler will not be equipped with liners for samples that are intended for geologic logging purposes only. The split - spoon sampler will be decontaminated prior to use and between each sample using a hot water pressure washer. The split -spoon sampler will be driven through an 18-inch interval using either a down -hole hammer or slide hammer attached to drilling rods. Blow counts will be obtained during soil sampling following American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D-1586-99 standards. Upon either driving the sampler a total of 18 inches or encountering refusal (i.e., more than 50 blows per 6-inch interval), the sampler will be retrieved and the samples removed. For all samples, a non -slough portion of the soil samples will be field screened to check for indications of the presence of VOCs and separate -phase hydrocarbons. Field personnel will use a PID to test for the presence of VOCs and sheen testing to screen for the presence of separate -phase hydrocarbons. The PID will be calibrated with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene standard prior to use each day following instrument manufacturer's calibration guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 25 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320th Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 For PID screening, a portion of the soil sample will be placed in a ZiplocTM-type plastic bag, sealed, disaggregated, and allowed to sit undisturbed for approximately 10 minutes. The PID inlet tube will then be inserted into the bag and the highest observed reading will be recorded. For sheen testing, a portion of the sample will be placed in a clean polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-coated pan (or equivalent) sprayed with a small amount of distilled water, and a qualitative assessment of any observed sheen will be recorded. The results of field screening will be noted in the field logbook and on the boring logs. 4.6.2 Monitoring Well Construction Monitoring wells will be constructed of 2-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe with 10 feet of 10-slot well screen set in 10-20 Colorado silica sand (CSSI), 2/12 Monterey, or equivalent silica sand filter pack. The wells will be screened across the water table with approximately 5 feet of screen above and 5 feet of screen below the water table at the time of drilling. The sand filter pack will be installed by pouring sand into the annulus between the well casing and auger as the auger is withdrawn. A weighted tape will be used to monitor filter pack placement and depth during installation. The sand filter pack will extend approximately 12 inches above the top of the screened interval. An approximate 1- foot-thick seal of hydrated bentonite chips will be installed in the annular space immediately above the sand filter pack and hydrated with potable water. The remainder of the annular space will be sealed with bentonite grout or hydrated bentonite chips to within 1 foot of the ground surface. The new wells will be secured with traffic -rated, flush -completion steel protective monuments set in concrete. The monuments will be raised approximately 1 inch above the existing grade with a sloping concrete pad to minimize the potential for surface water entering the monument. Down -hole well components will be either factory -decontaminated and in their original sealed packaging or hot water pressure -washed to the satisfaction of the on -Site EPI geologist or engineer prior to installation. 4.6.3 Monitoring Well Development New monitoring wells will be developed using a combination of pumping and surging. Well development will be completed by continuous pumping at a steady rate using a peristaltic pump, or equivalent. Well development equipment used inside a well will be either new single -use equipment, new, dedicated equipment, or will be decontaminated by hot water pressure washing to the satisfaction of the on -Site EPI geologist or engineer. Well development will be terminated when the turbidity of the discharge water decreases to less than 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or to the satisfaction of the on -Site EPI geologist or engineer. 4.7 Interim Action Report An Interim Action Report (IAR) will be prepared upon completion of the activities described herein. The IAR will document the activities performed during the remedial excavation, the results of the remedial activities and related sampling and analysis, and the conclusions supported by those results. The IAR will include the following: ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 26 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way, Washington October 21, 2013 • A narrative description of the scope of work performed; • A discussion of the performance monitoring results and an assessment of compliance with site -specific cleanup levels; • Tabulated summaries of field screening results and analytical data; • A map showing the final limits of the soil excavations and soil sampling locations; • As -built diagrams of infiltration galleries; • A tabulated summary of soil disposal volumes; • Boring logs and as -built diagrams for new post -remedial monitoring wells; • A printed copy of analytical laboratory reports; • Copies of treatment facility tipping receipts; and • Any other information pertinent to the implementation of the soil and ground water remediation. 5.0 SITE CLOSURE EPI will assist DevCo with the preparation and submittal of the required Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) application documents to Ecology along with the final IAR. If, at the completion of the IAR and initial round of ground water sampling, the data indicate the Site is in compliance with all provisions of MTCA, DevCo may petition Ecology for an NFA determination for the Site. Ground water samples will be collected from the network of newly installed ground water monitoring wells for at least four consecutive quarters and analyzed for the COCs listed in Table 2. If concentrations of all the COCs are less the site -specific levels listed after four quarters, then it is anticipated that DevCo will petition Ecology for an unconditional NFA determination for the Site. 6.0 LIMITATIONS To the extent that preparation of this Draft IAP has required the application of best professional judgment and the application of scientific principles, certain results of this work have been based on subjective interpretation. EPI makes no warranties express or implied, including and without limitation, warranties as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. The information provided in this Draft IAP is not to be construed as legal advice. This Draft IAP was prepared solely for DevCo and the contents herein may not be used or relied upon by any other person without the express written consent and authorization of EPI. ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS INC 27 Interim Action Work Plan Former Federal Way School District Maintenance Yard 1066 South 320" Street, Federal Way. Washington October 21, 2013 7.0 REFERENCES The following documents were reviewed or used in preparation of this IAP. • Subsurface Petroleum Hydrocarbon Evaluation, Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc., dated May 1989 (RZA 1989a). • Hydrocarbon Contamination Remediation Status Report, Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. letter report, dated September 21, 1989 (RZA 1989b). • Results of Laboratory Tests on Soil Waste Pile, Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. letter report, dated November 20, 1989 (RZA 1989c). • Site Assessment, Underground Storage Tank Closure, Nowicki & Associates, Inc. letter report, dated April 30, 1992 (Nowicki 1992). • Soil Sampling at Transportation Facility, • Nowicki & Associates, Inc. letter report, dated December 9, 1998 (Nowicki 1998). • UST Notice of Non -Compliance, Washington State Department of Ecology, field Notice of Non -Compliance Form, dated January 30, 2003 (Ecology 2003). • EPA Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement, EPA field Compliance Order, dated October 21, 2008 (EPA 2008). UST Notice of Non -Compliance, Ecology field Notice of Non -Compliance Form, dated April 13, 2011 (Ecology 2011). • Federal Way Public Schools, Old Maintenance, Operations & Transportation Center, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Final Report, EHS—International, Inc., dated June 8, 2012 (EHSI 2012a). • Federal Way Public Schools, Old Maintenance, Operations & Transportation Center, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Final Report, EHS—International, Inc., dated June 26, 2012 (EHSI 2012b). • Status Update Letter, Ecology Site Status Letter, dated February 28, 2013 (Ecology 2013). • Soil boring logs and laboratory analytical data, Earth Solutions Northwest Inc., unpublished data for February 2013 assessment activities (ESNW 2013). • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Subsurface Investigation, Environmental Partners, Inc., dated August 15, 2013 (EPI 2013). ENVI RON MENTAL PARTNERS I N C 28 Figures �• r�y I:i 1; - .may rti j ' I .r�� 1, 3 � •r` J i __ �.,� •� r � _ �� = :� f fly: ���; ,� .��� � A - r { 'pot. I.I i s ` reatr Steel L ks Ta �tlag # + AST. r leered Ad - I r Ll N. �.� ARK 391 1465 Wy . � T� •r FIGURE 1 �•,� + GENERAL VICINITY MAP PRE FARED r E N V I R O N M E N T A L BY PARTNERS INC � t NO1ES• . SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE ,a��, REPORT INTERIM ACTION WORK PLAN (TOPOGRAPHIC) I FORMER FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD N LOCAT/ON POVERTY BAY, WA -- �,� 1066 S. 320TH ST, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 1961�' _ { PREPARED DEVCO, INC. REVISED 1994 _ +` * I FOR SCALE=>.74,000 34B7H ST DATE DRAWNBY RWBW ,0BV PRO✓ECTN/MBER ' ��� 10/8/13 ALW ELC 64302.0 LANDSCAPING _ _ STORAGE AREA j, k a GRAVEL PARKING IQ! link O W a . DISTRICT WAREHOUSE BUILDING -V ASPHALT - TRAINING = - — PARKING I CLASSROOM OFFICES;: F MOT -ES., e-- APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY N 0 25 50 100 SCALE.- 1"= 100' ASPHAL PARKIN — r� VEHICLE�i MAINTENANCE BUILDING z J GRAVEL v e ENTRANCE - FIGURE 2 SSYOTf/ST SUBJECT PROPERTY REPRESENTATION PREPARED I E N V I R O N M E N T A L BY P A R T N E R S I NC �. REPORT INTERIM ACTION WORK PLAN `SAFEWAY LOCATION FORMER FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD -UEL CENTER 1066 S. 320TH ST. FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON PREPARED DEVCO, INC. E FOR DATE DR4WNBY 10/6/13 ALW REWEWEDBY I PROJECTNUMBER ELC 64302.0 f a eeI 40 _-,I I I . . . . BH-9 _y S n. PI-B9 ESNW B.7 �EPi$1 `ESNW B-4 dPf-B8 - r �BH.3 (� ! EPi-B11 F! RFA 1 'EPI-BS; i ❑ESNW B-! i•y . � C �EP1-S6 t EPI-B2 ESN_ W B-1.,. I L' � EPI•B1 - EPI-B10 o -- AREA2 N[W- HOIST �E "AREA 3 •- - _.7 BH 1 BH-4 .. SH-7 BH•8 } BH-1 EPI-BT• BH-11' BH-2 EXISTING USTS�/ AWES.' —_— APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY N ESNW B-2Q ESNW SOIL BORING LOCATION EPI-11313Q EPI SOIL BORING LOCATION 13144 ❑ EHSI SOIL BORING LOCATION HA-2 X EPI HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION 0 NI10 20 40 WJ� EXISTING MONITORING WELL ----- ESTIMATED AREA OF IMPACTS SCALE' I"=40" FIGURE 3 APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF EXCAVATIONS FOR AREAS 1 THROUGH 3, MAINTENANCE BUILDING PREBBy I I P A R T N E R S I N C A L I REPORT I INTERIM ACTION WORK PLAN 1.0CA710N I FORMER AI 1066 S. 320THH SRTAF DAERAL WAOYL WY L WASHINGDISTRICTTONNTENANCE YARD I PREPARED I DEVCO. INC. FOR DATE I DR4WNBY I REWIEWFDBY I PRadECTN!/MBER 10/10/13 ARM ELC 64302.0 4WD gam A. F' �P � f Z. ... �. _' •f�� Ivy e V i m.` ti• i NOTES.• —® APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY N EPI-9730 EPI SOIL BORING LOCATION 13144F1 EHSI SOIL BORING LOCATION HA4 X EPI HAND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATION -- ESTIMATED AREA OF IMPACTS 0 10 20 40 SCALE, 1"=40' BH-10, I Ir FIGURE 4 APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF EXCAVATION, AREA 4, FORMER WASTE STORAGE AREA PREPARED I E N V I R O N M E N T A L BY 1 P A R T N E R S I N C REPORT INTERIM ACTION WORK PLAN LOCABON FORMER FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD 1066 S. 320TH ST, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON PREPARED DEVCO, INC. FOR OATE OR4WNBY REWEWEOBY vRO✓ECrNUMBFR 10/10/13 ARM ELC 64302.0 '^' Yam!_~�,• � I ��� � r- f APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF• PROPOSED APT BUILDING F: Alm - I APPROXIMATE (FLOW DIRECT[ P ,-k 'A t NIW 1 yl,�A OF GROUND WATER Zj INFILTRATION GALLERY r - %t AREA 2 , �• -�� �� I R i� HOISTAAYV-6 I INFILTRATION GALLERY MAy, - - -""AREA 3 ! % NNY-9. HOIST w.a I w. f, ' �` ----- ;rat I41W 7 Y- -4 AREA 1F UW4 f FIGURE 5 POTENTIAL INFILTRATION GALLERIES AND POST- REMEDIATION GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS NOTES.• APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY PREPARED E N V I R O N M E N T A L 2" BLANK PIPING BY QI PARTNERS INC CREPORlrl INTERIM ACTION WORK PLAN oo=mm=o=_. 0.020 SLOT 2" SCREEN W/END CAP N FLUSH MOUNT VAULT }, POTENTIAL MONITORING WELL FORMER FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICT MAINTENANCE YARD MW-1�r FINAL LOCATION AND NUMBER OF WELLS r N 1066 S. 320TH ST, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON TO BE DETERMINED l ESTIMATED AREA OFMPACTS 1 PREPARED 0 10 20 40 FOR DEVCO, INC_ * ACTUAL LOCATION OF INFILTRATION GALLERIES WILL BE DEPENDENT ON SITE REDEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES DATE DRAHWBY REVIEWFDBY AWWECTN!/MBER SCALE 1"= 90' 10/10/13 ARM ELC 64302.0 Attachment A JEM Input Parameters and CUL Comparison Table DATA ENTRY SHEET SL.-SCREEN CALCULATE RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" In "YES" box) ersion 3.1; 02/0 YES 0 Reset to OR Defaults CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box and initial soil conc. below) YES ENTER ENTER Initial Chemical soil CAS No. conc., (numbers only, CR no dashes) (U/kg) Chemical 714K Benzene ENTER ENTRR, fFiTFR ENTER MORE Depth below grade Vadose zone User -defined to bottom Depth below Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed grade to top soil soil type soil vapor space floor, of contamination, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Lt Ts soil vapor k 10 ENTER EN-1 ER ENTER ENTER ENTER Em-• - MORE Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor y SCS soil dry soil total soil water -filled soil organic flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, carbon fraction, (Leave blank to calculate) Lo V.P $09 pbA nv 0wv %. Q PAro"Ill71i (.a/cm') (unitless) (cm3/cm3) (unitless)_ �SLIm) S '.G2 1 0.39 0.07,5 1 0.002 5 INTER FINITE EtTEP ENTER CNTER MORE Averaging Averaging Target Target hazard time for time for Exposure Exposure risk for quotient for carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, carcinogens, noncarcmogens, ATc ATNc ED EF TR THQ rs rs) (yrs) (days/yr) (unitless) (unitless) END Used to calculate risk -based 1 of 4 RESULTS SHEET RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental Hazard Indoor Indoor Risk -based Final risk from quotient exposure exposure indoor Soil indoor vapor from vapor soil soil exposure saturation exposure intrusion to intrusion to conc., conc., soil conc., soil indoor air, indoor air, carcinogen noncaranogen conc., Csat conc., carcinogen nonaaranogen (u9/kg) (µ9/k9) (µg/kg) (µg/k9) (µ9/k9) (unitless) (unitless) 3.06E-01 1 3.67E+01 I 3.06E-01 I 3.35E+05 I 3.06E-01 NA NA MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: MESSAGE: The values of Csource and Cbuilding on the INTERCALCS worksheet are based on unity and do not represent actual values. END SL-SCREEN-Benzene.xls 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET SL-SCREEN CALCULATE RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box) ersion 3.1; 0�117 YES X Reset to OR Defaults CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box and initial soil conc. below) YES I ENTER ENTER Initial Chemical soil CAS No. conc., (numbers only, CR no dashes) (ig/kg) Chemical 100414 1 Eth lbenzene ENTER MORE Depth ENTER F:NTFR ENTRR y below grade Vadose zone User -defined to bottom Depth below Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed grade to top soil soil type soil vapor space floor, of contamination, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Lt TS soil vapor k 10 I:Nfi;, ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER MORE Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor J�I SCS soil dry soil total soil water -filled soil organic flow rate into bldg. soil bulk density, porosity, porosity, carbon fraction, (Leave blank to calculate) LOnkuP Sa P,A nv 0.v f"cV Q.A Purmel"n ( /cm3) (unitless) (cm'/cm') (unitless) (Um) LS 1.fi2 0.39 0.07E 0.002 5 ENTER ENTER ENTER EIWER. ENTER MORE Averaging Averaging Target Target hazard time for time for Exposure Exposure risk for quotient for carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, ATc ATNc ED EF TR THQ n; rs) vrsl (da s/vr) (unitless) (unitless) Used to calculate risk -based END soil concentration. 1 of 4 RESULTS SHEET RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental Hazard Indoor Indoor Risk -based Final risk from quotient exposure exposure indoor Soil indoor vapor from vapor soil soil exposure saturation exposure intrusion to intrusion to conc., conc., soil conc., soil indoor air, indoor air, carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., Ct conc., carcinogen noncarcinogen _(ug/kg) (ug/kg) (gig/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) unitless unitless NA 4.11 E"+03 1 4.11 E+03 I 1.35E+05 I 4.11E+ I NA NA MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: MESSAGE: The values of Csource and Cbuilding on the INTERCALCS worksheet are based on unity and do not represent actual values. ENQ SL-SCREEN-Ethylbenzene.xls 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET SI_-SCREEN CALCULATE RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box) ersion 3.1; 02/0 r YES 0 I Reset to Defaults CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box and initial soil conc. below) YES I ENTER ENTER Initial Chemical soil CAS No. conc., (numbers only, CR no dashes) (a/kg) Chemical 108883 1 1Toluene ENTER. MORE Depth J� below grade to bottom Depth below of enclosed grade to top space floor, of contamination, LF Lt 3114 ENTER Vadose zone Average SCS soil soil type temperature, (used to estimate Ts I soil vapor 10 User -defined vadose zone soil vapor OR permeability, k EWER EWER ENTE.:R ERg1 _'�R ENTER ENTER MORE Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor y SCS soil dry soil total soil water -filled soil organic flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk density, porosity, porosity, carbon fraction, (Leave blank to calculate) • Look" Sod Pb" nv 9.v f"oV %dl P81�m Bluff+ 7 (a/cm3) (unitless) fCm3/Gm3) (unitless) (r./M) LS 1.62 0.39 0.076 0.002 5 ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER MORE Averaging Averaging Target Target hazard time for time for Exposure Exposure risk for quotient for carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, ATc ATNc ED EF TR THQ (yrs) (vrs) (vrs) (days/yr) (unitless) (unitless) Used to calculate risk -based END so,, concentration. t of 4 RESULTS SHEET RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental Hazard Indoor Indoor Risk -based Final risk from quotient exposure exposure indoor Soil indoor vapor from vapor soil soil exposure saturation exposure intrusion to intrusion to cons., conc., soil conc., soil indoor air, indoor air, carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., Csat conc., carcinogen noncarcinogen (gg/kg) (µg/kg) (ug/kg) (µg/kg) (ug/kg) (unitless)(unitless) NA 8.79E+02 I 8.79E j O2 I 2.29E+05 1 8.791+ NA NA MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: MESSAGE: The values of Csource and Cbuilding on the INTERCALCS worksheet are based on unity and do not represent actual values. END SL-SCREEN-Toluene.xls t of t DATA ENTRY SHEET SL-SCREEN CALCULATE RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box) ersian 3.1; 021t7 YES 0 Reset to OR Defaults CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box and initial soil conc. below) YES ENTER ENTER Initial Chemical soil CAS No. conc., (numbers only, CR no dashes) (µg/kg) Chemical 106423 i-Xylene ENTER ENTER ENTER r-M-i F.R LNTER MORE Depth below grade Vadose zone User -defined to bottom Depth below Average SCS vadose zone of enclosed grade to top soil soil type soil vapor space floor, of contamination, temperature, (used to estimate OR permeability, LF Lt Ts soil vapor k [ 5 n, 2no r,,,i lrml f`C1 rrtrmaahilily] r—') ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER MORE Vandose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Average vapor SCS soil dry soil total soil water -filled soil organic flow rate into bldg. soil type bulk denslty, porosity, porosity, carbon fraction, (Leave blank to calculate) la"kwP SCS peA nv 6,v f.V Qsdi a,romekn[s (g/Cm3) (unitless) (cm3/cm3) (unitless)_ (Urn) LS 1.62 0.39 ,}i 2 5 ENTER ENTER ENTER ENT- ER MORE Averaging Averaging Target Target hazard y time for time for Exposure Exposure risk for quotient for carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, carcinogens, noncarcinogens, ATE ATNc ED EF TR THQ (vrs)_ _ (yrs) (yrs) (days/vr) (unitless) (unitless) Used to calculate risk -based END soil concentration. 1 of 4 RESULTS SHEET RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental Hazard Indoor Indoor Risk -based Final risk from quotient exposure exposure indoor Soil indoor vapor from vapor soil soil exposure saturation exposure intrusion to intrusion to conc., conc., soil conc., soil indoor air, indoor air, carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., Ct conc., carcinogen noncarcinogen (ug/kg)_ (u9/k9) (t+g/kg) (u9/k9) (va/k9) (unitless) (unitless) NA 4.46E+02 I 4.46E+OZ I 1.57E+05 I 4.46E+02 NA NA MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: MESSAGE: The values of Csource and Cbuilding on the INTERCALCS worksheet are based on unity and do not represent actual values. END SL-SCREEN-p-xylene.xls 1 of 1 DATA ENTRY SHEET SL-SCREEN CALCULATE RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box) ersion 3.1; 021D YES—J Reset to OR DefauRs CALCULATE INCREMENTAL RISKS FROM ACTUAL SOIL CONCENTRATION (enter "X" in "YES" box and initial soil conc. below) YES 0 ENTER Initial Chemical soil CAS No. conc., (numbers only, CR no dashed (µg/kg) Chemical 91203 Na hthalene ENTER. MORE Depth y below grade to bottom of enclosed space floor, LF FNTEP ENTER Vadose zone Depth below Average SCS grade to top soil soil type I of contamination, temperature, (used to estimate Lt Ts soil vapor 304 OP. User -defined vadose zone soil vapor permeability, k • 4 MORE Vandose zone SCS soli EN? .R, Vadose zone soil dry bulk density, ENTER Vadose zone soil total porosity, ENTER Vadose zone soil water -filled porosity, ENTER Vadose zone soil organic carbon fraction, ENTER Average vapor flow rate into bldg. (Leave blank to calculate) CookuD Sol PbA Iry ewv f � Q61 P l�Amnpr6 (g/cm3) (unitless) (cm3/Cm3) (unitless) LS 1 1.62 1 0.39 1 0.075 1 0.002 ENTER. ENTER ENTER. ENTER. ENTER ENTER MORE Averaging Averaging Target Target hazard time for time for Exposure Exposure risk for quotient for carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency, carcinogens, noncarcnogens, ATc ATNc ED EF TR THQ (yrs) (yrs) (yrs) days/yr) (unitless) (unitless) Used to calculate risk -based END soil concentration. 1 of 4 RESULTS SHEET RISK -BASED SOIL CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS: Incremental Hazard Indoor Indoor Risk -based Final risk from quotient exposure exposure indoor Soil indoor vapor from vapor soil soil exposure saturation exposure intrusion to intrusion to conc., conc., soil conc., soil indoor air, indoor air, carcinogen noncarcinogen conc., Cat conc., carcinogen noncarcinogen (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (u/kg) (-a/kg) (ug/kg) (unitless) (unitless) NA 1.55E+03 I 1.5SEr03 1 1.25C+05 1 1.SSE�03 NA NA MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW: MESSAGE: The values of Csource and Cbuilding on the INTERCALCS worksheet are based on unity and do not represent actual values. ENO SL-SCREEN-Naphthalene.xls 1 of 1 Attachment B VI Predictive Tool �.,.� MIEZiAITCCI G_VI?FH L'C!iCe!itriqiun Predicted GW Adj Ha Predicted Subsurface Vapor ElUe. VAF Predicted Indoor Air Hazard Index (HI) Inhalation RFD {gh ug/L unitless ug/m3 unities,: ug/m3 unitless mg/kg-day 40 1,000 AL_EC>5-6 0 2.23E+01 182 0 0.0 1.7 AL_EC>6-8 0 3.13E+01 8,489 8 0.0 1.7 AL_EC >8-10 0 4.47E+01 14,537 15 0.1 0.085 AL_EC>10-12 0 6.26E+01 7,632 8 0.1 0.085 AL-EC>12-16 0 2.60E+02 0 0 0.0 0.085 AL -EC >16-21 0 1.43E+03 0 0 AL_EC>21-34 0 2.91E+04 0 0 AR_EC>8-10 9 2.74E-01 2,522 3 0.0 0.114 AR_EC>10-12 15 7.26E-02 1,081 1 0.8 0.00086 AR -EC >12-16 7 2.66E-02 188 0 0.0 0.05 AR_EC>16-21 0 6.20E-03 0 0 AR -EC >21-34 0 2.86E-04 0 0 Benzene 0 1.41E-01 1 0 0.0 0.00855 Toluene 1 1.62E-01 90 0 0.0 1.4 Ethylbenzene 0 1.84E-01 67 0 0.0 0.286 Total Xylenes 4 2.28E-01 805 1 0.0 0.029 Total Naphthalenes 4 1.39E-02 51 0 0.0 0.00086 2-Methyl Naphthalene 0 1.06E-02 0 0 0.0 0.0D086 n-Hexane 0 1.04E-02 0 0 0.0 0.2 MTBE 0 1.06E-02 0 0 0.0 0.857 Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) 0 4.71E+01 0 0 0.0 0.00257 1,2 Dichloroethane (EDC) 0 1.16E-02 0 0 0.0 0.0014 40 35,643 36 1.0 ALEC >5-6 AL EC >6-8 AL -EC >8-10 AL -EC >10-12 AL EC >12-16 AL -EC >16-21 AL -EC >21-34 AR EC >8-10 AR EC >10-12 AR -EC >12-16 AR -EC >16-21 AR -EC >21-34 Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes Total Naphthalenes 2-Methyl Naphthalene n-Hexane MTBE Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) 1,2 Dichloroethane (EDC) Fresh 1 2 10.74% 6.31% 2.19% 3.13% 0.06% 0.17% 0.01% 0.02% 3 4 5 6 2.87% 1.02% 0.29% 0.08% 3.59% 2.77% 1.99% 1.18`Yo 0.45% 0.58% 0.69% 0.79% 0.09% 0.15% 0.18% 0.25% Weathered 7 0.02% 0.68% 0.81% 0.30% 4.01% 7.01% 10.68% 15.18% 19.71% 21.97% 23.03% 3.77% 7.59% 13.38% 20.29% 27.68% 33.24% 37.26% 0.91% 2.32% 5.39% 8.32% 11.74% 14.93% 17.61% 16.71% 7.41% 2.78% 1.02% 0.31% 0.09% 0.02% 31.56% 26.41% 18.13% 12.12% 5.98% 3.10% 1.39% 4.78% 6.02% 6.01% 5.11% 2.44% 1.55% 0.91% 24.15% 31.28% 32.32% 27.15% 21.48% 14.37% 8.81% 1.11% 2.32% 4.31% 6.28% 7.53% 8.45% 9.15% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% E:a,_ teas.,tic s° 'V 7vil Concenm"JO;: Predicted_ Ad] H. Predicted Subsurface Vapor n'er VAF- P or En' Predicted Indoor Air Hazard Index (HI) Inhalation RFD UOL 90 ug/L unitless ug/m3 unkless ug/m3 unitless mg/kg-day 1000 AL -EC >5-6 1 2.23E+01 22,110 22 0.0 AL -EC >6-8 1 3.13E+01 36,652 37 1.7 AL_EC>8-10 0 4.47E+01 12,071 12 0 0.0 1.7 AL EC _ 0 6.26E+01 5,633 0. 0085 AL- EC>1 0 2.60E+02 0 6 0.0 0.085 ALEC > _EC 0 1.43E+03 0 0 0.0 0.085 AL_EC>21-34 0 2.91E+04 0 0 AR_EC> 32 2.74E-01 8,894 0 9 AR _EC>10-12--16 15 7.26E-02 1,104 0.0 0.114 AR_EC>1621 28 2.66E-02 753 1 0.8 0.00086 AR_EC>- 2 6.20E-03 10 1 0.0 0.05 AR_EC>21-34 0 2.86E-04 0 p Benzene 2 1.41E-01 229 0 0 Toluene 1.62E-01 1,033 0.0 0.00855 Ethy6 0 1.84E-01 0 1 0.0 1.4 TotalXylenesbenzene TotalNaphts 0 2.28E-01 0 0 0.0 0.286 Total Naphthalenes 1 1.39E-02 7 0 0.0 0.029 2-Methyl Naphthalene 1 1.06E-02 14 0 0.0 0.00086 n-Hexane 0 1.04E-02 0 0 0.0 0.00086 MTBE 0 1.06E-02 0 0 0.0 0.2 Ethylene Dibromide 0 4.71E+01 0 0 0.0 0.857 1,2 Dichloroethane (EDC) DC) 0 1.16E-02 0 0 0.0 0.00257 0 0.0 0.0014 90 88,509 89 1.0 Fresh Weathered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AL EC >5-6 1.60% 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 1.20% 1.10% 1.10% AL -EC >6-8 1.20% 1.20% 1.20% 1.20% 1.30% 1.30% 1.30`Yo AL_EC >8-10 0.20% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% AL -EC >10-12 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% AL -EC >12-16 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% AL -EC >16-21 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% AL -EC >21-34 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% AR EC >8-10 32.40% 33.70% 34.70% 34.70% 35.70% 36.10% 36.10% AR -EC >10-12 14.70% 15.50% 16.00% 16.00% 16.60% 16.90% 16.90% AR -EC >12-16 27.00% 28.40% 29.60% 29.60% 30.70% 31.40% 31.40% AR -EC >16-21 1.50% 1.60% 1.70% 1.70% 1.70% 1.80% 1.80% AR -EC >21-34 Benzene 7.30% 5.10% 3.70% 3.70% 2.60% 1.80% 1.80% Toluene 12.10% 10.80% 9.40% 9.40% 7.80% 7.10% 7.10% Ethylbenzene Total Xylenes Total Naphthalenes 0.50% 0.50% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 2-Methyl Naphthalene 1.30% 1.40% 1.40% 1.40% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% n-Hexane MTBE Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) 1,2 Dichloroethane (EDC) 99.90% 100.00% 100.10% 100.10% 100.10% 100.00% 100.00% f _C�. ir' C7 � 1_ ir► � I � i i I C 1� �jq �,A LAJ )�, (ck�,S-6( v j^ �r� 1SCY1 Ii� 103SS 317 �}, ''�/ TttScGi(C C(DMCaS: w,-wah rcc��t ►lbw 1803 -31G(1� (sfivc;Sj-*--lc)) °tom 3 t SVJ e- l t sue.. QA rQla�so,r, � �wa.�t�►�-rat ;cam A Gilles Consulting Brian K. Gilles 4 2 5- 8 2 2- 4 9 9 4 OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR I C HIGH POINT MIXED USE South 320TH Street Between 11te and 13' Avenues, South Federal Way, WA 98003 December 9, 2014 PREPARED FOR: Ann Olsen, Associate Talasaea Consultants 15020 Bear Creek Rd NE Woodinville, WA 98077 APPRO PLANNIr o�.�c.�r�►on+t wndts PREPARED BY: DEC 19 2014 GILLES CONSULTING CITY OF FEDERAL MY Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist cDs ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418 ISA TRAQ Qualified ISA TRAQ Certified Instructor I y9CMTV of fw — ascu •c�'.F y y AMERICAN SOCIETY of L�C.+D w� MEMBER INS ARBOR YTS $�P °; A� fax: 425-822-6314 email: bkgilles@comcast.net P.O. Box 2366 Kirkland, WA 98083 Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ith and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 2 of 31 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4 LANDSCAPE AREA MAINTNENANCE..................................................................... 5 Specific Landscape Area BMP's.................................................................................... 5 SpecificLawn Area BMP's............................................................................................ 7 RAIN GARDEN MAINTENANCE................................................................................ 8 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE..................................................................................10 AnnualMaintenance BUT............................................................................................ 10 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT.....................................................................11 A. Definition of IPM..................................................................................................... 11 B. Components of an IPM Approach............................................................................ 13 C. Management of Methods.......................................................................................... 16 D. Record Keeping...................................................................._.................................. 16 E. Training................................................................................................................... 17 PESTICIDE, FERTILIZER, AND HERBICIDE CONTROL...................................18 SOLIDWASTE............................................................................................................... 20 PRESSUREWASHING................................................................................................. 22 Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t' and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 3 of 31 BUILDING REPAIR AND PAINTING....................................................................... 22 CLEANINGHARD SURFACES.................................................................................. 23 LIQUID MATERIAL HANDLING AND STORAGE ................................................ 24 SPILLCONTROL.......................................................................................................... 24 WAIVEROF LIABILITY............................................................................................. 25 ATTACHMENTS........................................................................................................... 26 Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320'H Street Between 11t' and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 4 of 31 INTRODUCTION This operations and management manual for the High Point Mixed Use development has been prepared fulfill the requirement of the Federal Way Revised Code section 19.185.070, titled, Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. The section requires, "Proposed developments with maintained landscaped areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area which require review under FWRC Title 14, Environmental Policy, and Title 15, Shoreline Management, shall prepare an operations and management manual using best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) for fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications... " The stormwater and groundwater pollution -prevention BMPs in this plan should be implemented when the following work tasks are performed on all High Point owned, maintained or operated landscape areas: ■ Routine landscape management, • Rain Garden Maintenance, • Integrated Pest Management. ■ Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Herbicide Control, • Solid Waste Management, • Pressure Washing Buildings and Exterior Surfaces, • Building Repair and Painting, • Cleaning hard surface areas such as driveways and sidewalks, • Liquid Material Handling and Storage, and • Spill control. The BMPs in this plan describe the necessity of performing the work tasks, as well as how to do the work so that both stormwater flowing over and off High Point property areas as well as infiltrating into the ground on the High Point Property is kept as clean and unpolluted as possible. The primary goal is to protect groundwater quality within the wellhead protection area. By fully implementing the stormwater pollution preventing BMPs described in this section this goal will be achieved. If a staff or contract worker or crew is unclear on how to perform either a work task or how to implement the stormwater pollution preventing BMPs described here, staff needs to check with supervisors. If a supervisor is not clear on the best way to implement any BMP, he/she should contact King County Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) Stormwater Services for clarification. If these maintenance activities are to be contracted out, High Point shall inform the contractor of the provisions within this operations management manual that are relevant to the work being performed. High Point management will be responsible to ensure that Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 1 lth and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 5 of 31 all recommendations for best management practices in the plan are carried out by any and all contractors and sub -contractors. LANDSCAPE AREA MAINTNENANCE Purpose of Maintenance: Pesticide residue, debris, oil, grease, hydrocarbons, and contaminated water could run from the landscape areas and lawn into the storm water system. These pollutants can be carried to nearby streams or wellhead areas. Also, the process of performing the maintenance can release sediments (and pollutants attached or suspended in these sediments can get into the stormwater system. It is important to think about and plan for routine landscape maintenance in advance to prevent unwanted sediment and pollutant runoff into the stormwater system. Description of BMP: Landscape areas, and the lawn area must be inspected annually for physical defects. After major storm events, the gardens and lawn should be checked to see that erosion or other damage has not occurred and washed mulch and/or soil into the gutters or catch basins. Erosion channels or bare spots should be stabilized with soil, plant material, mulch, or landscape rock as soon as practical. It is likely that the overall landscape for High Point development will go through a "shakes out" process for one to three years. In this time the maintenance manager will learn what areas require more attention than others, where problems arise on a consistent basis, and what to anticipate in the future for landscape maintenance. As the landscape settles into a long-term maintenance management routine, additional funds must be made available in the first three years of maintenance after the completion of the project for the maintenance manager to properly respond and minimize any stormwater run-off issues. Irrigation management and maintenance will be important to the success of the project. It is covered in its own section below. Vegetation should be managed as follows: • Replace all dead vegetation as soon as possible, • Remove all fallen leaves and debris as needed —on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. • Remove all noxious vegetation when discovered, and • Manually weed without herbicides until a threshold of invasion has occurred as described below in the Integrated Pest Management section to trigger a specific application of herbicide that is targeted and properly carried out. • Use a clean pest free mulch to prevent excess solar damage and water loss. Specific Landsca a Area BMP's • Annual inspection and review of conditions o Spring, March/April ■ Weed control: Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ph and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 6 of 31 o Invasive weeds must be manually controlled as part of the routinely scheduled maintenance. ■ Crews should have the adequate tools needed to carry this out effectively and efficiently. o Weeding should occur bi-monthly from March through October; and monthly from November through February. o Bio-debris must be collected at the time of pruning and hauled off site to an appropriate disposal site. Pruning: o Regular pruning of winter damage and excess growth to control plants from encroaching on buildings, parking lots, and sidewalks to be performed a minimum of once per year in mid to late spring, April or May or in early fall, October or November. o Bio-debris must be collected at the time of pruning and hauled off site to an appropriate disposal site. Fertilizer Applications: o Fertilizers must not be applied until the soils have been tested for nutritional content, nutrition availability, and pH. o Fertilizers must be utilized according to the Integrated Pest Management section below. o Fertilizers shall be applied according to the manufacturers' specifications. o Equipment must be calibrated annually to ensure proper and even application. o Fall application of fertilizers is preferred. Plant Replacement: o Dead and dying plants should be removed immediately as part of the weekly or monthly maintenance activities. o Their locations should be clearly identified on a site plan and their replacement planned for. o In irrigated areas, dead and dying plants should be replaced immediately. o In non -irrigated are to be scheduled for fall replanting, October or November. ■ Replanted plants are to include a basic starter fertilizer in the planting hole as well as hydrogel crystals in the hole. Sanitation: o A regular schedule must be established to collect and dispose of twig and leaf debris each fall. o The planter beds should be maintained weed and leaf free throughout the year to promote the reduction of pathogen. o In the fall, the schedule must be ramped up to a weekly leaf/twig clean up until all of the deciduous trees and shrubs have lost their leaves. o Bio-debris must be immediately removed from the site and disposed of in an approved manner. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320'H Street Between I Ph and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 7 of 31 Specific Lawn Area BMP's • Annual inspection and review of conditions o Spring, March/April • Weed control: o The primary goal is to manage the lawn area effectively and efficiently so that a healthy turf is established and maintained. This will significantly reduce the need for herbicides and other pesticides to control invasives as well as provide an aesthetically pleasing area. o When weeds do appear: ■ Weeds are to be manually removed as part of the regularly scheduled mowing schedule. • Crews, in house or contract crew members, should be outfitted with adequate hand tools to quickly and efficiently remove the weeds by hand as they are mowing, raking, edging, and blowing. ■ If the weed/invasive plant populations exceed the threshold set in the Integrated Pest Management section below, then an herbicide, or other needed pesticide, may be used based upon a clear identification of the pest, how best, and when best to treat to control it as specified below. • Pesticides should be applied according to manufacturer's specifications in conjunction with the goals of this manual and the Washington State Department of Agriculture requirement's for the purchase, mixing, application, reporting, and clean-up of registered chemicals. o Registered Chemicals: ■ Chemicals controlled by the Washington State Department of Agriculture require a current Pesticide Applicator's License to purchase, store, mix, apply, record, and cleanup all chemicals ■ An assistant can help the licensed Applicator apply the chemicals as long as they are in direct visual and auditory control o Home and Garden Pesticides: ■ Chemicals not controlled by the Washington State Department of Agriculture and requiring a Pesticide Applicator's License, (those chemicals/pesticides able to be purchased by anyone at a retail store), the same process and goals of this operations management manual must be followed. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t' and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 8 of 31 Specifically: • Pests must be clearly identified. • Treatments must be tailored for the specific pest that takes into account the threshold for control triggered by the Integrated Pest Management Section below, its life cycle, and the best time and process to apply the pesticide. • Mowing Schedule: o Regular mowing will promote a healthy turf, improve aesthetics, and reduce the ability of invasive plants and other pests to get a hold in the lawn area. The lawn area should be mowed as follows: ■ Spring/Summer/Fall Schedule: • Mowing should occur weekly from mid -March through the middle of October. • Mowing should occur bi-weekly or monthly from mid - October through mid -March. • This schedule will need to be adjusted to fit the particular weather for the year at hand. o Bio-debris must be collected at the time of pruning and hauled off site to an appropriate disposal site. • Fertilizer Applications: o Fertilizers must not be applied until the soils have been tested for nutritional content, nutrition availability, and pH. o Fertilizers must be utilized according to the Integrated Pest Management section below. o Fertilizers shall be applied according to the manufacturers' specifications. o Equipment must be calibrated annually to ensure proper and even application. o Fall application of fertilizers is preferred. RAIN GARDEN MAINTENANCE Purpose of Maintenance: Oil and grease, hydrocarbons, debris, heavy metals, sediments and contaminated water are likely carried by stormwater into rain gardens. Improperly performed maintenance tasks could release sediments (and pollutants attached to these sediments) to the stormwater conveyance system. If enough pollutants get into the rain garden, its performance as a stormwater filter can be compromised. Inspection and maintenance of rain gardens insures they achieve their flow control and water quality treatment design goals, specific to their sites. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t' and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 9 of 31 Description of BMP: Rain gardens must be inspected annually for physical defects. After major storm events, a rain garden should be checked to see that its overflow system is working properly. Erosion channels or bare spots should be stabilized with soil, plant material, mulch, or landscape rock. Supplemental watering may be needed the first year to ensure the long-term survival of the rain garden's vegetation. Vegetation should be maintained as follows: ❑ Replace all dead vegetation as soon as possible; ❑ Remove fallen leaves and debris as needed; ❑ Remove all noxious vegetation when discovered; and ❑ Manually weed without herbicides or pesticides. Use a clean pest free mulch to prevent excess solar damage and water loss. Inform residents, employees and guests of the design intent of the rain garden and enlist their assistance in keeping the rain garden clean, healthy and functional. The following sign has been suggested as a key start to this intent. Sign Detail: 12" RAIN GARrD/E/N The plants and soils in this rain garden are specifically designed to collect and treat rainwater that Flows off hard surfaces like roadways, driveways, parking lots and rooftops. The garden will soak up and filter the stonmwater before it runs off to local waters. Rain gardens remove pollutants, reduce Flooding and help recharge groundwater. Thank youfor not walking through the rain garden. R YRYR 4YN Mm.W�I bnYun.ti W.iCb�v Wey�mM nGtlrrmWry DlnaWwr 1MiV.l'�nW nY�¢ ��nn w.M.wal m Tm otir u�m�lu+wnl 1M.W bw.n TALASAEA C645i:LTh.�IT$. �C. [n.lr..meI Pl.v�lnr Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t' and 13a' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 10 of 31 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE WATER CONSERVING METHODS Purpose: Sediment, nutrients and bacteria being can be carried off sites by excessive watering and can enter the stormwater system. There will be some irrigation at the High Point development. Improperly maintained irrigation systems and overwatering can result in wasteful runoff into the stormwater system. Water conservation helps prevent this runoff. Fortunately, it also decreases the potential for pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to be carried via irrigation water in the stormwater system into natural water bodies. "Smart watering" can reduce the need for pesticides in the first place, by preventing plant diseases that can be caused by over -watering. Controlling pet waste can significantly cut the offsite runoff can decrease the amount of fecal coliform bacteria (from animal waste) entering natural waters. See the Solid Waste Control section below for specific BMP's relating to pet waste control. Description of BMPs: Water grass lawn areas when there's a loss of shine or the lingering presence of footprints these indicate dry soil. If soil is dry or compacted, stop watering after a short while, wait a short while, and then restart watering. This is known as "soaking and cycling" and prevents runoff. Annual plants should be watered at the first sign of droop, about one inch a week. Trees and shrubs usually don't need to be watered once they are fully established (two to four years old). Water in the early morning to cut down on evaporation. This allows plant leaves to dry out during the day, preventing fungal disease. Adjust the watering schedule throughout the growing season. Plants typically need much more water in July, August, and September than they do March through June. Adjust sprinkler heads to avoid "over -spraying" (discharging directly to hard surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways and parking lots). Annual Maintenance BMP The irrigation system is to be charged in the spring, April or May, by a qualified landscape technician trained in irrigation operation and maintenance. Spring charging shall include: • Turning on the system and opening the proper water vales. • The double check valve shall be inspected for proper operation. Each valve shall be exercised, that is turned on and off to ensure it is working properly. o Damaged or non-functional valves are to be replaced immediately. Each irrigation zone is to be turned on and visually inspected by the technician and/or their assistant. o Proper operation of each sprinkler, bubbler, or drip line is to be checked. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t' and 131h Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 11 of 31 o Broken or in -operational components are to be replaced immediately with any required adjustments to ensure that water is being applied where it is needed and not over -flowing onto sidewalks or parking lots. Irrigation timing: o The irrigation of each specific zone is to be adjusted multiple times in the year to ensure proper application of water reaches the intended plant roots and does not under or over water the intended plants. Related Training Needs: Employees should be trained in the selection and care of landscaping plants that require lower amounts of water. Train employees in irrigation system inspection, maintenance and repair. Train employees to properly winterize the irrigation system in mid -October every year. Train employees to properly energize and program the irrigation system every spring. This includes walking every zone and visually checking that all heads are operating correctly and that there are no major leaks or breaks in irrigation lines. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Purpose: This document outlines the Integrated Pest Management, (IPM), Program for the High Point development. These contain general implementation steps as well as specific standards and IPM strategies. These guidelines offer general information about the IPM approach and specific practices appropriate to certain activities. These include the developed landscape areas including the rain gardens, shrub beds, and the lawn area as well as information managing noxious weeds and pesticide handling. It is the intent of these guidelines to serve as the minimum standard for the program. These guidelines may need to be periodically reviewed and revised based upon new research and implementation experience. SECTION II. IPM APPROACH A. Definition of IPM 1. The following definition of IPM is based on Washington State law 17.15.010 RCW: Integrated pest management is a coordinated decision -making and action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategies in an environmentally and economically sound manner to meet agency programmatic pest management objectives. The elements of integrated pest management include: a) Preventing pest problems. b) Monitoring for the presence of pests and pest damage. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 1 lth and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 12 of 31 c) Establishing the density of the pest population; that may be set at zero, which can be tolerated or correlated with a damage level sufficient to warrant treatment of the problem based on health, public safety, economic, or aesthetic thresholds. d) Treating pest problems to reduce populations below those levels established by damage thresholds using strategies that may include biological, cultural, mechanical, and chemical control methods and that must consider human health, ecological impact, feasibility, and cost- effectiveness. e) Evaluating the effects and efficacy of pest treatments. 2. The following lists the keys of an IPM approach to pest and vegetation management: a) Integrating IPM policies into the planning for and design of the soils, vegetation and landscaping of a facility or vegetated area, as well as into maintenance practices and specific pest control tactics. b) Using a preventive approach that emphasizes using field experience, research and training about managing vegetation ecosystem and their corresponding pests to proactively develop maintenance practices to promote appropriate and healthy vegetation growth. c) Placing an emphasis on knowledge about the pest and regular monitoring of pest levels as well as evaluation of control methods applied. d) Retaining native soil and using soil amendments such as compost, as a means to improve soil structure and provide organic matter, supply slow - release nutrients to plants, suppress soil -borne diseases and plant pathogens. In addition soil preservation helps to store moisture and reduce erosion while immobilizing and degrading some pollutants. e) Using "management" and "control" approaches in preference to elimination or eradication — except in cases of certain noxious weeds and specific situations where the tolerance threshold may be zero. In general, IPM establishes an approach to manage pest problems within tolerable limits. The IPM approach encourages planning, design and maintenance of landscapes, rights - of -way, and facilities that meet their intended purposes while promoting healthy plants (where appropriate) and minimizing pest problems. The IPM approach follows a process that begins with careful planning, design and construction decisions, followed by appropriate maintenance and management of public lands, facilities, and water bodies by employees with up-to-date training, while adhering to all legal requirements. The IPM approach emphasizes a thorough knowledge of the pest or vegetation problem, predetermined tolerance thresholds, regular monitoring to determine when those levels are met, and treatment of the pest or vegetation problem with appropriate tools. Tolerance thresholds are set at levels that keep pest numbers or vegetation problems low Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320' Street Between 11t' and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 13 of 31 enough to prevent unacceptable damage, annoyance or public safety hazards while remaining economically and environmentally feasible. IPM encompasses the use of chemical controls specifically in situations where they may be the most environmentally responsible or safest way to deal with a problem, or where other control tactics have proven ineffective at meeting tolerance levels. When chemical controls are necessary, decisions on their use will consider any possible effects on aquatic life (toxicity) and any tendencies for the chemical to move in the environment (mobility). Decisions on chemical use are made in conjunction with other control methods that are effective and practical. B. Components of an IPM Approach 1. Planning and Design. It is important to take into account efforts that were included in the planning and design of the site to enhance intended uses of the land and minimize pest problems. The design has taken into account such factors as types of uses, soils, grading and slope, water table, drainage, proximity to sensitive areas, selection of vegetation, and vector control issues. 2. Soil Structure Soils play a critical role in the natural environment. Healthy soils keep disease -causing organisms in check, recycle and store nutrients, and provide an important medium for air and water to pass through. The properties of a healthy soil are similar to those of a sponge, faucet and filter. They naturally regulate the flow of water, bind and degrade pollutants. The presence of millions of macro and microorganisms in soil creates an environment where organic material is consumed and air and water are retained. Nutrients are made available to plants to allow healthy root growth and oxygen generation. Soil disturbing human activities typically degrade soil's natural functions by reducing organic matter and pore space. Plant growth in these soils is hindered by lack of nutrients from organic matter thus requiring the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. With the loss of pore space the water holding capacity of soil is reduced and erosion and surface water runoff are greatly increased which negatively impacts waterways. Additionally, soil disturbing activities often create opportunities for the introduction of invasive weeds whether by directly introducing the weeds or through creating degraded soils in which noxious weeds can propagate. Attention to soil as an IPM strategy minimizes the need for traditional pest management practices. 3. Maintenance and Landscape Health Choices of vegetation as well as maintenance practices serve to keep areas as healthy as possible and thus minimize pest problems. Appropriate selection and retention of plants, irrigation, application of compost, mulch or fertilizer, mowing, and many other practices Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t' and 13'' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 14 of 31 all serve to maintain healthy landscapes that withstand pest pressures and support natural predators for pests. A well -selected and maintained landscape reduces, often dramatically, the need for pest control. 4. Knowing the Pest Identification of pests and knowledge of their life cycles are crucial to proper management. Potential pests should be documented and actual pests carefully identified in order to clearly focus IPM strategies. Field staff shall be trained in pest identification and allotted the time to conduct regular pest assessments. Additionally field staff should be encouraged to collect samples of unidentified species for later identification by a qualified expert. 5. Determining Tolerance Thresholds Tolerance thresholds are levels of acceptable pest presence or activity that when exceeded will enact specific control actions. Tolerance thresholds must be established as part of a successful IPM program. They may vary by pest, specific location or type of land use. (Weed threshold levels, for example, will be different for rural utility rights -of - way, urban ball fields, golf course greens and road shoulders. They will also differ depending on what class of noxious weed is present.) Insect or plant disease tolerances will likewise be different depending on uses and/or specific locations on the site. The three distinct levels that may be identified as subsets of threshold determination are: a) In'pa thresholds, the level at which some injury begins to occur or is noticeable. b) Action thresholds, the level at which action must be taken to prevent a pest population at a specific site from causing aesthetic, functional, or economic harm. c) Damage thresholds, the level where unacceptable damage begins to occur. In most environments certain levels of pest presence or injury can be accepted. The IPM manager shall keep track of pests after the injury threshold is crossed so the pests do not get to the point where they can cause enough damage to impact the purpose of the landscape or facility. When the predetermined action threshold is crossed, interventions are implemented so as to avoid reaching the damage threshold. There are situations where the threshold level for pests may be set near or at zero. Laws and regulations set the population threshold level at zero for certain noxious weed species due to potential for economic injury, public health or environmental impact. Road shoulders immediately adjacent to the pavement are areas where weed tolerance is low due to public safety requirements and potential for significant economic losses should the paved roadway surface be compromised. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320' Street Between 11t' and 1P Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 15 of 31 6. Monitoring for Pests Regular monitoring to assess pest level, extent, locations and stage in life cycle is an obvious but essential part of IPM. Monitoring provides an IPM manager with critical information about pest locations, type, and prevalence as well as effectiveness of control efforts current and historical. Analysis of gathered monitoring data against established tolerances is necessary to determine when action against a pest needs to be taken. Field staff will need training in pest identification and monitoring techniques, and management will need to allow time for appropriate monitoring to take place. 7. Developing the IPM Plan The following elements should be considered when selecting appropriate strategies: a) Developing a healthy, robust landscape that contributes to the value of the site and provides for the long-term health of the area. b) Damage to the general environment. c) Disruption of those natural controls which are present. d) Hazards to human health. e) Toxicity to aquatic life, including all aspects of salmonid life cycle and salmonid foods. f) Mobility and persistence in the environment. g) Impact to non -target organisms. h) Timing relative to vulnerable periods in the pest's life cycle with the least impact on natural enemies. i) Ability to produce long-term reduction in the pest. j) Ability to be carried out effectively. k) Cost effectiveness in short and long term. 1) Ability to be measured and evaluated. 8. Implementing the IPM Plan Field staff play a crucial role in fully implementing the selected IPM strategies. However, management plays a more important role as field staff will be unable to implement IPM unless management provides that staff with the required resources. These resources will include specific training, equipment, time and a shared commitment to implementing IPM. Field staff will also need time allocated for appropriate monitoring and record keeping as IPM efforts are enacted. 9. Monitoring and Evaluation With the implementation of an IPM program, staff shall begin an ongoing effort to record relevant details of the IPM program. By keeping comprehensive records of 1PM information, evaluation of the effectiveness of the IPM methods can be undertaken to Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 1 lth and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 16 of 31 assess how well IPM is working to bring about the desired pest reductions. Evaluation of monitoring data can also help to clarify areas where staff may need additional training and promote discussion in the evaluation processes. While some IPM data requires detailed record keeping (such as pesticide usage), not all has to be elaborate or time- consuming and can be as simple as keeping a field notebook or logbook. 10. Learning and Revision The results of the evaluation of the application of specific IPM strategies will provide insights into successes and failures of the IPM program as it is enacted. By reviewing these lessons the IPM program manager can learn how to improve the IPM program to operate more effectively or efficiently. C. Management of Methods Management methods to be incorporated in an IPM approach include: 1. Cultural These are management activities that prevent pests from developing. This can be due to enhancement of desirable vegetation which is able to out -compete or otherwise resist the pests. Other efforts can be made to enhance the resistance of desirable vegetation such as, but not limited to irrigation, seeding, fertilizing, mulching, pruning and thinning. 2. Physical or Mechanical Management activities performed using physical methods and/or mechanical equipment such as hand removal, baits, traps, barriers, mowers, brush -cutters, flame or hot water weeders, blades, hoes, string trimmers, or other physical means to control pests (including undesirable vegetation). 3. Biological Management activities performed using insects, animals, birds, diseases or competing vegetation to control pests (including undesirable vegetation). Appropriate permits should be obtained from WSDA, USDA, EPA or applicable agency before release of any predator. Local noxious weed control boards should be notified of any biological control releases for noxious weed control. Research into the appropriate species for controlling the pest is needed in order for these efforts to be successful. 4. Chemical Management activities performed using chemical agents registered as pesticides by the Washington State Department of Agriculture. D. Record Keeping 1. Examples of records that may be maintained as part of an IPM program are: a) This IPM program kept in an accessible location. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11t" and 13a' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 17 of 31 b) Pest identification and assessment records of documented pests, including date, specific location, name, reference used for identification and/or corroborating expert (if appropriate), stage of life cycle, extent of pest presence and other pertinent information. c) Maintenance methods performed to minimize pest populations and enhance healthy plant growth. d) Control methods employed per the IPM strategy selected, including dates, location and other pertinent information. e) Pesticide application records as required by the WSDA, including but not limited to licensed applicator's name, application target or site, chemical name, brand name, area of application, concentrations used, amount and rate of application, coverage rate, equipment used, weather conditions including temperature and wind, and date and time intervals of application. g) Monitoring records documenting site or pest -specific observations that may include results of IPM methods used. Monitoring records are key tools for evaluating management strategies to allow assessment and revision as needed. Revisions should be documented. It should be emphasized that record keeping need not be burdensome. Simple field notebooks or logs can easily cover the majority of records kept, so that follow-up evaluation of what worked or didn't work and what to do differently in the future can be accomplished. E. Training The training of permanent and seasonal employees on the basics of the IPM policy, the IPM program and specific maintenance standards and IPM strategies will help ensure that they are understood and consistently followed. Implementing the IPM approach from design through daily maintenance will eliminate unnecessary applications of chemicals that could damage sensitive species including salmonid fishes or their habitat. In addition, full implementation of a well -understood IPM approach will help the community to reduce use of pesticides, save time and money and increase worker safety. Guidelines for developing a training plan are: 1. All staff associated with the maintenance of the High Point development landscaped areas and buildings where pests may need to be controlled shall receive an orientation to the IPM program and these general guidelines. 2. Staff responsible for managing vegetation, including gardeners and laborers, shall receive training on: a) An overview of IPM including identification and life cycles of typical Northwest pests, weeds, and beneficial insects; determining threshold levels for different types of landscapes; and monitoring techniques. b) Noxious weed identification, control and regulations. c) Pesticide laws and safety. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ith and 13f' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 18 of 31 d) Working with organic amendments to reduce water, fertilizer and pesticide use. e) How to apply specific IPM Best Management Practices as appropriate. f) Who to contact for help identifying pests 3. Staff responsible for maintaining and scheduling irrigation system use shall receive training on: a) Irrigation system maintenance and repair. b) How to schedule irrigation based on vegetation physiology and habitat characteristics (evapotranspiration rates and seasonal fluctuations). c) Backflow prevention. PESTICIDE, FERTILIZER, AND HERBICIDE CONTROL Purpose of Pesticide, Herbicide, and Fertilizer Application: Description of BMPs: Stormwater runoff from areas that have been subject to uncontrolled or inappropriate chemical application may be contaminated with pesticides, nutrients from fertilizers and toxic organic compounds or metals. For pest control, the preferred strategies use a defined "Integrated Pest Management" (IPM), which consists of target, site, and context - specific plans for control using mechanical, biological and chemical treatments. Spraying of roadsides and parking lots is conducted for infrastructure maintenance, and road safety concerns when economically necessary. It is also conducted in response to citizen requests and for compliance with directives from the King County Noxious Weed Control Board. All personnel applying herbicides to the landscape must be Washington State Department of Agriculture certified pesticide applicators or directly supervised in the field by certified applicators. Follow manufacturer's recommendations and label directions for all pesticide treatments. Compliance with State laws and record keeping regulations is required. Application records shall be made available to Seattle -King County Public Health Department upon request. Pesticides applied within regulated buffers of surface waters the rain gardens, will be applied per requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Permit for Aquatic Noxious Weed control, and the Tri County IPM guidelines. Follow necessary/required safety and personal protection guidelines when mixing and/or handling chemicals and compounds. • Ta met: o A pest or problem needs to be clearly identified prior to any sort of control. o The manager must be able to identify whether the signs and/or symptoms being observed are the problem, the source, or the symptoms being caused by the source. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320' Street Between 11t` and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 19 of 31 o No chemicals shall be used until the pest is clearly identified and other means of control are explored; specifically mechanical or cultural or biologic control must be considered first. ■ Site: o Where on the property the pest is causing problems should be evaluated and clearly identified. Its location clearly known. o Pre -emergent herbicides are not allowed to be used in the rain garden areas. o Herbicides are to be utilized in the known and identified areas of the property where the pest(s) have been clearly identified. 0 Context Specific flans: o Once the pest/target is clearly identified, and the location(s) on the property where the pest is in need of control, then apply the pesticides — only to the sites identified above. Blanket application of fertilizers and pesticides across the property is not allowed. HERBICIDE USE QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE Herbicide Use Activity Hard Surfaces Landscape areas Lawn Area Rain Garden Pre -emergent Routine herbicide use No. No. No. No. possible? Maintenance Spot spray noxious Spot spray noxious Spot spray noxious Post -emergent and invasive weeds if and invasive weeds and invasive weeds Routine No. Hand weeding herbicide use necessary. Cut and if necessary. Cut if necessary. Cut possible? Maintenance treat stems of woody and treat stems of and treat stems of only. species. woody species. woody species. PESTICIDE, FERTILIZER AND HERBICIDE CONTROL Mix pesticides in a manner where unintended spills will not contaminate soil or be washed into the stormwater system or surface waters. "Rinseate" from cleaning equipment or triple -rinsing pesticide containers should be recycled for use as product. Application of herbicides may occur at any time of the year allowed by the product label and the following guidelines: ❑ "Hard Surface" treatments will generally be accomplished by the use of pre- and post - emergent non -selective herbicides applied in spring and summer months as weather conditions allow. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11"' and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 20 of 31 ❑ "Landscape zones" generally involves the use of selective herbicides. ❑ Applications in hard surface and landscape zones may be summer foliage, or dormant stem, stump or modified basal treatments when allowed by the label. Apply fertilizer in accordance to known requirements of the area soil and vegetation needs for successful establishment of planting. Slow release fertilizers are required in the rain garden areas and are encouraged in all landscape areas and will be used when appropriate. Fertilizers may be applied with mulch, or worked in to the soil based on site and project conditions. SOLID WASTE Purpose: Improperly stored and managed solid waste can leak numerous pollutants, including bacteria and grease, onto the ground. Pet waste left on the ground from dogs and other domestic animals contains high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Pet owners should be encouraged to clean up after their pets. Signage is readily available and can be included in the landscape areas where pet owners will be walking their dogs. A few examples of available signs include: BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR • LEASH AND CLEAN Uf AFTER YOUR PC kM Fr.I a ks, w•— 2po. IIf W, p `OI r� B� ewe M a yi• .� � anca rw• M a.• o+ � w. r M t"00 • loft* as 4Ob 00" �f0 L—tb i7U7fi � Ifcw.if !mil l V-0 KM da4m MWW 06W p.I— V N>rf r.Rw BOLT rwf •rrr .G4f 9" wll+fri0 Ni Obb �M -" 0A Mt yp AM1 no am M 1"■ Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 1 la` and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 21 of 31 DOG WASTE SYSTEM Keeps apartment landscaping, hiking trails, dog parks and recreation areas free of dog waste. . Dispenser: Tough powder -coated aluminum. Locking front panel. Includes 400 bags. . Sign: Large, easy -to -read reflective aluminum. Examples from various vendors of signage and disposal systems to help control pet waste. Pollutants from trash and animal waste can be carried by stormwater into the King County stormwater system. This polluted stormwater can then enter natural waterways, diminishing their water quality and having harmful ecological effects. For public health and safety, for aesthetic reasons, and to reduce harmful environmental impacts, solid waste needs to be stored and managed so that pollutants are contained. Pet waste needs to be picked up and properly disposed of. The recommended method of dog waste disposal is for dog owners to bag it in tightly sealed plastic or biodegradable bags. Dog waste should be placed directly into covered trash receptacles. Final disposal of trash and dog waste is in a King County Solid Waste landfill. Description of BMP: Trash receptacles in public use areas need to be located to encourage proper trash disposal; heavy foot traffic areas need more receptacles than lighter foot traffic areas. Trash receptacles need to be emptied in a timely manner, to keep garbage from overflowing. Trash receptacles need to be kept in good condition, including properly cleaning exteriors when needed, while keeping the cleaning agents and any pollutants, such as grease, from contacting the ground. Receptacles need to be replaced as needed. Use covered trash receptacles designed to keep their contents secure from birds and rodents. Pet waste information stations need to be placed in public use areas, including King County Parks, to encourage the public to pick up and dispose dog excrement. Information stations may include: signs educating the public on how to dispose dog waste; pet waste bags; and/or nearby trash receptacles into which the public disposes pet waste. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 11th and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 22 of 31 PRESSURE WASHING Purpose: Suspended solids, metals, other materials can be carried into the stormwater conveyance system by pressure washing High Point building exteriors, including facades, rooftops and awnings. Building exteriors, and other large objects, need to be pressure -washed as needed to keep them free of mold and mildew, in good condition, and visually pleasing to the residents, employees, and the general public. Description of BMP: If soaps or detergents are used, a water collection device must be used to collect the washwater and whatever is in it. This washwater must be disposed of properly. Contact your supervisor to determine if the washwater can be transported and disposed of at a King County Industrial Waste facility or disposed of in another acceptable manner. If only pressure washwater is used (no soap or detergent), the washwater need not be collected. It may be allowed to run into landscaped areas and infiltrate into soil. Take measures to ensure the washwater does not mobilize soil out of landscaped areas. Also take measures to ensure large particles do not enter nearby catch basins. If pressure washing on a grassed area (with or without soap), runoff must be dispersed as sheet flow, rather than a concentrated stream. The washwater must infiltrate into the grass, not drain to pavement or the stormwater system. If heavy metals are expected in paint on old surfaces, consider hiring a commercial pressure washing service to collect, test and properly dispose of washwater. BUILDING REPAIR AND PAINTING Purpose: Toxic hydrocarbons contained in solvents, other toxic organic compounds, suspended solids, metals, abnormal pH and oils and greases could be transported off High Point properties by stormwater runoff. Repairs are necessary on High Point buildings and properties to ensure safety, to ensure aesthetics, and the value of the development. These work activities can be safely and efficiently conducted. Description of BMPs: Repairs, construction and painting tasks will be performed such that discharge of the above potential pollutants will be minimized. No substance shall be dumped on the pavement, ground, or near a storm drain or drainage ditch. When possible, drop cloths should be used underneath outdoor painting, scraping and sandblasting work. An alternative to using drop cloths is to thoroughly vacuum materials from paved surfaces. Materials collected on drop cloths or by vacuuming are to be properly disposed of. Drop cloths or secondary containment will be used for activities such as paint mixing and tool cleaning; washwater will be properly disposed of. Use covers, filter fabric or similar devices, such as a wet vacuum, to capture and control dust, grit, washwater or other Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ph and 13t' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 23 of 31 pollutants from escaping the work area and entering the stormwater system. Dispose material properly. CLEANING HARD SURFACES Purpose: High Point parking lots and vehicle storage areas have the potential to contaminate stormwater runoff with hydrocarbons, other organic compounds, oils and greases, metals, nutrients and suspended solids. Litter accumulation on sidewalks and in the rights -of - way can contribute suspended solids to stormwater runoff. Sidewalks near driveways can contribute hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and metal contaminants. Herbicides and pesticides, if used near sidewalks, may also be introduced into stormwater. These paved areas are important to target for stormwater pollution prevention control because most of them drain directly to the stormwater conveyance system. Sidewalks, driveways, vehicle storage areas, and parking lots need to be maintained free of pollutants, debris, and other materials for safety, environmental and aesthetic purposes. Description of BMPs: Sweep sidewalks, driveways, vehicle storage areas and parking lots as needed to collect loose dirt and debris; do not hose muddy or debris -laden areas down or push mud/debris into the street or catch basins. • Pressure washing with water only may be employed to remove grime and mold. If washing is necessary, do so in small "spots", rather than the entire area. o Do not use soaps or detergents to wash sidewalks and parking lots. o If it is necessary to both pressure wash and use soaps or cleaners on sidewalks and other paved areas, the washwater should be collected and disposed of to the sanitary sewer or taken off site for appropriate disposal. o Clean up fuel, oil and antifreeze spills with absorbent materials; dispose of the materials properly. Do not allow sediment from sand and excess salt to run into the landscape or the rain garden areas. Use of deicing salts and sands shall be done sparingly (shoveling snow is preferred to dumping excessive amounts of deicing materials). Apply sand or salt to specified areas, ensuing that excess amounts are not used. Select materials to maximize effectiveness with minimal application of materials. Calibrate equipment to ensure appropriate application rates. Residues of deicing materials should be swept up after the snow and ice melts and disposed of properly if reuse is not possible. Sand should be swept up after ice melts and may be re -used. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 111h and 13a' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 24 of 31 LIQUID MATERIAL HANDLING AND STORAGE Purpose: Leaks from containers and drips and spills from vehicle maintenance tasks can introduce pollution to stormwater. Pollutants include cleaning solvents, motor oil, antifreeze, and hydraulic fluids. Liquid material handling and storage areas need to be properly managed to keep all site stormwater runoff clean. Activities that involve liquids need to be done properly. Description of BMPs: Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance BMPs Conduct vehicle maintenance tasks involving liquids inside (out of the rain) to avoid spilling and leaking these liquids on outside areas. Monitor all fueling of vehicles and equipment to avoid overflows and leaks. Use shop practices that limit the chances for leaks, such as: restricting vehicle maintenance on the property and sending High Point vehicles out to properly managed and maintained repair facilities for maintenance and repair. If leaks are noticed under vehicles, use drip pans to capture leaks immediately, at any location. Properly clean up and dispose all leaked fluids. Repair vehicle leaks as soon as possible. SPILL CONTROL Purpose: The following activities increase chances of leaks and spills of pollutants into the stormwater system: fueling of landscape and hard surfaces maintenance equipment, loading and unloading bulk materials and liquids; and storing and handling materials. In order to perform their work, High Point employees and contractors fuel vehicles, load and unload bulk materials, and store and use liquid and solid materials. These activities can lead to leaks and spills of pollutants like fuel, oils, greases, toxic wastes, solvents, fertilizers, detergents, etc. All these must be properly controlled and cleaned up to keep them out of the stormwater system. Description of BMPs: Note: for spills that pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment call 911 Notify the King County Water Quality Complaint Line at 206-296-1900. To avoid spills and leaks in the first place, employees must be trained in the proper recycling, handling, transferring, and storage of materials. Spill response actions, including containment and cleanup, should be conducted only by trained spill responders. Spill responders need to be able to properly identify spills and their significance (ranging from non -significant to life -threatening). Cleanup of any spill is to be done only by properly trained spill responders. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 1 Ph and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 25 of 31 Keep spill kits fully -stocked and available at all times near fueling stations, bulk loading/unloading areas, and material storage and usage areas. (When spill kits are fully stocked and close at hand, spills can be quickly controlled and cleaned up.) On paved surfaces, clean up spills with as little water as possible. Use a rag for small spills, a damp mop for general cleanup, and absorbent material for larger spills. Dry materials should be cleaned up with brooms, shovels, sweepers or front end loaders. Any cleaned up hazardous materials that are unusable must be handled/disposed of as hazardous waste. Establish a tracking system for incidents, to identify types and quantities of spills; patterns in time occurrence; description of accidents/spills. Regularly maintain fueling station tanks, pipes and dispensers in accordance with site -specific fuel station operations and maintenance manuals and any required Spill Prevention, Control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans. The Value of the Urban/Suburban Forest Finally, I have included a small white paper as Attachment 1 for the interest of the reader. It is a compilation of how different professionals have been endeavoring to place quantifiable value on trees and landscapes. It is titled, The Value of the Urban/Suburban Forest. It should help decision makers understand the value of investing in a solid operations management manual such as this. WAIVER OF LIABILITY There are many conditions affecting the wellbeing of a landscape and the stormwater runoff from a site. This Operations management manual has attempted to incorporate all facets of Best Management Practices as outlined in King County stormwater management information. This operations management manual is intended to establish a healthy plant community to minimize pollution leaving the site and entering the stormwater system or adjacent water bodies. It is not a guarantee against pollution or adverse runoff. There are also many conditions affecting the runoff from a large property such as this. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration soil conditions and runoff. While I have used every reasonable means to include all items to manage the site in the best possible manner, this operations management manual represents my opinion of the situation at this point in time. These recommendations do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. It is the property owner responsibility to engage the services of a qualified property manager to carry out these recommendations, and, to amend and improve upon them as time goes on and experience with the property warrants. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320'H Street Between l lth and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 26 of 31 As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional upgrades and revisions to the operations management manual. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies as needed to carry out this plan. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. This operations management manual is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their property. This in no way implies that the preparer is responsible for performing recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of future problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the preparer in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to insure success of the landscape and that adequate stormwater control has been achieved. The client shall hold the preparer harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the preparer's recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the preparer's reasonable expectations. Sincerely, Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418 ISA TRAQ Qualified ISA TRAQ Certified Instructor ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 - THE VALUE OF THE URBAN/SUBURBAN FOREST ........ 27 ATTACHMENT 2 - REFERENCES............................................................................ 30 Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ith and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 27 of 31 ATTACHMENT 1- THE VALUE OF THE URBAN/SUBURBAN FOREST Trees provide more value than shade or aesthetics to a community. Trees are an integral and important element of a community's infrastructure. Urban and community forests can strongly influence the physical/biological environment and mitigate many impacts of urban development by moderating climate, conserving energy, using carbon dioxide and water, improving air quality, controlling rainfall runoff and flooding, lowering noise levels, harboring wildlife, and enhancing attractiveness of cities. Trees contribute to the value of real estate: ■ According to the U.S. Forest Service, trees increase the appraised property values (5 to 20%). Property value grows with the height of trees. Studies show that tenants rent more quickly and stay longer in buildings that have trees around them. Further studies reveal houses with trees and landscaping that obtained an "excellent" rating for the landscape, could expect a sales price of 4 to 5% higher —depending on the size of the lot. Homes with landscapes rated "fair" or "poor" could expect a sales price 8 to 10% below equivalent homes with good landscape appeal. ■ A recent survey by a mortgage company revealed that: 0 84% of the real-estate agents feel a house on lot with trees would be as much as 20% more salable than a house on a lot without trees. 0 62% of respondents said the existence of healthy shade trees strongly influences a potential buyer's impression of a block or neighborhood. 0 60% thought healthy shade trees have a big effect on a potential buyer's first impression of a property. 0 56% felt healthy shade trees are a strong factor in a home's salability. ■ Trees save money: The U.S.D.A. Forest Service states in An Introductory Guide to Urban and Community Forestry Programs, that properly placed trees cut energy costs (20 to 50%) per lot. When planted on the north side, they create windbreaks, which reduce drafts and cut heating costs. When planted on the south and west side, they provide shade, which blocks the sun's direct rays and lower cooling costs. ■ Trees have a monetary value in and of themselves. The average base value of a tree in real estate: Diameter of trunk at 4.5 feet Average base value 10" $ 1,729 14" $ 3,388 26" $11,682 30" $15,554 Trees offer comfort: A study conducted by Texas A&M University of patients in a Pennsylvania hospital showed views of trees reduced the amount of care patients required, reduced the amount of pain medications required, and reduced hospital/convalescent stays (up to 8%). There Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ith and 13'' Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 28 of 31 has been an increased awareness in the restorative value of plants in hospitals, homes for the aged and senior centers. In such places, many "healing gardens" are being constructed for clients, staff, and visitors. Trees are good for business: ■ Trees promote retail sales: In a 1999 national survey conducted by social scientists at the University of Washington, cited by the DNR in their TreeLink newsletter, consumers rated tree lined areas: 0 15% higher in amenity and comfort, interaction with merchants, quality of product, and maintenance and upkeep. o Customers were also willing to pay up to 12% higher for the same goods sold in stores on tree- lined streets. o People also linger, shop longer, and return more often to a tree -lined street. ■ Corporate America is now including landscape considerations in its philosophy. When asked why they have emphasized landscaping, business owners cite the numerous positive aspects of trees and plants. Landscaping in the work environment: o Increases employee productivity, morale, and pride in workplace o Helps recruit new employees o Attracts customers or new business tenants o Can be used as an employee benefit o Has a role in creating a corporate image o Has value as a marketing tool. Trees imp ove water quality: Trees reduce the impact of rain, which results in less runoff and erosion. They use the rain, which results in less flow into our stormwater systems. There are statistically accurate models used across America today that show the width of planting strips adjacent to roads and the size of the trees have a measurable reduction in the size and expense of surface water management infrastructure. Trees create an enjoyable environment: • Trees soften and complement architectural lines and building detail by: o Screening objectionable views o Providing privacy control o Acting as space articulators o Gradual unfolding of view. ■ Trees offer weather protection: o Wind control through deflection, obstruction, filtration or guidance o Sun control through radiation, filtration, obstruction, or radiant heat absorption in summer and allowing sunlight to strike buildings in winter o Precipitation and humidity moderation Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320'H Street Between 1 Ph and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 29 of 31 o Temperature moderation by changing ground and air temperatures Trees offer aesthetic benefits such as pleasant fragrances, and visual beauty through shapes, patterns, backgrounds, focal points, complementing or enhancing architecture, which can create a serene setting. They can create a buffer from the harshness of an urban landscape. Trees can aid in traffic control: Trees can be used to mark "gateways" into the city and identify entrances and exit areas of businesses, parks, and schools. They can be used to guide bicycles, vehicles, and pedestrians. Trees have historical value: Trees have been associated with historical events or are themselves historical due their size or age. Trees pay their own wavy: Trees more than pay for the cost of maintenance and care because they are on the job 24 hours a day, 365 days a year providing benefits. Trees are Nature's air conditioner, providing shade and a natural sunscreen for people and plants. This will become more valuable if global warming continues. Just how much is their unceasing effort worth? The American Forestry Association did a recent study and came up with the following figures indicating the dollar value of an urban tree with a fifty-year life span. A single tree would provide this much dollar -value benefit for one year: Air conditioning $73 Controlling erosion & stormwater $75 Wildlife shelter $75 Controlling air pollution $50 Total $273 per year If you compounded this amount for fifty years at 5 percent, the grand total is $57,151 of measurable benefit per tree. This information was excerpted from: ■ The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, published by the International Society of Arboriculture Press, Savoy, IL, May 2000. Tree Link, Publication of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between 1 lth and 13th Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 30 of 31 ATTACHMENT 2 - REFERENCES Brenzel, Kathleen Norris. Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Corporation, 2001. 2. Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. 3. Grant, John A. and Grant, Carol L. Trees and Shrubs for Pacific Northwest Gardens, What to Grow and How to Grow Them. Seattle, Washington: Dogwood Press, 1943. 4. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. 5. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Stormwater Services Section County King County, Site Management Plan (SiMPla), May 2012. Seattle, WA. [iM://your.kin-county.gov/dnM/librarv/water-and-la_ nd/stormw_ ater/kc- stormwater-site-m tt-Man .pdf 6. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Stormwater Services Section County King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual, Seattle, WA 2009. littp://your.kin2coupty.gov/dnM/librarY/water-and: land/stormwater/surface-water-design-manna l/S W DM-2009.pdf 7. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2nd ed. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994. 8. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Trees & Development, A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1998. 9. Mathews, Daniel. Cascade -- Olympic Natural History. Portland, Oregon: Raven Editions with the Portland Audubon Society, 1992. 10. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees, A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. Operations & Management Manual for High Point Mixed Use South 320TH Street Between I Ith and 13'h Avenues South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting December 9, 2014 Page 31 of 31 11. Pojar, Jim and MacKinnon, Andy. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Redmond, Washington: Lone Pine Publishing, 1994. 12. Pacific Northwest Chapter-ISA. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface. Course Manual. Release 1.5. PNW-ISA: Silverton, Oregon, 2011. 13. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management —Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. 14. Watson, Gary W., and Neely, Dan, eds. Trees & Building Sites. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1995. 15. Websites utilized: Pet Waste Eliminator: littp://www.petwasteeliminator.com/pet-waste-cleanup-sigLis Dog Poop Signs: http://www.dogpoopsigns.coM/pet-waste-sign§L.aspx Glasdon Signs: http://us.glasdon.r,om/trasli-cans/Tet-waste-statioiis/filter Compliance Signs http://www.comptiancesijzns.com/animal handling et.shtml?utm source=bi ng&utm_medium=cpc&utm term=pet%20waste%20station%o24%2Bsios&u t_m_content=dog%20waste°/o20signs&tittn campaign=Pets o20+"/620Pet°/a20 Waste SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN INFORMATION & AMENITY GUIDE In addendum to the FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN HIGH POINT MIXED USE FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 9 December 2014 Information Compiled By: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 425-861-7550 FILE The information provided herein is a supplement to the High Point Mixed Use Final Landscape Plans prepared by Talasaea Consultants, dated 9 December 2014 Note: The information provided herein is preliminary in nature and is intended to generally depict the type and layout of equipment for open space areas in order to meet FWRC 19.205.040 requirements. Final play equipment type and layout is intended to be similar to what is depicted here, but may vary based on final design considerations. APPROVED, PLANNING C4111111.dFftglll� o�iM► �, RESUBMITTED DEC 19 2014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Acquire Manufacturer/Representative Information from: Playground a ui ment Little Tikes Commercial 1615 Airpark Drive Farmington, MO 63640 Playground surfacing The Fibar Group LLC 80 Business Park Drive, Suite 300 Armonk, NY 10504-1705 USA Bike Rack Bench Trash Receptacle Patterson -Williams Athletic mfg. co. PO Box 1290 Salem IL 62881 • 140 N. Gilbert Road, Mesa AZ 85203 Toll Free: 888-442-2925 a Fax: 618-548-2890 Planters - DuMor Site Furnishing, Inc. Picnic Table & Planter - Wabash Valle Tree Grate - Ironsmith Cast Products Shelter - Poligon NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, INC. Toll Free: 800-726-0031 Fax: 425-313-9194 345 NW Dogwood Street Issaquah, WA 98027 sales@nwplayground.com www.nwplayground.com CONTENTS Page 1. 4' Picnic Table with Benches Page 2. 6' Bench Page 3. Trash receptacle Page 4. BBQ grill Page 5. Bicycle Rack Page 6. Decorative Colored Concrete Surfacing Page 7. Planters Page 8. Play Area Safety Surfacing Page 9. Play Ground Equipment Page 10. Weather Protected Seating Area Page 11. Tree Grates Figure 1. Open Space —Area 1 Figure 2. Open Space — Area 2 Figure 3. Open Space — Area 3 Figure 4. Building J Streetscape Figure 5. Building A Streetscape Figure 6. Building G Streetscape Page 11 WA B A S H VALLEY SIGNATURE (CONT.) SIGNATURE SQUARE ANI) OCTAGON TAEILEk.,: $749 $746 SG145(P) SG155(D) Liz $984 $649 $902 Superior frame SG140(0) Basic frame SG231(P) SG215(P) �� -- — - DIAMOND (D) PERFORATED (P) A40DFt DE9CIZIMM vw%-w PRICE WEIGHT PRICE SG214 40" Square table - 4 seat - Surfaca-mount - Baslc frame Qp 252 Ib. $875.00 293 lb. $944 00 SG215 40' Square table - 4 seat - In -ground - Basic frame V 238 lb. $822.00 279 lb. $902.DO SG216 40" Square table - 4 seat - In -ground - Superlor frame Q 246 lb. $868.00 287 lb. $971.00 SG140 46' Square table - Portable 196 lb. $649.00 248 lb. $730.00 SG145 46" Octagon table - Portable V 198 It. $662.00 240 lb. $749 OD SG155 46' Square table - 3 seat - Portable 213 lb. $746.00 245 lb. $785.00 SG229 46' Square table - 4 seat - Surface -mount - Basic frame 257 lb. $866.00 309 lb. $966.00 SG230 46" Square table -4 seat- In-vound -Basic frame © 243 lb. $836.00 295 It. $934.00 Z231 4G' Square table - 4 seat - In -ground - Superior frame 251 lb. $8"40 303 $1;. $984AO SG234 & 46" Square table - 3 seat - Surface -mount - Basic frame 231 lb. $778.00 277 IL $857.00 SG235 & 46"Square table -3seat -In-ground -Basic frame © 217lb. $727.00 263lb. $836.00 SG236 & 4W Square table - 3 seat - ImgToLind - Superior frame © 225 h $791.00 271 lb. $887.00 Surface and In -ground mounts must be adequately anchored. & ADA-accessible Color: Black © Umbrella compatible Consult your local dlstrbutm for pricing. T2 I WV 2014 TO ORDER Select model number and color choice. Q U I C 1gp �n SH 1 P Models highlighted In green. See page 7 for details. Page 12 Featuring a sleek, contemporary aesthetic appeal and designed for comfort, Mode13150 Model 3107-06 durability, and value, site furnishings in the Hyde Park collection are ideal for a wide variety of projects. Legs/End Frames: Seats/Backs/Table Tops/Sides: Bench Understructure: Table/Picnic Bench Understructure: Receptacle Rings: Finish: Colors (page 5): Hyde Park Collection 3/8" x 2" heavy duty steel strap 1/4" x 1-1/2" heavy duty steel strap 1-5/8" O.D. heavy duty steel 1-7/8" O.D. heavy duty steel 3/4" solid steel rod Super durable powder coat 26 powder coat colors Model Description Weight Price 3107-06 6' long bench with back 233 lbs. $908 3107-08 8' long bench with back 249 lbs. $1,382 3107-ARM Optional center arm rest for bench $62 3104-06 6' long backless bench 133 lbs. $695 3104-08 8' long backless bench 149 lbs. $959 3104-ARM All Hyde Park, Optional arm rest for backless bench $62 Models SLirface Mounted. Please color ordering, are select powder coat when Color: Black Page 13 -r Model Description Weight Price 3120-06 Table and (2) backless benches, 6' long 465 lbs. $1,700 3120-08 Table and (2) backless benches, 8' long 864 lbs. $1,983 3120-ADA 8' table and (2) 6' long backless benches 800lbs. $1,983 3150 Top opening litter receptacle with 32 gallon liner 140lbs. $704 3150-SH Side opening litter receptacle with 32 gallon liner 140lbs. $818 3350 Ash receptacle 34 lbs. $450 All Hyde Park Models are Surface Mounted. Please ;eIecT powder coat color when ordering Color: Black Page 14 HOME NEWS ABOUTPW DEALERS CUSTOMERS PRODUCTINFO.. DOWNLOADS. CONTACT US a Call toll -free for more information 800-687-5768 (� PATHLEMMFG.00. Leave A Message n- Williams ATI ILETTC SEAT ING,, COLIRr SPORTS» BASKETBALL., TIELD SPORTS,) PARKUSITC„ .SITE FURNISHINGS PWs grills provide you with choices. The cool grlp handles are located on the sides, where they are safe and easy to adjust The grills can be rotated 360 degrees and sit on a 3-112" O.D post painted black Utility shelves for single and double grills are optional Our Large Group Grill has a whopping 77 1,008 sq. in. of grilling surface on two separate grates and four cooking levels. This large grill is supported by a 4-1I2" O. D. steel post plates on standard surface mount base which rotates 360 degrees Comes standard with utility shelf attached to the side Model # Description Weight 1140-00 Single Grill, 15" x 20" - Quick Ship! 70 1140-OOSH 7" x 20" Shelf for Single Grill - Quick Ship! 8 1140-05 Galvanized Single Grill, 15" x 20" - Quick Ship! 70 1140-05SH 7" x 20" Galvanized Shelf for Galvanized Single Grill - Quick Shipl 6 1140-10 Double Grill, 32" x 20" - Quick Ship! 140 1140-10SH 7.5" x 9.5" Side shelf for Double Grill or Group Grill - Quick Ship! 4 1140-20 28" x 36" Large Group Grill wtutility shelf - Quick Shipl 215 1140-SM Surface Mount Option for single or double grill - Quick Ship! 6 f P S' V P.W. Athletic Mfg. Cc Copyright 02014PWAthletic Mfg. Cc, Patterson-WilliamsLLC. Call for more information 800-687-5768 Page I5 1111012014 Roller Coaster Bike Rack I PW Athletic Mfg Co., PattersorrWillisms LLC HOME NEU�(1�S`'j�( A90UTPW DEALERS CUSTOMERS PRODUCrINEO.n DOWNLOADS. CONTACEUS J' Call toll -free for more information 800-687-5768 ATME7IC MfiO. CQ T Leave A Message Pat ierson-Williams f TNLETIC SEA. FINE,, COURTSPORTS„ BASKETBALL., FIELD SPORTS :: PARK&SITE+: SITE FUnNISI ZINGS Roller Coaster Bike Rack One of our most popular bike racks for years an and, the roller coaster version features a multi-loopstyle. Manufactured of 23I6" O.Q, galvanized steel pipe, this unit stands 36" in height You may select a powder coat finish, galvanized, or stainless steel finishes for this rack that comes standard with an in -ground mount Su rkofto f ace mounting options are also available. - 70 Year Limited Warranty Model p Description Weight 1 fi02-05 5 spaces, 38" long, powder coated GO 1602-05G 5 spaces, 38" long, galvanized - Quick Ship! 60 1602-05SS 5 spaces, 36" long, stainless steel 60 1602-07 7 spaces. 64" long. powder coated 90 1602-07G 7 spaces. 64" long. galvanized - Quick Sh/pf 90 1802-0755 7 spaces, 64" long, stainless steel 90 1602-09 9 spaces. fiT' long, powder coated 125 1602-09G 9 spaces. 67" long, galvanized - Quick Shlpf 125 1602-09SS 9 spaces, 67" long, stainless steel 125 1602-11 11 spaces, 113" long, powder coated 155 1602-11G 11 spaces, 113" long, galvanized 155 1602-11SS 11 spaces, 113" long, stainless steel 155 1602-13 13 spaces, 139" long (requires center post), powder coated 175 1602-13G 13 spaces, 139" long (requires center post), galvanized 175 1602-13SS 13 spaces, 139" long (requires center post), stainless steel 175 Color: Black P.W. Athletic Mfg. Co Copyright O2014PWAthleticMfg. Co.,Patterson•WilllarnsLLC. Cali for more information 800-687-5768 http://pwathlebc com/productfroller-coaster-bike-rack/ 12 this rack that comes standard with an in -ground mount Su P.W. Athletic Mfg. Co Copyright O2014PWAthleticMfg. Co.,Patterson•WilllarnsLLC. Cali for more information 800-687-5768 http://pwathlebc com/productfroller-coaster-bike-rack/ 12 Page 17 ,."e 7t !M. Pir V iiylrCO WE — . 1 J i l ffvh Ehl &cr ! QL W P ?41F1AIh'E �• �'��' LK4 r !�'it d Kul WL 1.) &L -ST_. WNKP3 CAMTED IA/ 21r. Mal IMO TI CH WILD W/ FIRYI-M-H FU11I—H -i:Ib 1%1:. 3j4- E-OMIGh ARCHOF EMn PRJOTE7_ 4 NQ�E P-.ANT,7-R (WE V-'s, : iN'lii"�i Du f 1 o d nc LWM V: OM uram ter, mL : ;,,-A+io 1$ — COIt] F,H. Rm 14E MrInintrrim, PA I? MA-0142 ;sr. w : xm Page IS Homo I AboutUs I Nawia Llnle FI BAR PLAYGROUND (id a Prlw QuoseTodayl SK302M SURFACES Making F1aygrounda Safer for Maur 25 Years PRODUCTD Fesr�rgewred Wood Fiber Fibutyaanan H. Lowaestoakwo - 6pedsadons a Dlegrene - bee alleean -CAD Ted riTud Drawings FOurayslo n 200 Deakraga brlverdNretoa -apeaMrations a Diagrams - Installation -CAD Tachnlcal Dreetnge FCeceyahen 100 DreMege brdryaereM -spec0ordlone 1 Dlegrams - IMlelloWn • CAD Tschnlcar Drawings Fsmre Bidk Pon Pivyg—d. - Install¢0on .Spec9k tl­ -twinbnsnas •To"ft PhorByebm Compssrd. fbw" Mbar Nab FOerOuard 0atars FOnrPW Pillowindow FOar for Deg Pwko C061-CWfER SERVICE OsOraan. Gs P hers. LEED Credits 0uyarProlaWon PYYground Ziddy FrequeetV Asied Questlmw Truck tier. a Chsrnru Ne4lrenaees Gesenl0dvma9an TLetlamebb w oul I 10 -1 0 Yn vrry y,eaeCwiekefw,, PRODUCTS INSTALLATION TESTIMONIALS CONTACT US ue 7O hAUt •• H—. F4aeay�na> Faeaydrr900 n.asdbn (Help comply with the : I' : 1 r1nn :.c:c%idnll. to. with f;iwItfor WIW WIf, Regularly S 138 r shipping, -Now $1 ZMH FM dlippiq.0 rMa-&lktb'K Gist a pdca quote nowt contact the mcparm in Pleygro" Safety Surfaces hadayi GO used ML3422M or ,fggy(gg= ► FibereBulk I Specifications Part 1: O ERAL To prevent espiaeament of the Fiber In high -use areas and reduce maintenance, RberMet war mats must be Installed under as swings, Ore swings, slide adts, and as other wear areas Inducting sllding polm.Thig will help to ensure carnpllence with the Federal AaaselbAiy Law or Mardi 15, 2012. 1.1 Provldu Fiber Bulk Engineered Wood Fiber In seas Indlcatsd on plena. 1.2 Provide thlr Saady Surface Immediately after lnsta0ng playground equipment 1.3 Fitar Engin , Wood Fiber and RbarMat war mats are available frown your local Representative or drediy from The Fiber Group, LLC, aD Business Perk Drive, Butte 300, Armonk, NY 10SW1705. You can call WOOD-342-2721 W 914.273-9770. PART 2: NATEOIALS 2.1 Provide FlbarW E nglnsered Wood Fiber too compacted depth orapprmdmetely_ . 22 The amount of Fiber Engineered Woad Fiber necessary be way the epp oA ate depth, alto prmese3l]n, is as rc9ows: QuanryWs shown are Alf a! "Djew /C pfeyigeouna Deepm Quentiv a• 36 cubic yards SO' 42 cubic yards 11' 46 cubic yards 12' 50 orbit yards 2.3 Provlds ens (1) FiberMat Weer Mat (minimum size: 36- x 36' x 1S7 with 2' beveled edge on a0 skis under each swing seat, tire owing, side eXI4 and slldtrq pals. Double and htple olWes may require muhlple RbuMats. Total quantdy required Is PAKT3e QVALrry CONTROL 3.1 Surfacing shar be IPEKA-CEKnFIED Engineered Wand Fiber. Standard wad dos or bank muldn wN net be acceptable. 32 Supplier must prwlde test results for Engineered Wood Fiber and F1barKsts far Impact attenuation In accordance with ASTM F 1292 SfendandiSpecrAsum for ImpactAtterruaOsnW SUn'ace Sysl UndrandA-cundMayWmndEqutpment Re®+Ib must be provided for new and for 12ryasnold Enginserad Woad Fiber material. 3.3 Testing of Engineered Wood Fiber In accordance with AETM F 1292 must snow G-msc values Of ley then 1550 for the O'thick ayetlam, or 1200 for the 12' system at 12' drop heights, and MC values of likes than 1,01111111 for bat new and 12yaerold ma tend. 3.4 Supplier must provide teat raaults for the engineered Weed Fir In aemrrmnce with ASTM F 207E Specification ilerEnghreaad Woad FiberFbr Use as a mayyround SafatySurflicc Under and Around Playground Equipment 3.5 Tesing OF FlbwMet war mats In amdancewith A9TN F 1202 must show vaWas of has than 20DG and MC vaW es of less than 1,000 for a 3' drop height 3.6 Supplier must prwlde tat results In accordance with ASTIR F 1951, StendwdSpecE'Rvtlm for Deforworwhion red AaamsAiQy efSwilaw System Under and Around FgeygroundEquomett 3.7 Supplier must txroythat the surface meats the Intel. oftheAmst®nswMDamOAUesAct (ADA). 3.8 Supplier must provide $10 IOBIoe product llebtty Insurance certificate with protect owner named as cerdflate holder, prior to delivery. 3.9 In Canada, supplier most meet CSA guldagnea. PART 4: INSTALLATION 4.1 install the Hier Engineered Wood Fiber, and fib rmat wear mats In accodance with manufaehurera instrwtJons, 4.2 Avoid contamination of the Fiber Engineered Wood Fiber with sand, grovel, mud or native all. PART 5". MAINTENANCE 5.1 Maintain the Fiber Engineered Wood Fiber In accordance with manufacturer's Inaarucums. KMM BULK EMNEERED WOOD FIBER SPECIFICATIONS, INSTALLATMN AND MNNiENANCE INSTRUCTIONS. ® 2013 The Fiber smug, LLC The F Iber mran p-r LLCI 80 Budnera Po rk DrIM Butte 300, Armcnh, KV 10504-1705. n a00.342.2721 `a 01f273-0770 FM O:L4-27"659. Emails SDMkrlj§LL;9M Wabdss7irwar,daGcom Got a prise quote nowl called to mcparbt in Playglolnd SffW surfaces todW .T I ual won t a...� Mlnlmal recommended fallxone Neo 813 sq. feet PaenetQ 116 feet 1L lfzolilzoul A_' 36`v"""!��final �&oOt fm PII�C m � � ^J �."""�`� �8 i�����'Z� 4 1d H!$1liRfKlpa. m,s�eni. emam$> le lee "r,-m,,1* o1 A4I11 n,4kV time fy CD U Page 110 POII!q0fV Covered Walkway Arched CWA 10' x 12' CWA w/ integrated bench Standard CWA [ 0•%iersd 4bak..*ayArchedl I I I ill.q�119P.Ig1I:I�ilgliifl;fiJIDii[ �� Standard Sizes Width - W Length - L 8'x12' 10'x12' S'x18' 10'x18' 85c24' 10k24' S. 10, B' 10, a 10' 12 12' 18, 18' t 24' 24' Shaded Area 96 2 136" 120 144 180 I 192 240 # of Columns 2 2 2 J 3 3 Center of Columns 136' 208" 209" 280' 290" All Covered Walkways are available in your choice of 24 smooth and 10 textured Pdi-5000^ powder coat colors. To request color samples, contact us at info@poligon.com PORTERcorp'"° Holland, Michigan www.poligon.com Tel: 616.399.1963 Email: info@poligon.corn L970 © 2013 PORTERcoaa"' Color: Black 48" [1219.20mm] \&e'�\tNt'te4�r 36" [914 40mm] 1/2" 1 114' [12.70mm] [31.75mm] 1 1/2" 1" RIBS 8 10mm 1/2" x 1" x 114" THICK GRINDING PADS FOR 3 [ ] LEVELING -TYP 4 OR MORE PLACES This drawing embodies a confidential proprietary design of IRONSMITH,INC. Palm Desert,Ca All design, manufactuing ,reproduction ,use, sale, and other rights regarding the same are expressly reserved This drawing is submitted under confidential relationship for a specific purpose and the recipient agrees by accepting this drawing not to supply or disclose any information regarding itto any unauthorized person or to incorporate any special feature peculiar to this design in other projects The information in this drawing may be covered completely or in part by partents pending. 7222-2 STARBURST TREE GRATE 48" x 72" tree grate in two sections. 3/8 Maximum slot opening for pedestrian safety and A.D.A Compliance. Cast from 100% recycled Iron, Aluminum,or Bronze for pedestrian loads only. Tree opening: 16' ,18", 28" Grates can be orderd with or later expanded to these openings. please specify when ordering. Finish: unfinished or Black dip or Enamel paint or Polyurethane Paint or Powder coat Specify finish and color Use frame model: 48X72F Weight: Iron= 435 Ib/ 198 Kg Aluminum=152 Ib/69 41-701 Corporate Way #3 Palm Desert, CA 92260 800 338.4766 Cif LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS PLAY AREA 5ATT7-r SURFAG I NG I , OPEN 5FACE AREA SCALE: I "=20' /BIKE LANE i � I TREE GRATE O COVERED PLAY AREi ADA PIGNIC TABLE, TYP. ti C RAFH I G SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET ) O 10 20 4D SCALE: 1 "=20' OF u of BIKE �RAGK POOL DECK � f � I ' P-PATCH j � I i i l MAIL KIOSK I f . ==J _ 1 I OPEN BFACE AREA :2 E3 KE LANE SCALE: I "=20' (5RAFH I Ci SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET ) 0 10 20 40 SCALE: I "=20' RAIN GARDEN _ ABIKE LANE i \ - -� ...;�� PIGNIC .' BLE, (T-r F�.) ' Wr r� OPEN 5f=Ar--..,E AREA 5 SCALE: I "=20' C RAPH 1 G SGALF NORTH ( IN FEET ) 1 O 10 20 40 SCALE: 1 "=20' of BENCH � 2 f INDIVIDUAL UNIT ENTRY (TYP.) MAIN BUILIDNO ENTRY (TYP.) 1 LIGHT STANDARD, BY OTHERS PATIO (TYP) HEATHER -PROOF SEATIi AREA GANOPY TRASH REGEPTAGL DEGORATIV GONCRET 5v I L:�) I I `CS 5TREETSCAFF. AME `I TI F.5 SCALE: I "=20' BU I L.0 lNe A 57REE75CAFE A1�EN I T 1 E:5 SCALE: I "=20' � f CL I TREE 2 ORATE I l :r 1 L. I OHT STANDARD BY OTHERS I BENGH, TYP. 2 DEGORATIVE GONGRETE i - IJ WEATHER-P OOF a SEATINCC A EA GANOPY PATIO (TYP.) - `---------"-----^�--- w f � IKE LANE il I BUILr�)INC C aTREETBCAFE A14r=NIT1EB 5GALE: I "=20' FIRST LEVEL OF "A" ONLY: BRICK: MUTUAL MATERIALS FACE BRICK, EBONY COLOR SCHEME 1 0 TRIM: HARDIE NAVAJO BEIGE 0 HARDIE HARRIS CREAM HARDIE KHAKI BROWN HARDIE IRON GRAY COLOR SCHEME 2 F TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE E HARDIE HARRIS CREAM ❑3 HARDIE KHAKI BROWN COLOR SCHEME 3 F TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE ❑� HARDIE HARRIS CREAM a HARDIE IRON GRAY COLOR SCHEME 4 0 TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE 0 HARDIE KHAKI BROWN a HARDIE IRON GRAY COLOR SCHEME 5 ?- TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE HARDIE KHAKI BROWN HARDIETIMBER BARK HARDIE IRON GRAY FIRST LEVEL OF "A" ONLY: BRICK: MUTUAL MATERIALS FACE BRICK, EBONY COLOR SCHEME 1 F21 TRIM: HARDIE NAVAJO BEIGE F; 1 HARDIE HARRIS CREAM HARDIE KHAKI BROWN HARDIE IRON GRAY COLOR SCHEME 2 TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE [I HARDIE HARRIS CREAM II HARDIE KHAKI BROWN COLOR SCHEME 3 TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE F, HARDIE HARRIS CREAM HARDIE IRON GRAY COLOR SCHEME 4 F)-j TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE HARDIE KHAKI BROWN HARDIE IRON GRAY COLOR SCHEME 5 ❑z TRIM: NAVAJO BEIGE HARDIE KHAKI BROWN HARDIETIMBER BARK HARDIE IRON GRAY rP ' 1 � � • 'i ■ r •I � i1 � �! � � !I son I IF ■� ice' Building E 5� min �� � Ali �� � ,���� '�►� _ -�i{� ■I f � _ -- � � ©� - �.flll f� Ali r— � • 47 S. ILL _, � �■ � � IAN � Mix - • :�� �RUN�oil III■ OWN S. J20TH ST. r W/DOWNSPOUT-SEE ROOF FRAMING FOR UNIT60 UNIT 3.0 IUNT30 UNIT6 BUILDING A UNIT 6.0 UNT 3.0 UNT 3 0 UNT 6-0 UNIT 6,0B UNIT 3.OB UNIT 3 OB UNIT 6.03 ENTRY ELEVATION FACING NORTH SCALE: 3/32"=l'-O" BUILDING A UNIT 6-0 UN 6.0 UNIT3.0 UNT 3.0 UNIT 6.08 UNIT 3.OB SOUTH ELEVATION 320TH ST 1 I I 56 % GLAZING AT GROUND FLOOR SCALE 3/32"=l'-O" F� STEEL CANO11-14�1 � w131 u <TRELLIS j UNIT 6,0 UNIT 6,0 UNT 6.0 UNIT 6.0 UNIT 6,0 UNIT 6,0 UN 6,OB UN 6,OB EAST ELEVATION (11TH PLACE) SCALE: 3/32"=1'-V 10 TRIM BOARD 200 BARGE BOARD CLASS'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES 2xl0 FASCIA BOARD FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE 4"EXPOSURE FIBER CEMENT CORNER TRIM FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE 6' EXPOSURE UNIT 3.0 UNT30 UNIT 3.OB UNIT 60 UN 6.0 UNIT 6.613 T3ASLE EHD VENT- SEE -T R,-R i•HA1151NR ENTS FOR VENn I'M Ii �a NMI UNITS 0 UNff UNT6-0 UNIT6-0 UNIT 6.0B UNIT 6OB WEST ELEVATION FACING WEST PROPERTY -LINE SCALE 3132"=l'-0" -MENT SIDING �� FEY PLAN iGE BOARD (o 180AR{] 4 -' COMPOSITION S ► 4 iC1A BOARD I F =MENT SIDING LE 4" i liln 11 RE EMENT CORNER TRIM 1�..Lii�S LEGEN[ '4- -SW OUfO Wikwnik =MENT SIDING LAP EXPOSURE 819Z Canlal Alvin EMENT WINDOW TRIM ew;M7 Page* Yaliaw AP SW 56S57-$m1 _Mauna Lw BrItF ENEER 3TV F F n �wmEA N RE W TRIM R TRIM LAP MVP I I I II I ! �ETVEU)' I I I ! b . � I I .,FEB ZO ��BRIri1[ C;M OF FEDERAL L V11!--,`( i—BRICK VENEERI CD II I I III I I I GRADE SIDEW�LK I � I 1 FOURTH AVENUE. ALLUP, WASMNG 3850 7APC'- ROBS E DEC' SIA:C Qf WAS BUILDIr ELEVAI REVISIONS 11/25/13 A,B. H./ STEI JOB NO.: ISSUE DATE: REVISED: DRAWN BY: e KfET A-2 1 4" ALUMINUM GUTTER W/DOWNSPOUT-SEE ROOF FRAMING FOR LOCATIONS r'O RIDnE FIBE•72 CEMENT SIDING �vne'ee� I I L.fji,=T-Q-P— — b 6 w KFf- �Toa -- — " p,�aa6aFULFP TO IItgFLR F F — • .b i a�Iw t t �NmWRatlt J/ slirr s•m mme�• a�xr.rs e e eF rr i 41t%• ir:%Irrrl' -..Mg- nGnuanw]nn.alcrn� ..� es II .11 - o axrwnnanrr earl uua ao os� r e r � III r t:u 11 fni k. sliC_a t,ftrrllxnlflCCff7 lf,1- alttrs:x�111.1 �:I r."T'.!I {I]irmrl.YItIFKi1111i1f'[Ifli 11 T]«.1 M-13-lrI:G141,R 9I;C.trsgliBrF911114llrf [4MI11li- .. tltltltrt��ivlt•T,r]lmh •�tr'tlirrl:lr111!IIt111tlliuliliii`It Ilt� •iC1�. /tllif'L �l+l,ki01,mlll R1huWAZIlli�nitA . '• lailit ;Illitl111..}} ra„ •e• . .:Ili i rr Ifa Ir "fY' ri`�11r�rlril hum. /��� �4YW[]rR�]rr[[r`.`iro:url�il l' . w i ¢'i' `nn .I Ta:ea . .a•ct ,:n���y�I J.; 3 oti 11 �c:'iaa��_: �'�°!'2�" SYnLi'i71a'-�Oar�le_ .,: .I:::�i?ii ., Yfi�'ll,lr l-�f i•1il:s:l.j srlii:.r;:•...�4wi�w�i1%ffi�illrsW wNrwliA .. Y was I(�IIIII�Il11lIllllll = = lffllllllllll IEl11110iuull fmllllllllllllll!=1111111111111 �IlQuilllillflbllllll _ �= —�= -IIIIIIIiIfIlllllilllll= UNN —���=z I■. .���'- a _ Jimaillllll�illllfllllll=_ fllllf111���I1[m0� a I Igmmm➢ul lull[iUlmilllmi f .il lmlll 111 �'/ ' R . . . l! �' � /�Tlr 77777777,�.,777/77/77% ?�77�7�T�7F �7�7 �l`� 7 UNIT 5,0 IUNIT 3-I0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 5.0 BUILDING D UNIT UNT3.0 UNIT 3.0 UNTSO UN S.0 UNII T 3.0 UNT 3,0 UNITSO UNIT S.I]A UNIT 3-OA UNIT 3.013 UNIT S OB NORTH ELEVATION UNIT 5 0 UNIT 3.0 IUNIT 3 0 UNIT 5.0 UN 5,0 UNIT 3,0 UNT 3 O UNT SO UNIT 5,0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 3 0 UNIT 5,0 UNIT E.08 UNIT 3,06 UNIT 3 OB UNIT SOB REAR ELEVATION FACING WEST SCALE: 3rV1 1'4' UNIT 5.O UNIT 5.0 UNT5,0 UNT50 UNIT 5,0 UNIT 5-0 UNIT 5.OB UNT 5 OA UNIT SO UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5,0 I UNIT 5•0 U N T SO UN 5.0 UN 5013 UNIT 5, 0B SIDE ELEVATION FACING SOUTH SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" E STYLE BOARD G Bu—D GE BOARD 'R' COMPOSITOR ES Gi�IS1E-I ;h] 'EMENT SIDING YLE a' URE SITE KEY PLAN PB r Yt I [ ffi F I W t 1[4i1 a XWENTCORNERTRIM efflq� sW oa l B wirA.hwlx ,EMENT WINDOW TRIM ® SW 6192 Coastal Plain i LE W E%YA?SVRE SIDING =SW 2857 Peace Yellow YlF B' MSW 6665 Trinket =Mauna Loa Brick IRltJt TJ.S — NO VENT -SEE DF FRAMING OR VENTILATION MENTS 0 COMPOSITION SHINGLES OARD IGE BOARD .CIA BOARD EMENT SIDING LAP 'EXPOSURE EMENT CORNER TRIM EMENT WINDOW TRIM EMENT SIDING LES"EXPOSURE rol i DECKMAN A ASS( FOURTH AVENUE 7LLUP, WASHIN¢ 3050 REGI ARCH ROSS E. DEC STATE OF WA51 w U) 0 W K r Z O a V 2 BUILDII ELEVA' EVISIONS JOB NO,: ISSUE DATE: REVISED: DRAWN BY: SIDE ELEVATION FACING SOUTH SCALE: 3/32"=l'-0" SHEET A-2 4' ALUMINUM GUTTER WI DOWNSPOUT -SEE ROOF FRAMING FOR I a i gip, i p�artn.r. Iut r. •la it ,t51S1 RR F F UNIT 5.0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 4,0 UNIT SO BUILDING F UNITS.O UNITS-D UNIT4,0 UNIT5.0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT SO UNIT 5.08 UNIT 3.03 UNIT 4,OB UNIT SOB ENTRY ELEVATION FACING EAST SCALE 313271'-O" UNIT 5-0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT 30 UNIT SO UNIT SO UNIT 4.0 UNIT 30 UNIT 5 0 UNIT SNI O UNIT 4.0 UT 3,0 UNIT SO UNIT 5.0B UNIT 4,OB UNIT 3013 UNIT 5.013 REAR ELEVATION FACING WEST SCALE: 3/32"=1'-O" UNIT SO UNIT5,0 UNIT SO UNIT 5,0 UNIT 5.0 UNITS UNIT SOB UNIT SLOB SIDE ELEVATION FACING SOUTH SCALE: 3/32"=T-O" UNIT 5,0 UNIT SO UNIT 5-0 UNIT SO UNIT 5.0 UNIT SO UNIT S.OB UNIT SOB SIDE ELEVATION _ FACING SOUTH SCALE 3132 NT SIDING YLE SITE t(EY P/LAN )MPOSRION ,BOARD C INT SIDING • pia• R I' EXPOSURE :NT CORNER TRIM : SW DDID Wrckarwark - :NT WINDOW TRIM MESW 6192 Coastal Plain :NT SIDING LAP =SW 2857 Peace Yellow POSURE ®SW 6685 Trinket =Mauna Lou Brick tc -E� END VENT -SEE OOF FRAMING FOR VENTILATION 2EMENTS 'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES IM BOARD ARGEBOARD 4SCIA BOARD CEMENT SIDING LAP ,I EXPOSURE CEMENT CORNER TRIM CEMENT WINDOW TRIM CEMENT SIDING YLEB'EXPOSURE ;E L - i DECKMAN & ASSC FOURTH AVENUE 0.LLUP. WASHING 3850 ARCSREGIS ROSS E. DEC STATE OF WA51 BUILDII ELEVAI REVISIONS JOB NO.: ISSUE DATE: REVISED: DRAWN BY: SHEET A-21 4" ALUMINUM GUTTER WI DOWNSPOUT - SEE ROOF FRAMING FOR UNIT 4 0 UNIT 3,0 UNIT 3A UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 3,0 UNIT 3,0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 3,0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT4,0 UNIT 4 OB UNIT 3.08 UNIT 3-013 UNIT 4.013 BUILDING G EAST ELEVATION FACING EAST (PARKING LOT) SCALE 3/32"=V-0" UNIT4,0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 4,0 UNIT 4,0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT 4,0 UNIT 3,0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4-0B UNIT 3-08 UNIT 3.0B UNIT 4.0B BUILDING_G WEST ELEVATION_ FACING WEST (11th PLACE) SCALE 3132"=1'-0" 22 % GLAZING AT GROUND FLOOR UNIT 4,0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4'a UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4.08 UNIT 4,013 SOUTH ELEVATION (PARKING) FACING SOUTH (PARKING LOT) SCALE 3132"=V-0" KEY PLAN WENT SIDING STYLE I BOARD U� i174 II} —{'III 8 tGE EOARO i LpJAP'�3^ITION {p :S �NII .CIA BOARD ` WENT u�1• •+ AP STYLE 4" RE =MENTCORNERTRIM SW 0010 Vr'kil4/r+tfk MSW 6192 Coastal Plain =MENT SIDING LE 8" EXPOSURE =SW 2657 Peace Yellow =MENT WINDOW TRIM WSW 6685 Trinket _Mauna Loa Erick I f[�IF SCorifl— � ArG—E --� GABLE END VENT -SEE UNIT ROOF FRAMING PLANS FOR VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS [,F'A'COMPOSITION SHINGLES IMBOARDARGEOARDASCIA BOARD P18ER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE 4" EXPOSURE I FIBER CEMENT CORNER TRIM 3 FIBEfi CEMENT WINDOW TRIM FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE B" EXPOSURE UNIT4.0 UNIT 4,0 FIFA CEMENT WINDOW TRIM UNIT 4-0 UNIT 4.O UNIT40 UNIT 4.0 LATTICE: UNIT 4,013 UNIT 4,08 NORTH ELEVATION (PARKING) FACING NORTH (PARKING LOT) SCALE: 3132"=l'-0" D i DECKMAN 8 ASS( FOURTH AVENUE kU.UP. WASHING 31150 REGIS /> ARCH 1\ ROSS E DEC STATE 0" WASl BUILDII ELEVA' REVISIONS 1126113 A,B,H. JOB NO,: ISSUE DATE: REVISED: DRAWN BY: SHEET A-2 LOCATIONS T PER zorrwc FIBER CEMEN I SIDING SHINGLE STYLE TOP of aioGE COMPOSITION I — — — 1x3 TRIM BOARD I SHINGLES � 2x10 BARGE BOARD _ _ S Alt — s11i= — — _ — - -- — — — I9o11dfvFU &onorivr — _ - � 2x10 FASCIA 9!S 0 7 I I FIBER CEMENT 4TH FLar_ — — SIDING LAP 022 .. .. STYLE4• oa - EXPOSURE 4 FIBER CEMENT CORNERTRIM pJEf — _ I v I II I FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP .. ... - .- STYLE 6" EXPOSURE zNO FLR FF— — — FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM TRELLIS r ?Tf�ffff T�f fi/���J�/�%1/%J / �''.% = •�'.J//,'/ / / ��fii UNIT 5,0 UNIT4.0 UNIT40 02 UNIT 5,0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4.0 022 UNIT 5LINT 4_BUILDING H UNIT 5.OB UNIT40A UNIT 4.OA I ENTRY ELEVATION FACING EAST SCALE: 3/32"=V-0" Lpry VIpRGR 1. 40' HEIGHTI IMIT E �Atl,11 Mi I P�HZONING GABLE ENU VEN I - SI UNIT ROOF FRAMING PLANS FOR VENTILAI REQUIREMENTS CLASS W COMPOSITI SHINGLES 1x3 TRIM BOA 2x10 BARGE BOP i UNIT 4.0 UNIT4,0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT 4,0 UNIT4,0 UNIT50 UNIT 4,0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT 4,OB UNIT 4,OB UNIT 5.06 REAR ELEVATION FACING WEST SCALE. 3132"=V-0" UNIT4.0 UNIT40 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 4.0 022 UNIT 4.OB UNIT 4.08 SIDE LEVATION FACING WATK SCALE 3mr,11.0' 222 ��. — — � RqE^ n ALLIX4A — jl UM or E,t, P ,— INO(i7N.ENO) _ J FASCIA ER CEMENT �nLFue Ff — ING LAP STYLEGY' «- — XPOSURE a =R CEMENT CORNER TR =R CEMENT WINDOW' =R CEMENT SIDING STYLE 8" 'OSURE , .� ]ND=LR F F — — �T TICE �1ST FLR FF ALUMINUM GUTTER /DOWNSPOUT-SEE OOF FRAMING FOR )CATIONS UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT5,0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT5,0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT5,OB UNIT 560B SIDE ELEVATION FACING SOUTH SCALE 3132"=1'-0" 1AVIZK/AUr_ DUILUIIv IO I--ICIlO t1 I l.F1Ll..V LN I IVI FOR 40FT HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE GIVEN: (451,10') AVERAGE FINISH GRADE NORTH BUILDING PORTION: 35'-0" FOUR STORY — FINISH SLAB TO TOP PLATE — 11 314" ROOF OVERHANG & FASCIA (34.02) 34'-0 1/4" FINISH SLAB TO BOTTOM OF FASCIA 55'-1' ROOF DEPTH TOTAL 2 27'-61/2" ROOF DEPTH HALF 4 9'-21/8" ROOF HEIGHT -- 4/12 PITCH 9'- 9 3/8" ROOF HEIGHT TOTAL -2 (04.89') 4'-10 5/8" ROOF MID -HEIGHT (34.02') 34'-0 1/4" FINISH SLAB TO BOTTOM OF FASCIA (04.89 )+ 4'- 10 5/8" ROOF MID -HEIGHT (00.50 + 0'- 6" AVERAGE FINISH GRADE (40% 394617do" FI VT �i �1�8 iWg PFQ!� 451.10' AVERAGE FINISH GRADE 40.00' FINISH GRADE TO ROOF MID -HEIGHT —ALLOWED 491.10' AVERAGE BUILDING ELEVATION (AT 40FT HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE) 451.10' AVERAGE FINISH GRADE 39.41' FINISH GRADE TO ROOF MID -HEIGHT— PROPOSED 490.51' AVERAGE BUILDING ELEVATION (AT 40FT HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE) 022 SITE KEY PLAN EXTERIORX&ZE lALSIE6SUlIEiALS EGElD$jFi S LECENFGEN6 SIN 0010 Wickerwork CSW 6192 Coastal Plain SW 2857 Peace Yellow SW 6665 Trinket Mauna Loa Brick FOURTH I O n BUII ELE REVISIO 11/25/13 AE 1& Plam JOB NO. ISSUE L REVISE[ DRAWN SHEET A ROOF FRAMING FOR TOP OF ROOF RIDGE r OYE_ a 1111LD,NG HEIGHT I — 9G V'ABE I L— BOTTOM OF EAVE i10i18.FL ey��Ptl2St�1 F �l oN f� I• y B15S.EiTL.kF �W WCUE� ram, ' ESGSh'GTA01-- —E/ Itil P _ 4TH FLR FF R C ToP r i 3RDFLR FF_ k ]ND FLR F F_ �07-- -- j15TFLR FF� UNIT 6 0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 6 0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 60 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 60B UNIT 4.OB BUILDING J SOUTH ELEVATION FACING SOUTH (PARKING LOT) SCALE: 3f32"=V-0 1X3 TRIM BOARD 2�10 BARGE :OAR = elriliila ._ 1'J511 i,F!IIR'� 1 • milli 4t ielil ,e._ . !•.FIli;If[l,151 1��Y`!i[I - � t �' 35M1i�111R 11•ltiiaiFwiA ii�i _ _.ull•lhli:illef+"��Rk;ti." ) �= I . illlllW 111W111111d lllill111f1111 O, =llllllllllllll'MIN 1... _ � 111IM1111111mil l' r f �]IIII�Illlllll!!€Iflill__ I�lilf_�[lllllllllglllllI _ I `e3 • F �Jffiin4 I�� � � �4: __w:a: � FI if 101 i F f ! f .! UNIT 6.0 UNIT 4-0 UNIT4,0 UNIT60 UNIT 6.0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT60 UNIT 6.0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 4,0 UNIT 60 UNIT 6,0B UNIT 4 OB UNIT 4.OB UNIT 60B BUILDING J NORTH ELEVATION FACING NORTH (11TH PLACE) SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" 22"/ GLAZING AT GROUND FLOOR UNIT 6.0 UNIT6.0 UNIT 6.0 UN 6.0 UNIT 6.0 UNIT 6.0 UNIT 6.013 UNIT 6.013 BUILDING J EAST ELEVATION TOP OF ROOF RIDGE e9G 00' BUILDING HEIGHT WLL01NE0� � I — 9 aB�Ea'AeE--� BOTTOM OF EAVE J S Y k 1 iSfi 10 -TRELLIS C+A6i.E END VENT- SEE UNIT ,ROOF FRAMING PLANS FOR VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS ,-1Y3 TRIM BOARD ,�Zx10 BARGE BOARD a —CLASS W COMPOSITION UNIT 60 UNIT60 UNIT 60 UNIT 6.0 UN 6.0 UNIT 60 UNIT60B UNIT 60B BUILDING J WEST ELEVATION $110 FASCIA BOARD F19ER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE 4"EXPOSURE FIBER CEMENT CORNER TRIM FIBER CEMENT WINDOW FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE 8" EXPOSURE p� 1 MI.v IN SyypploWrc l lk ®SW 6192 Coastal Plain =SW 21 Peace YeB,Yn =SW 6685 Trinket = Mauna Loa Brick AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATIOt FOR 40FT HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE GIVEN; (456.80') AVERAGE FINISH GRADE BUILDING PORTION: 35'-0" FOUR STORY -- FINISH SLAB TO TOP PLATE — 11 3/4" ROOF OVERHANG & FASCIA (34.02') 34'-0 1/4" FINISH SLAB TO BOTTOM OF FASCIA 59'-1" ROOF DEPTH TOTAL =2 29'-6 1/2" ROOF DEPTH HALF =4 9'-101/8" ROOF HEIGHT -- 4/12 PITCH 10'- 5 3/8" ROOF HEIGHT TOTAL =2 (05.22') 5'- 2 11/16" ROOF MID -HEIGHT (34,02') 34'-0 1/4" FINISH SLAB TO BOTTOM OF FASCIA (05,22'� 5'- 2 11/16" ROOF MID -HEIGHT (00.50'1 0'-6" AVERAGE FINISH GRADE (3947 39'- 8 7/8" FINIV G ❑❑E i j3OR NJJD-HEIGHT— PROPOSED (40.00') 40'-0" FI }SH�RAD Icy Oi MID -HEIGHT --ALLOWED 45680' AVERAGE FINISH GRADE 4000' FINISH GRADE TO ROOF MID -HEIGHT-- ALLOWED 496,80' AVERAGE BUILDING ELEVATION (AT 40FT HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE) 456.80' AVERAGE FINISH GRADE 39.74' FINISH GRADE TO ROOF MID -HEIGHT— PROPOSED 496.54' AVERAGE BUILDING ELEVATION (AT 40FT HEIGHT LIMIT ZONE) 222 in, FACING EAST (LANDSCAPE) SCALE: 3132"=V0 FACING WEST (11TH PLACE) SCALE: 3f32'=1'-0' FIBER CEMENT SIDING SHINGLE STYLE KUVF hKAMINU hVK LOCATIONS rroaeF arecF ---- — — -- — — — — BOTTOM OF SAVE 7 � . LLULL.] Y y lj FLR F F— _ 9 � — °P - - rl UNIT 5.0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT5.0 BUILDING IFUNIT 5.0 UNIT3.0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT4.OB UNIT5.OB UNIT 5.08 UNIT 3.0B ENTRY ELEVATION FACING EAST SCALE 3/32"=1'-0" UNIT 5.0 UNIT4 0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 50 UNIT 5 0 UNIT 4.0 UNIT 3,0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5 0 UNIT 4 0 UNIT 3.0 UNIT 50 UNIT 5.OB UNIT 4.013 UNIT 3 OB UNIT SOB REAR ELEVATION FACING WEST SCALE: 3/32"=V-0" UNITS,0 UNIT 50 UN S. UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5 OB UNIT 5.013 SIDE ELEVATION FACING SOUTH SCALE: 3132"=1'-0" 1x3 TRIM BOARD SITE KEY KRS. AJK 2F1D BARGE BOAR op/r� CLASS W COMPOSITION lLlf SHINGLES 200 FASCIA BOARD FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAPSTYLE4"EXPOSURE � srm n FIBER CEMENT CORNER TRIM FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM EX RI Zv 0p14 wwror-ak 'FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP ®SW 6192 C*&" P6fln STYLE B' EXPOSURE CSW 2957 Pea Yenmv =SW 6585Tnam ,�IFLKFF- -Mmu�a Lot grid[ j� , � 95991'GRAOE� UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5.0 5.0 UNIT 50 UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5.0 UNIT 5.OB UNIT 50B SIDE ELEVATION FACING NORTH SCALE: 3/32"=1'-O" ENDVENT-SEE OOF FRAMING FOR VENTILATION REMENTS 'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES IM BOARD ARGEBOARD ASCIA BOARD CEMENT SIDING LAP 4'EXPOSURE CEMENT CORNER TRIM CEMENT WINDOW TRIM CEMENT SIDING YLE 8"EXPOSURE ;E 5 DECKM FOURTH I moss STATE BUIL ELE1 REVISIOI I& Plann JOB NO, ISSUE D REVISED DRAWN I SHEET A rij TOP QF PL 0 20 F.F. (SUBF TOP OF 5L 0 EO eaF_F_ [suss TOP OF PL 0 ao 457.5 (SLP GARAGE 457.00' GR PROVIDE MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A RAILING MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE RIGHT ELEVATION L -PARKING SCALE: 3116" = 1'-0" I 485.00' A.B.H. TOP OF PLAT F.F. (SUBFLOI TOP OF PLAT m o sy id F F (SUBFLO( TOP OF PLATI R 456.50' F.F. (SLAB)- 456.00' ~ - FINISH GRADL —ALUMINUM PROVIDE MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A RAILING MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE LEFT ELEVATION L - PARKING SCALE: 3/16" = V-0" --- - - - ---- ----------- ----------------------------- - -------- "_ —LIGHT POLE FIXTURE REAR ELEVATION L -WALKWAY SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0' MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE ALUMINUM RAILING FRONT ELEVATION L SCALE: 3/16' = 1'-0' DECKMAN H ASSC FOURTH AVENUE PUYALLUP, WASHING r "x r. 3150 REGIS ARCH ROSS E. DEC STATE OF WA51 W N Lif Lit X 0 H � Z_f O I> a� CLASS 'A' = COMPOSITION (� SHINGLES _ 2x10 FASCIA U BOARD w 0 FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM a FIBER CEMENT CARRU SIDING LAP STYLE 4" EXPOSURE ELEVAI FIBER CEMENT BUILDII CORNER TRIM FIBER CEMENT SIDING LAP STYLE 8"EXPOSURE REVISIONS 11/25/13 A.B. H/BUMF JOB NO,: ISSUE DATE; REVISED: DRAWN BY: Au $HE�T 1 l 2 It RIDGE OF ROOF�H1r=uCeT% ®19p9J=ev+TF-.--. F.F. jSI BFLOORI-- �zoP v� p�a�---- 4 m F.F. (SUSFLOOR) OP OF PLATE 0 00 co of f,{SJ,i4A1 HRH FINISH GRADE PROVIDE MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE RIGHT ELEVATION M.O.O - PARKING TOP OF PLATE 0 50 F.F. JSUBFLOCRZ � �T4P OF PLATE o ao &F_ . fMBj- GARAGE__ SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0' PROVIDE MINIMUM 596 SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE LEFT ELEVATION M,O,❑ - PARKING SCALE: 3/16" = 1•-0" —! p483_50_A_B.H._M_ 1478.50'A.B.H."O" L-4M-50AB±L 480.50' A.B.H. "O" 474.50' A.B.H."Q" _ - - 457.50' SLAB "M" - -- _ — - — 454 50 SLAB , O' 448.50' SLAB 459 50' SLAB „M„ f _ .-:. 1 ._ - -- �I_ ui", - �_ . . 459 -- --- ---- - y�O .00' GRADE "M 452.50' SLAB "O" — 454 00' GRADE "O" ,0445D' SLAB"R'-� _ - LIGHT POLE — I 448.00' GRADE "Q" 457 C GRADE "M" • • : — R - FIXTURE 452.00"GRADE "O" .,------- ---------------_-__--------__-- - ---7 444.00' GRADE "Q" ALUMINUM ALUMINUM — RAILING RAILING REAR ELEVATION M,O.Q - WALKWAY SCALE: 3/16-=1•-0- FIBER CEMENT SIDING , SHINGLE STYLE CLASS 'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES 2x10 FASCIA - BOARD FIBER CEMENT — SIDING LAP STYLE 4"EXPOSURE FIBER CEMENT - CORNER TRIM FIBER CEMENT — WINDOW TRIM FIBER CEMENT- - SIDING LAP STYLE 8" EXPOSURE JULIETTE BALCONY W/ PROVIDE MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A ALUMINUM RAILING MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE FRONT ELEVATION M,O,Q SCALE: 1^i6- • 1'-0' RM DE&AS W? FOUMH AVENUE PUYA14UP, WASHIN, 365a Y Kass F- 09C ssn,_ in PI,Wli TOP OF PLATE_____ 0 60 F.F. (SUBFLOOR�_ _ - - - � TnP OF PLATE 0 W jF.F. iSUBFLOOR) ___ ------ ---- TOP OF PLATE ao PROVIDE MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE RIGHT ELEVATION P,N - PARKING SCALE 3116" = T-0" a ti N mI r sv RIDGE OF ROOF HIGHGeT1 OOF jHIGHEST}_ TOP OF PLATE 4 zb F.F. �SUBFLOOR) PLATE------ a0. F.F. SUSFLOOR) TOR OF PLATE - m DES l$L&5j. _QARAGE_. FINISH GRADE PROVIDE MINIMUM 5% SLOPE FOR A MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE LEFT ELEVATION RN - PARKING SCALE: 3I16" _ 141511050 X&H. 'N" ' A.B-R-P' L--------- - 483.50' A_B.H_"N" —- — -- - = 477.50' A.B.H. "P" „ -451 S5_SLAB 7' ��. 457.00' SLAB_'N"� 455.W SLAB "N" 451.00' SLAB "P" 448.51' SLAB "P" LIGHT POLE I d455 �14' GRAf7'N'` FIXTURE I 448.00'GRADE "P" ------ -_-_-_-_-_-------------- ALUMINUM .—ALUMINUM RAILING RAILING REAR ELEVATION P,N_ WALKWAY SCALE: 3116-=1•-0• ALUMINUM RAILING MINIMUM 10 FEET @ FINISH GRADE FRONT ELEVATION RN SCALE: 3116- = 1'-B- RM0EQ0 WdASS; 207 FDVRSH AVEKO� PLrYALLVP, WASAM ••b«L 3850 RECI ARCt ROSS E DEC SiAic OF WA$ w N � F-6 0 LLH X N 0 H pj Z FZ d iS'A' O POSITION GLES = (%o C7 _ FASCIA 2D w 0 R CEMENT a )OW TRIM CARRU R CEMENT JG LAP STYLE ELEVA" CPOSURE BUILDII R CEMENT NER TRIM R CEMENT dG LAP E 8" 3SURE REVISIONS JOB NO.: ISSUE DATE: REVISED: DRAWN BY: SHEET A-2 ' ITICUS BOARD ]RON GRAY .J� IRON GRAY TI BOARD KHAKI B KHAKI BROOWNN CEMENTITIOUS BOARD �'- — HARRIS CREAM —ti CEMENTITIOUS BOARD �---- _ COBBLE STONE BRICK MUTUAL MATERIALS FACE BRICK EBONY 12" BUILDING B -WEST -11TH PL. S PAINTE CEMEN HORIZC SIDING METAL GUARD STEEL ALUMIN STORE BRICK BUILDING B - SOUTH - S 320TH ST r 1 N I PAINTEI CEMEN HORIZO SIDING VINYL WINDO{ m LEVE Ai METAL a GUARDI LEVEL 4 477.29' m LEVELS h 468.15' STEEL CANOP' LEVE 459.00' SIGNAF 4 BRICK ALUMIN STORE I LEVELh 4VEL BUILDING B - EAST A{ 1 ROOF h JELL 2JEL S ITT JEL 4 7.28' E13 " 50 1�5' JEL R /. i 71 WS PAINTED CE M ENTTOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING VI NVL W NDOWS ��BUILDING B - NORTH LT 3/32'=1'0' ]��11 8 nI J � E jjLj�A.I 1 � LJI B w ..r I S 32Oth ST ROOF /� LEVEL6 495.SB' LEVEL 5 4 .44 LEVEL4 h 477.24 T LEVEL 3 468 15' -�tt LEVEL2 / 459.OP _ ROOF �3 f� LEVE_L_6 495.58' � L4.S _ 486.44' 4 DECEIVED 0 20116 � ! D E RJ-I L CDS O _ LEVEL 1 h 445.00' O J O U v SCALE:3/32"=T-0" r r PAINTED CEMENRTIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING VINYL WINDOWS VINYL WINDOWS LEVEL 494.68' _ PAINTED LEVELS CEMENTjTg1,17- 4 .44 HORIZONTAL LEVEL 4 476.29' LEVEL 467.16' _ STEEL CANOPY 45B 00' ALUMINUM STOREFRONT BRICK - � LEVEL I } BUILDING C - EAST O01. ���BUILDING C - NORTH C3/32" = 1'-0" 1'-O" PAINT CEME HORI2 SIDIN( VINYL WIND( METH GUAR STEEI CANO SIGN! ALUM STOR BRICM BUILDING C - SOUTH (S 320TH ! -D- CEMEBOARD KHAKIB OWN KHAKI BROWN CEMENRTKIUS BOARD HARRIS CREAM CEMENTITIOUS BOARD REM COBBLESTONE BRICK MUTUAL MATERIALS BRICK EBONY RTIOUS BOARD G IRON GRAY IRON META GUARD PAINTE CEMEN HORIZC SIDING VINYL+ STEEL ALUMS STORE BRICK A4 BUILDING C - WEST y3r. rgr I rn R I 1 1 1 B I S 3201h ST LEvEI 6 383 4BLEVELS J LEVEL 4 77 LEVEL3 467.t6' i55 LEVEE4 � LEVE1 . L $ a LIE ROOF - 502.68' _ — - _ EEVEL 6 8 02/07/14 LAND U: A 08/06113 CONCEI k-- MARK GATE LEVEL_ S = 4. V ISSUE INFORMAT E = T PLOT DATE: LEVEL 476.29' PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: LEVEL 3 GGLO PRINCIPAL IN CH! .7.15 GGLO PROJECT MANAG jj OWNERAPPROVAL: VI Z a LEVEL 2 h N A 458DD SHEET TITLE W BUILDING C Ix § ELEVATION o J LEVEL_1_ �I U 444.00' SHEET NO SCALE:3/32"=1'-0" CD N A-202 r 0' S 375' 10 75' 915, r r f I PAINTS 1 CEMEN HORIZ( SIDING I BRICK BUILDING E-WEST 3132" = 1'-0" 0_��I�DING E-SOUTH " PAINT CEME HORI2 SIDINI VINYL WIND META GUAR STEEI CANO BRICt ALUM STOR A2 BUILDING E- EAST ITIOUS BOARD IRON GRAY IRON GRAY CIMENnOUBOARDKHAKI BROWN BOARD CIME4HARRIS CREAM NARws CREAM BOARD CEMENTOBBLE SO COBBLESTONN E BRICK MUTUAL MATERIALS FACE BRICK EBONY BUILDING E- NORTH C� 3i32" = 1' 0" ,>o sv� :Lc h7229 S 320th ST R-tea- c HIGH POINT, BUILDING E LEVELS 491.44' LEVEL4 h 4 PROJECTADDRESS: LEVE 47 L 3 1066 SOUTH 320TH FEDERAL WAY, WE LEVEL 2 464.OD' OWNER: DEVCO LEVEL 1 450.00' B REVISIONS A n182014 P MARK DATE D ISSUE INFORMAT PLOT DATE: PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: OWNER APPROVALNV 4 N A rn L SHEET TIRE `= BUILDING E z ELEVATION _a SHEET NO A-201 Q If 1?a1 ft9(5pl ) t?(-ITV I W `[A""-m I u. ,.--3 "1 ) -* 1at�� H I n oy,- HbA� ka4l' vt--- Cv�o r 12' 12' P C H 5 V V A G S A S B C1 BUILDING B - WEST -11TH PL. S - TO PLATE UPPERio ------------ PANTED CEMENTIT10US HORIZONTAL SIDING RAILS _ cZ CANOPY UM SIGNAGE SIGr+�G"' FRONT �- METAL GUARD STEEL ALUMIN STORE BRICK PAINTEI CEMEHD NORPOI L L B SIDN'll VINYL WINDOV LEVELS h 487.40' METAL GUARDI LEVEL � 478.25' V LEVELS h 469.11' � STEEL CANOP' LEVEL2 h 459.96' � SIG AG BRICK — ALUMIN STORE[ LEVEL 1 h 445.86' A BUILDING B - SOUTH - S 320TH ST BUILDING B - EAST r1 i v r.rlr l A3 3/3Y='-0 - FIBER CEMENT BOARD - IRON GRAY FIBER CEMENT BOARD - KHAKI BROWN FIBER CEMENT BOARD - HARRIS CREAM - FIBER CEMENT BOARD - NAVAJO BEIGE - BRICK - EBONY PAINTS CEMEN HORIZO SIDING VINYL W.NDOV BRICK @y� -UILDING B - NORTH L L6 G B 02/07/14 LAND U! A 08/06113 CONICS MARK DATE D ISSUE INFORMAT l L4 PLOT DATE: 7 C PROJECT NO: L�EiVED DRAWN EC EDBY: GELD PRINCIPAL IN CHI GGLO PROJECT MANAG OWNERAPPROVAI A OF FEDERAL VIAY SHEETTLE CDS BUILDING E LEYE ELEVATION 445.9 p QSHEETNO sCAtF-'M3r=,'-(r � ASK-( �J0' 5.375' 10.75' 216 PAINTED CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING — VINYL WINDOWS I STEEL CANOPY ALUMINUM STOREFRONT - BRICK BUILDING C - EAST PAINTEI CEMEN' HORIZO SIDING VINYL WII METAL GUARDI T13 PLAN a `I LEV E5 4 LEL 6; LEVELS / LEV LEVELL33 466.90' Y LEVEL2 h 457.75' LEVEL 1 h �443.7T ll av r11•11wL■ twu L r1Wrv..r I wra - FIBER CEMENT BOARD - IRON GRAY FIBER CEMENT BOARD - KHAKI BROWN FIBER CEMENT BOARD - HARRIS CREAM FIBER CEMENT BOARD - NAVAJO BEIGE - BRICK - EBONY 12* 12• BUILDING C - NORTH 3/32" = 1' 0" METAL GUARDRAILS PAINTED CEMENDTIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING — VINYL WINDOWS ■�i 1 STEEL to CANOPY — - - :GNAG SiGNRGE g1 �* STEEL CANOPY SIGNAGE � � -� ALUMINUM ALUMINUM STOREFRONT -----� STOREFRONT BRICK BRICK E.75' Al BUILDING C - SOUTH (S 320TH ST) BUILDING C - WEST 3/3r =,'-0" A4 3132" = 1'-0" roPLATE LEVEL 6 494.33' LEVE.L1 5 $ 4B LEVEL4 476.04' V LEVEL SL 466.90' Y LEVEL2 h 457.75' LEVEL 1ay7g $ LEVEL 6 "..0 LEVELS J 485.19' LEVEL4 / 476.04' 3 q6o LEVEL2 h 4VEL2 130 Sun I A Sea FA Tel Fex h11 ttp PROJECT: c HIGH POINT, BUILDING C PROJECT ADDRESS: 1066 SOUTH 320TH FEDERAL WAY, Wp OWNER: DEVCO, INC. 11100 MAIN STREE BELLEVUE WA 9801 MARK DATE B REVISIONS B 02/07114 LAND UE A 0BI06/13CONCEF MARK DATE 0 ISSUE INFORMAT PLOT DATE: PROJECT NO.: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: GGLO PRINCIPAL IN CW GGLO PROJECT MANIAS OWNERAPPROVAL: „ SHEETTITLE BUILDING C ELEVATION S LEVEL (n 443.75' Q SHEET NO 0D cm SCALE:3132"=1'-0" N ASK-( N 0' 5"375 10.75' 21.5' DI B STEEL cAhlov A &irCK x BUILDING E-WEST G1 3132" - 1 0 Al BUILDING E-SOUTH 3132" = 1'-0" T.O. ROOF RIDGE h 509.67' EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND FIBER CEMENT BOARD -IRON GRAY FIBER CEMENT BOARD - KHAKI BROWN ® FIBER CEMENT BOARD - HARRIS CREAM FIBER CEMENT BOARD - NAVAJO BEIGE - BRICK - EBONY T.O. ROOF - _ ROOF 50B 6T V _ T.00. PLAT �=✓M PANtm HOWMAL T.O. ROOF W LEVEL 5 491.69' LEVEL4 / a LEVEL3 h 473.60' LEVEL 2 464.45' Lwasww■_ ��-�w-ww�J LEVELI -� 4_1; BUILDING E- NORTH 4 3132�� = 1,-O T O. ROOF RIDGE h I N n a BUILDING E- EAST o N a N i i RETAINING WALLS N Q Z Q � Z � r 0 � v � 7RA5H d RECYCLING ENGLOSl1RE AREA BELOW V4ALL TO BE X15TII' 6 MAINTAINED AS HOOD-CHIP/SOFT VE ATI N SURFACE BY TRINIDAD TO REMAIN CONDOMINIUMS PER A EMENT I 'TYPE I PERIMETER LAN05CAPIN6 KEYSTONE WALL PER PWRC I Q r 125 rO6O(7)(B) S S SS SS mom mum ...r aawwr +wllw.wwR awwwrwwwwr awewr .nrw» 65 5E 555 5P ^4. 154 5R . "r M•M M A. T!rPE x x r • 11M III II I r II I I PE R w �r � " ■ rM wwM k M.125.150(6)0) ' r I WA N.125.040(4) %� ►+ ♦♦ OPEN 5F A Ir. 11 5F XISTING -- VE6ETATION TO REMAIN AT BASE OF WALL sOUTf+ L OF CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT Ibl SF 262 5F/ 65 5F PROCESS III LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION). 65OL1D WOOD PENCE: lie"'° «rr.r sew aw.► .. S � ..�.�._..�. �..�........�.._..�,m... S .w�.ww► .wwwwww. �x 7C 5.=IN E OF BIKE . NE, TYP. ' " LANES ROAD ........., . ........ _ CONNECTION IN GARDEN 2• 3, 2 SF 2"7O 5E OFEN PACE 185 "�~� �=!k.w..,�"�,. �'"^ �, ..,.pan.. n,,,..,,^.,, �.,„ $r . y J y=; I I I I 1 1 1W5' Ca.>'� � • � r> 124 5P TYPE I I I PEPRI METE LAND56APIN6 66 5F RAIN 6AROEN PER PWRG I cI r 125,060(�i)(ca) 2 5E INTERPRETIVE 204 5E 66 5F ZC)6 5F516N w '' 6ARD ' 2,63I 5F 0 4 • ....... + C9 ffi r 0 65 5E F.: . NC wow ��ww a •► "'. "' • .► w • �'firyr► �► ,�+�r� �% ' I I 14+4 d► Nil 9AFMOME RJR* ) M� w pMR 4• � METER A MMr LAND5C •• 114.125.060(1)(6) PER IN FEET) 0 M wM 0 SCALE: M' a '1!KINO LOT LAND50APINO (TYPE (RAIN A x R • D HITHIN • A AMR 101365 5F LOT A A. 0 PARKIN6 LOT MM TREES I .► «. * Iw,. '.,. TREES ... .. rD. FOR .. , ,,, ISLANDS :MRM TO 0 MwR A w• +► ISLANDS R a ND MR MR► �. DA�My �R r' A MMI A • SPACES IR , PROVIDED DEDICATED 1• JI1 M.. A PARKINO ► A PROVIDED DEDICATED COMMERCIAL SPACES AbR PARKwM Mr rr * PROVIDED- SHARED 35 +M► A SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKIN6 5P PROVIDED PARKIN LOT LAND5CAPINO • MwwrED I. RESIDENTIAL M'. A. ♦'31 MMr a. SPACE 61465 MM A Mb MM a. • wM► MM <.. PER Re A SPACES) SPACE A PARKINO LOT A A llbrINO wr ,MM wrMyM rrr E IV) PER TOTAL lIR' FHR0 lq.125.010(3)•' 0 0 5 5F TOTAL PROVIDED 10�365 5F TYPE III PERIMETER w. A A rr 6,164 XON TYPE I PERIMETER LAND56APIN6 PERIMETER Y '+wwM. LAN05CAPINO .aLL TERRACE wu..w ♦ A i#'ROPERTY LINE AL50 MEETS A A 'r Mb MM M. rw • HALLTERRACES r.Mb, PER wb I► .120.120 TYPE II TRASH LAND I5 AP'I Nt RECEPTACLE SCREEN C136 5I RAIN OA N LR•ANMbr" SY A I NO +++++.++++" RAIN OARDEN51 4 2 . . , . . . . . . . . . ,01 5F A"N- - - Li illfi j!jj , �INALK 51 K low }�1�,,I,till ° S1 -K • - OPEN 5FAC E L.AND50AP I N k. } v SEE SHEET L»-201 FOR AREA ENLAROEMENT « EX15TI C- (/I�)}j �� \—IO'DEDICATED i rC?rW. F 5 TYPE III PERIMETER l..l TI N �, COMMON OPEN SWAGE LAND50APINCS p $ ( 5T OF I ITH PL. 5 ,Or LA SCA'PI NCBY OTHERS(OPEN SPACE 1, 2, 4 3) cf,513 5I= OPC3 5 ET ,1 P PER 1= G lei 12 C�6O jQo2N_i Ac'101 �v L CA NI I« NAME: DEVCO, INC. ADDRESS: IOqO0 NE & 1 H STREET, 1200 BELLEVUE, HA cl&004 PHONE: (425) 453-C1551 CONTACT: TOM NEUBAUER A I 1 IN NAB LO, LLC ADDRESS: 130115T AVE #301 5EATTLE, WA GI&IO1 PHONE: (206) 1-5 :2 CONTACT: MIKE MOEVRITZER 6R :I II C. TE T 1 D N T1A L 1 DI.NC55 NAME: RDA ADDRESS: 20"7 FOURTH AVENUE 5E ALLUP, NA c483-12 PHONE: 25 -9 4O_q .5 CONTACT: R055 DECKMAN, AIA C 1NE YOR NAME: AZURE EN CONSULTANTS, LLC D 55: 404 E PIONEER AVE YALLUP, WA g312 PHONE: (253) T70-3144 CONTACT: PAUL OREEN, PE 6SDQ R ni NAME: C I LLE5 CONSULTI NCB ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 2366 KIRKLAND, HA a609�3 PHONE: (4 25) 522-41gcI4 CONTACT. BRIAN OILL.ES LAN256—APE ARCH1 TEGT NAME: TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS, INC. ADDRESS: 15020 BEAR CREEK RD. NE NOODINVILLE, WA 'l&0-" PHONE: (425) e 61-- 755 7 CONTACT: AN OLSEN, RLA L—O I PARK I NCB LOT, PERIMETER 4 OPEN SPACE O R.` I EW PLAN L-20I DETAILED OPEN 5PACE AND 5TREETESCAPE AMEN I TI E5 PLAN L_-30I PLANTING PLAN L-302 PL.ANTINC-7 PLAN L-303 PLANTI 6 PLAN L — 04 P1... NTI & PLAN L-401 PLANT 5C.,HEDUL.E, NO L-402 DETAL5 L-403 L".AND50APE !►PEC I F I OATI ON5 EX15Ti , R �^ .. 1 PER.1 METER XIGN E=4:A!66 ANP NOTES 520TH STREELA N APINC"5 .s„ TO BE _... T PER I=WR.G .....,._..., i REPLACED 9 z _ Iq.125.0600)(C) LC)'C.AT1C) J r*ww%AAKww'hX ANOMAMO 1Nr� LET, =K Err= r=N 9"F A"NM9GA1N6 r' r l '' =r QS 1 T'I N No !9 I. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY AZURE ' APB ( SCALE N ANT TO I=WRC M.120. (I4), E TENTION 4 OPEN '"'ACE 5U t ; 'r"X GREEN CONSULTANTS, LLC, E PIONEER AVE. ( IN FEET) REPLACEMENT REQUIRE NT DO NOT APPLY IN THE PUYALLUP, CI832, (253) TlO -3144r if Fr�tai open space required, 3 t un)ts x 1 sf unit = 30'000 sf :2. URGE D IN MODIFIED O 5,E P U E BY I C 1 TY CENTER P (CC-P) ZONE. Min. 25°o openspace as commoncommonopen space = 7,500 sf 1. I00F OF USABLE OPEN SPACE TALASA CONSULTANTS FOR. VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 0 20' 40' Wo location Total Area sf (COMMON AND PRIVATE) PER DWELLINGS d6 SCALE: I"=40' UNIT GUI D, PER F C< 1 �r23O,O60. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION Open Space 1 (common) 3.�.�� dig. FILE �1 �.-�IO2O61-OO--CO C)r"L A N L E NIC'W"'pen Sp ce 2 (common) . OFOFUSABLE_ ..._._.. _...A_..._ SPACE PROVIDED MUST BE COMMON PROPERTY LINE Open Space 3 (common) 3,711 OPEN SPACE, PER I=WRC 161.2 .060(6). Srr~ V OF x x x 42" LID WOOD SAFETY FENCE Building rriz�itie(COr��rra+r�rl7,24 �. M N OPEN SPACE T 13E A �~3Y. E x -- x .-- Total common open space provided.- 14,5 1 44•6 MINIMUM OF .225 5E HAVE A MINIMUM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 6 SOLID WOOD PERI TER PENCE DIM 51ON OF 1' IN ALL DIMENSIONS, 4 ;f : l + Patio/Decks 3 2 sf/ea. (private) �w, �' �. � STREET ES, 3 X6 C-�RA ,SEE DETAIL Total aspen space provided PER PWRG µ, ccarramtarn+private): 32 6 7 TMA'AM KAMzxpwftM NO. M DATE: STREET LI T R C1 CENTER STANDARDr DETAIL, SEE DETAIL (SEE LICHT1Nr5 FLAN BY TENH)VIM w .y ,wwrw�wwlrnlllwllrwr. 41 I 1 ii t «a lR 11 4 w Date .►r Scale A5 RQIL12 Designed A Drawn .- »d a, A` } *. Approved Project Sheet L -1 SEF 1 xs +ry�x SIq .,y.,a w< rn.D E � ".moo x��,�f�d;�p r?;a u a C :x� ,,x; I IIIIIII0- � � IIIW� MR I LE 6ATE TO MATCH POOL 5ECURITY FENCE - (E6RE-55 ONLY) 5URF (5EE CI\/I �V PLANI 10 -W "It, VN DECORATIVE PLANTER, TYP. 5,520TH 5TREET REMOVE EX15TIN65TREET TREE AND REPLACE BIKE LANE 135(3� GRILL, TYP. -� OPEN SPACE ,4REfi 2 41 ------ 7! 50ALE.- I"=20' RAIN &ARDEN IO'X 12' a KI NO 5HELTER 01I LANDSCAPE PLA p I �Wllf "FEN SP "A 5 50ALE; 1 20' 9- lip 01 lip iiiii I !1! 11 jj���I�� I I'll !:3111r ;� -�Illlllll EN 5PAGE 4 STRMETSGAPE DE516N LE6ENV INI 41 PICNIC, TABLE WITH BENCHES sea 1 #1? 4'ADA PICNIC TABLE WITH BENCHES 6BENCH 0 TRASH RECEPTACLE E3f3Q GRILL BIKE RACK PLAY EQUIPMENT (SEE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION) DECORATIVE STAMPED CONCRETE 5URFAGIN6 CONCRETE (PER CIVIL PLANS) PLAY AREA SAFETY TILE SURFACING NOTES: I. FOR PLANT SCHEDULE, DETAILS AND NOTES, SEE SHEET L-401 2. EXACT PLACEMENT OF AMENITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE PRODUCT SPECIFICATION AND CUT SHEETS WITHIN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DE516N INFORMATION 4 AMENITY GUIDE FOR SPECIFICS ON AMENITY TYPE, MODEL, AND COLOR. 3. FINAL PLAY AREA INSTALLATION SHALL MEET ALL CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (OP5C) SAFETY STANDARDS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, LAYOUT, 5URFACIN6, 4 ADEQUATE FALL ZONES. ommomomma mm PROFER-rY LINE 6RAPHIC 50ALE WRTH X—X x—x-42" 50LID HOOD 5AFETYFENCE MAIM OP ( IN FEET) "Aammom -1--- ------ ---l- A x — x — 6' 50LID V4000 PERIMETER FENCE 06019yamp CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIN6 11111140%% LAP"Pseme AW.OMT Ir X 4 rs-"\ •5TREET TREE5, 5'Xb'C-PATE,5EE DETAIL 0 10 20 40 56ALE: 1 20' 5TREET LIC-HT P D ERC L OL CENTER STAND Am m"m M ATE: Catr"OATZ N0.1" I I,, I 1 11 ''IIloo DETAIL, 5EE DETAI (5EE LIC-HTIN67 PLAN BY TENN) vxmms"/* MOM Date Ide ♦-20133 Scale A5 HQ= Designed AQZAE55 Drawn A05' iChecked AQ pproved 55 Project 144!1 ' 11 P (Em,'ITY OF FEDElf'Zi L WAY CDS zlb lit &AP Vh 0 In' I mom "A K, �—W,;014'; WA I E<' �V; X, 111, 1470 1 ZMA RR Oil Am *,,�AA FeTi�� k mov Ulu W "NAIN w,#r 7� W71, PrA -44 roll AA �0 lei P-A A ma Al 01t AM 39MAdm 'TAW IM i PIT 15 � Am 'y' WA WrA IMMI 100 JU 4 41*t! Rif �04 Cz Cm 1VOW 11 10 % NMI , Oki,; A, to-, �Iqwl 'ImPAWR-Wil 7- 0 40M amm 4 1 1 PROPERTY LINE —,X— x—x—x-42" SOLID 1400D SAFETY FENCE X — x — ro' 50LID HOOD PERIMETER FENCE -10i 0-1 00-11l I' AL it 4,1 f 5 STREET TREES, 3W51 63RATE, SEE DETAIL 1� N�� STREET LI6HT PER CENTER STANDARD DETAIL,5EE DETAI 69 (5EE LI C-71-ITIN6 PLAN BY TENN) L 7 GAREX OBNUPTA 5LOU CSH 5EVC5E CAREX 5TIPATA -,E SAHBEAK 5EDC JUNCUS EN51FOLIU5 DA(5&ERLEAF RUSH JUNCV5 TENU15 SLENDER RUSH 5HRU55 10--Il SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME .:x ACER CIRCINATUM \/INE MAPLE GORNU5 ALBA (5ERIGEA) RED-05IER 006HOOD 0 CORNU5 ALBA (5ERIGEA) 'KEL5EYI' KELSEY D06HOOD A LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK Tk4INBERRY MALU5 (PYRU5) FU50A PACIFIC GRABAPPLE ROSA NUITKANA NOOTKA R05E JOLANT L 150"T TREES L SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME VINE MAPLE ACER CIRCINATUM ER RUBRUM RED MAPLE ACER PALMATUM 'BLOOD6000' BLOOD&OOD JAPANESE MAPLE AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA SERVICEBERRY CALOCEDRU5 VECURREN5 INCENSE CEDAR PYRU5 CALLERYANARED5PIRE1 RE05PIRE FLOP4ERINO PEAR CHAMAECYPAR15 O5TU5A"6RACILIV SLENDER HINOKI CYPRE55 CORNU5 KOU5A KOUSA 006HOOD CORNU5 NUTTALLII PACIFIC 006V4000 CORYLU5 CORNUTA HE5TERN HAZELNUT PICEA OMORIKA SERBIAN SPRUCE PINUS CONTORTA VAR. CONTORTA SHORE PINE + PRUNUS 5ERRULATA 'AMANO6AVW AMANOO.All FLOHERIN& CHERRY P5EUDOTlA MENZIE511 POU&LAS FIR 5TYRAX JAPONICA JAPANE5E5NOHBELL THUJA PLICATA 1VIRESCENS' VIRE56EN5 VsIE5TERN RED CEDAR 5HRU55 9YI-WL SC415NTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 0 BUXIJ5 MICROPHYLLA KOREANA HINTER OEM KOREAN 'HINTER C5EIl BOYA014000 CALLUNA \AJL6AR15 5GOTCH HEATHER CEANOTHU5 'JULIA PHELPS' JULIA PHELPS CEANOTHU5 r,15TU5 HYBRIDUS k4HITE ROCKR05E CISTU5 PURPUREN5 ORCHID ROCKR05E E50ALLONIA 'NENPORT 01iiiiiiiiIARF' NEHFORT VV4ARF E-56ALLONIA 0 LA\/ANDULA ANC--AJ5TIFOLIA EN&LISH LA\/ENVER MAHONIA AGUIFOLIUM TALL OREC-70N &RAPE MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC HAX MYRTLE o NANDINA DOME-5TKA 'FIRE POV4ER' FIRE P01illill NANDINA /",% NANPINA DOMESTICA 'C--AJLF STREAM' CSULF STREAM NANDINA OSMANTHU5 DELAVAYI VELAVAY 05MANTHU5 PANICUM VIR6ATUM ROT5TRAHLBU56H IROTSTRAHLBUSGH' 5V4IT6H6RAS5 E) PAX15TIMA MYRTIFOLIA ORE 650N BOXHOOD PHILADELPHU5 LEN1511 MOCK ORAN&E POTENTILLA FRUTIC05A 'KATHERINE KATHERINE VYKE5 DYKES' CINOUEFOIL RHODODENDRON 5OHLIPPENE3ACHII ROYAL AZALEA RHODODENDRON X 'P.JM' PJM RHODODENDRON RHODODENDRON X 'SCARLET 50ARLET HONDER 01,,4ARF HONVER' RHODODENDRON RHODODENDRON YAKU5HIMANUIM YAKU PRINCE YAKU PRINCE' RHODODENDRON RIBE5 5ANC-7UINEUM RED-FLOV4ERINO CURRANT R05A 1MEICOUBLAN' HHITE MEIDILAND ROSE klu SYMPHORICARP05 ALBU5 5NOHBERRY \,/ACCINIUM O\/ATUM E\VER&REEN HUCKLEBERRY VIBURNUM DAIVIDII DAVID IVIBURNUM OROUNPOOVER 1=91 LA—NVr2!��AFMLQ 15ymwL SCIENnF10 NAME COMMON NAfvC- N05ymWL AROT05TAPHYL05 UVA-UR51 KINNIKINNICK NO SYMWL f;WBU5 CALYCINOIDE5 CREEPIN6 BRAMBLE FERIL*l�R 6NR!��.CeAPI SYHWL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME N05YMBOL 6AULTHERIA 5HALLON 5ALAL No 5YMBOL POLY5TICHUM MUNITUM 5HORD FERN OTHER ARE6f2" - 65 H NN ON ELAN_ SYMBOL ECIENnno NAME COMMON RAME 11 ARCT05TAPHYLO5 UVA-UR51 KINNIKINNICK N/V HYPERICUM CALYCINUM ST. JOHN5 HORT 50D C-A;ZA55 VINES SYMWL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMO-N-RAME h A 9 Date Scale A5 NQ= I Designed 621655 Drawn Checked 6Q Approved 135 Project 14-44 heet # RAIN 6ARDEM I NTERPADA RE1L\/F-5J-6R- -40 Ao 5EE ETIL 5; 5HEET L-40 +1 + `° ' TYPE III PERIMETER LAN05GAPINC-7 PER FHRG 1q.125.0600)(G) w. PLANPL,4NTI�l6 4 6R4PHIC 50ALE NORV (IN FEET RA IN 6,4iZ1�=N PL,4NT...1mitpT o 10, 20' 4 EMEROENT5 56ALE: I " = 20' 4'.1f=NT1F1r. NAME COMMON NAME CAREX 013NUPTA CAREX 5TIPATA JUNGU5 EN51F0LIU5 JUNCU5 TENU15 5LOUC7H 5EGWE 5AHBEAK 5ED&E pA6 e7ERLEAF RUSH SLENDER PUSH fiviawftLANAT LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME WMMON NAt-V-- XXxX ACER CIRCINATIJM VINE MAPLE CER RUBRUM RED MAPLE IBLOOOC,000 I BLOOD6000JAPANE5E • ACER PALMATUM MAPLE G) AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA SERVICEBERRY INCENSE CEDAR >1 + CALOCEDRU5 DECURREN5 PYIRU5 CALLERYANA IRE05PIRE' REOSPIRE FLOV4ERINO PEAR CHAMAECYPAR15 OBTU5A'&RA6ILI51 SLENDER HINOKI CYPRE55 CORNU5 KOU5rA-% KOU5A 006V4000 0 CORNU5 NUTTALL I I PACIFIC 006HOOD C0RYLU5 CORNUTA I,^IF5TERN HAZELNUT PICEA OMORIKA 5ERBIAN SPRUCE pINU5 CONTORTA \,/AR. CONTORTA 5H0RE PINE AMANOC,AV4A FLOHERIN6 + PRUNUS 5ERfRULATA 'AMANO(5ANA' CHERRY P5EUVOT5U&A I E511 DOU&LA5 FIR • STY RAX JAPONICA JAPANFSESNOHBELL THUJA PLICATA VI SCENE' VIRF56EN5 P4E5TFfRN RED GEDAR 5HRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 0 BUXU5 MICROPHYLLA KOREANA P41NTER C-A---M KOREAN 'WINTER C-.;r--M' E30XV4000 (9 CALLUNA \/UL6AR15 SCOTCH HEATHER CFAN0THU5 'JULIA PHELP5' JULIA PHELPS CEAN0THU5 C15TU5 HYBRIOU5 WHITE R0CKR05E 615TU5 PURPUREN5 ORCHID ROCKR05E E50ALL0NIA 'NEWORT DWARF'NEWORT DV4ARF F5CALLONIA 0 LAVANOULA ANCU5TIFOLIA ENC-21-151-1 LAVENDER MAHONIA ACLU IFOLIUM TALL ORE eON &RAPE MYRICA cALIFORNICA PACIFIC HAx MYRTLE NANDINA DOMESTICA 'FIRE POWER' FIRE 1='ov4EfR, NAND IILIA NANDINA DOMESTIC^ 'GULF STREAM' CAJLF STREAM NANDINA 05MANTHU5 DELAVAYI OELAVAY 05MANTHU5 PANICUM VIR67ATUM IROTSTRAHLBU561-1 'ROT5TRAHLBU56H' 5HITCH&RA55 E) PAX15TIMA MYRTIFOLIA ORE C-70N XHOOD PHILADELPHU5 I-Ek41511 MOCK ORAN C.7E POTENTILLA FIRUTIC05^ 'KATHERINE KATHERINE DYKES DYKES' CINGUEFOIL RHODODENDRON 5CHLIPPENE3ACHII ROYAL AZALEA RHODODENDRON X 'PJM' PJM RHODODENDRON RHODODENDRON X 'SCARLET SCARLET P40NDER OHARF 0 WONDER' RHODODENDRON C) RHODODENDRON YAKUSHIMANUM YAKU PRINCE YAKU PRINCE' RHODODENDRON RIBE5SANC--7UINEUM RED-FLOV4ERINC-7 CURRANT 0 R05A 'MEICOUBLAN' WHITE MEIDILANO R05E 5YMPH0RICARP05 AL 5N0HBERRY VACCINIUM OVATUM EVERC-71REEN HUCKLEBERRY VIBURNUM OAVIDII DAVID VIBURNUM IN PARK , -Q LQ- T., LA-NV5CAF1N--.-0-- 5YME30L 561ENTIFIG NAME COMMON NAME NOSYMWL AfRCT05TAPH-,yLO5 UVA-UR51 KINNIKINNICK No SYM130L RUBU5 CALYCIN0IDE5 cREEPIN& BRAMBLE EERIMETER LANVgAFINQ- 5YMWL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NO 5YI-WL 6AULTHERIA 5HALLON 5ALAL No 5YMWL POLY5TICHUM MUNITUM SP40RD FERN O-THER, & AS .-AONN ON AN 5ym50L 561ENTIF10 NAME COMMON NAME ARCT05TApHYLO5 UVA-UR51 KINNIKINNICK HYPERICUM CALYCINUM WORT ST. JOHNS V40 VINF.5 clympkol G604TIFIO NAME COMMON KAME pARTHENoCISSU5 TRICU5PIPATA* BOSTON IVY PLANT AT BASE OF LOHER RETAININO HALL 0 HE5T PROPERTY BOUNDARY ro 1 0.0. K2 1. SURVEY AND SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY AZURE C-AREEN CONSULTANTS, LLC, 4011 E PIONEER AVE. PUYALLUP, NA q&3-72,(255) -"0-3144. 2. SOURCE ORAKINCE-75 HERE MODIFIED BY TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. AppR0\/FO FOR CONSTRUCTION FILE #14-102061-00-CO 5HRU55 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STAM OF f -3y: K#A*owmm I, x EN' x VINE MAPLE OFLAN L=cv I'll ACER CIROINATUM 02901"y4w CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIN& wommomwam am* mamob PROPERTY LINE GORNU5 ALBA (5ERICEA) RED-051ER 006P4000 LANOS&AM AWCAMW X— X— X— X— 42" SOLID V400D 5AFET*,r FENCE CORNU5 ALBA (SERICEA) 'KEL5EY1' KELSEY DOOP4000 RIMETER FENCE X— x — 6' 50LI 0 P4000 PE A LONICERA INVOLU61RATA BLACK TP41NBERRY "M% STREET TREES, 3,Xbl &RATE, SEE OF -TAIL PACIFIC CRABAPPLE 49WMAM W.'M 01 MALU5 (PYRUS) FU50A STREET LIC-HT PER 01 CENTER STANDARD R05A NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 1 11, 1 1-11111 1 DETAIL, SEE DETAIL (SEE LI&HTIN6 PLAN BY TEN4 mm�� tt U, NI !':..►� Date Scale 65 NO-= Designed 6(2 IN 3-5 Drawn 6M �Checked it Approved m Project IAAA m JIV I L J OF FEDERAL WAY CDS rLANTIN6 400.bb 6 16' .26' 40' summommom one mine PROPERTY LINE x x x -. x 421' 50L.I0 HOOD SAFETY Y FENCE -- X x Via' 50L I D P400D PERIMETER PENCE QEdlSTREET E5, :3' r' TE, 5 DETAIL 4 STREET L16HT PER 01 CENTER STANDARD DETAIL, SEE DETAIL (SEE LI 67HTIN& PLAN BY TENT -RAIN ter ♦ ISPARPEN PLANT EME,w SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 5LOU&H uE i iu w M ♦ 'iIIM i ME MI !� DA676ERLEAF SLENDEi� tl► ✓ USH PLANT L: I ST T E5 SCIENTIFIC, E COMWN NAME V ACER C I RC.. i NATUM VINE NCA1=''LE C:•ER RUBRUM RED MAPLE ACER PALMATUM 'BLOODC'w'000' BLOOD67000 JAPANESE MAPLE AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA 5ERVICEBERRY -1- CALOCEDR.U5 VEGURREN5 INCENSE NSE CEDAR PYRU5 CALLER.YANA 'R PI ' RE05PIRE FLONER.IN6 PEAR CHAMAECYPAR15 OBT1,15A 'O CIL15' SLENDER HINOK1 CYPRESS CORNU5 KOU5A KOU5A DOONOOD CORNU5 NUTTALLII PACIFIC 006WOOD ��► CG>RYLU5 CORNUTA HE5TERN HAZELNUT PI CEA OMORIKA 5ERE31AN SPRUCE: PINU5 CONTORTA VAR, CONTORTA SHORE PINE UNU5 5ER LATA 'AMANO&AHA' AMANO&AHA FLOHER"I NC CHERRY P5EU0OT5t..lC A MEN.Z I E5I I DOU6LA5 F I R • 57Y X JAPONICA JAPANESE 5NOHDELL THUJA PLICATA 'VI RE5CEN5' IRDE5 RED EN5 HE5T RN R CE SHRUBS SymWL SCIENTIFIC, NAME WWONr 'HINTER D SIP A . ♦ wr HEATHER E501r11': ♦ • A � MM Da. • w A E50A r A A A PACIFIC MYRTLE 05Mw A A DELAVAY � t M11/ A. Y # FRUTIA 'KATHERINE KATHERINEDYKES DYKES' CINQUEFOIL U-& RHODODENDRON 5OHLIPPENE3ACHII ROYAL AZALEA U RHODODENDRON X 'PJMI PJM RHODODENDRON HONDER' RHODODENDRON Y A U. P• /1 ;yamMM RHODODENDRON A R05A # (D 5YMPHORICARPO5 ALBU5 5NOHBERRY ACCINIUM .. ATUM EVEROREENHUCKLEBERRY VIBURNUM D# D DAVID VIBURNUM w +IN► +U I N0 5YMBOL. 6AULTHERIA 5HALLON 5ALAL NO 5YME30L POLY5TICHUM MUNNITU� 5HO FERN ayif Qn-gS AFMA5 - A5 SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ARCT45TAPHYLO5 UVA-UR51 I I NI I I I~iN1 GK ' HYPER1 C;JUM C».ALYC 1 NUM 5T» JOHN5 V40RT r rJ+'Jj .rJ. .r'J. . J•r 0 6RA55 VINES SYM L SCIENTIFIC. NAME WMMON NAME w r rr ar ♦ 1•*p' PLANT M w A #SE OF M +M.. A. 4.LL .^.y PROPERTY t Y►' tM AIM'. III A.. ,W O.C. !� 61 Vqgki�m I I I - I 1. SURVEY AND 51TE PLAN ♦ PROVIDED !M MuR 1 AZURE �Ib rEEN CONSULTANTS,, r: PIONEER P w A c05121(25.3) / t 2. SOURCE ► " "" MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ♦ wr.rMrO M" I.. R:..N: FILE I •.r #! O SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME xxx ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE a� BY; •CORNU5 AL.BA (5ERICEA) D-051ER 006 0r,> CITY CAE FEDERAL HAY DEPARTMENT CAP PLANNIN& •CORNU5 ALBA SERI CEA) 'KEL5EY1' KELSEY 00 LONIC:,ER.A INVOLUCRATA BLACK THINBERRY • MAL.U5 (PY S) FU56A PACIFIC CRABAPPLE CaWMAM "rn DATE-. R05A NUTKANA NOOTKA R05E +1 Gyyx'Y r µ SEP T( P L� f d G p, ��p"1Lb \� `%v. t� w g'a.}�P' A q¢i ,y��gg 1y5 "�S($.rd ?. 4yY Y �tl2 � SY� � ita z�' wa N, Z� 6� 1y,,1 +i xxpp � � vsmy fir. r � �ta„� MATGHLINE TO L-502 \-5EE L1644TIN6 PLAIN BY TENH S 320TH STREET SAS ORAPHIC SCALE IN FEET) 0 10, 20, rol 50ALE: 1 20' IMUM =:�3 9"W pRoRT*y' LINE X— X— X— X— 4211 SOLID pJ000 SAFETY FENCE xX------ ,6'50LIP k40OP PERIMETER FENCE f 4 X f 5i N STREET TREE5,3'X(0'6RATE,5EE DETAIL STREET LIGHT PER CENTERSTANDARD TENN) DETAIL, SEE VETAL I (SEE L16HTIN& PLAN BY (9 EMEROENT5 COMMON NAME UAVE AMIX OBNUPT11p11 uIW A CAREx 5TIPATA JUNCU5 EN51FOLIU5 JUNGU5 TENU15 ACER CIRGINATUM CORNU5 ALE3A (SERICEA) 0 CoRNU5 ALBA (5ERICEA) 'KEL5E*rl' A LONICERA INVOLUOP-ATA MALU5 (PYRU5) rU56A ROSA NUITKANA SLOU&H SEP 65E 5AP46EAK SEP 654--- VINE MAPOLF RED-051ER P06HOO# KELSEY 00 6NOOP 5LACK THINBERRY PACIFIC CRABAPPLE NOOTKA. R05E a -"O,LAtLT -I= [ST W.I r TREE5 clommONNAME L.SCIENTIFIC NAME ACER CIRCINAT'UM \,./iNE MAPLE ER BRUM REP MAPLE E31-0006000 JAPANESE ACER PALMATUM 'BLOOD C-7000' MAPLE AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA SERVICEBERRY CALOCEpRU5 PEoURREN5 INCENSE CEDAR RE05PIRE FLONERINO PYRU5 CALLERYANA `RE05PIPEl PEAR CHAMAECYPAR15 Of3TU5A6,RACIL151 SLENDER HINOKI CYPRESS KOU5A. 006k4000 V.,II coRNU5 KC CORNU5 NUTTALLI I PACIFIC VO&V4000 NE CORYLU5 CORNUTA STERN HAZELNUT A. 5ERBIAN5PRUCE PICEA OMORIKA PINI CONTORTA VAR. CONTORTA SHORE PINE AMANOeAHA FLOHERINC-7 ppUNU5 5ERRULATA 'AMAN06AHA' CHERRY + P5EUt7OT5U(F7A MENZIE511 POU61-A5 FIR 5lyf;ZAX JAPONICA JAPANESE SNOHBELL THUJA PLICATA 'ill ENS' VIRF55GEN5 HESTERN D RE CEDAR SHRUBS SYMWL SCIENTIFIC NAME coMMOK NAME III BU - XU5 MICHYLLA KOREANA HINTER r9EM KOAWN 0 ROP 'V41NTER 6EM' 50>04000 0 CALLUNA VULIOAR15 500TCH HEATHER CEANOTHU5 'JULIA PHELPS JULIA PHELPS CEANOTHU5 615TU5 HYBRIPU5 V4141TE ROCKP-05E 615TUS PURPUREN5 ORCHID ROCKFZ05E NENPORT PHARF F-50^1-LONIA lNEWORT PHARF' EnCALLONIA 0 LAVANPULA AN C-7USTIFOLIA ENOL15H LAVENDER MAHONIA AGUIFOLIUM TALL ORE60N CRAPE ' MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC HAX MYRTLE @ NANDINA DOME5TICAFIRE POPI FIRE pOHEf;Z NAtVINA 0 NANPINA POME5TICA 1(9ULf:: STREAM' GULF STREAM NANDINA 05MANTHU5 OELAVAYI DELAVAY 05MANTHUS pANICUM VIROATUM ROTS TRAHLE3U50H 'ROT5TRAHL13U5I 5PIH6f;zA55 PA X15TIMA MYRTIFOLIA of;zE C--70N XHOOD .e� PHI LAPELPHU5 LENI511 MOCK ORAN POTENTILLA FRUTIC05A 'KATHERINE KATHERINE DYKES DYKES' CINQUEFOIL U.& RHODODENDRON 5oHLIPPENE3AGHII ROYAL AZALEA .0I RHODODENDRON X `PJM' PJM RHODODENDRON u RHODODENDRON X 'SCARLET 50ARLET P40NDER OP4ARF (D V40NDER' RHODODENDRON 0 RHODODENDRON YAKU5HIMANUM YAKU PRINCE YAKU PRINCE' RHODODENDRON RIE3155 5ANCSUINEUM RED-FLOP4ERIN6 CURRANT R05AMEICOUBLAN' HHITE MEIDILAND ROSE SYMPHORICARPI ALf3U5 5NOHBERRY VAGOINIUM OVATUM EvEROREEN HUCKLEBERRY till UM VA\/IPII DAVID VIBURNUM sy SCIENTIFICtdNAME WmMoNNAME t4o syMWL ARCT05TAPHYLO5 UVA-UR51 KINNIKINNICK No 5YMWL RuBU5 CA LYCINOIDE-5 CREEPIN6 BRAMBLE ,AND50APINQ 5YME30L ICI TIFIC NAME -----ComMoN NAME N0!5Yt-WL - 6AULTHERIA 5HALLON 5ALAL NO 5YMWL pOLySTICHUl-I MUNITUM 5VAORP FERN N ON 15ymwL 561ENTIFIC, NAME Cot440N NAME x\\\\\\\\0\ ARCT05TAPHYLO5 U\v/A-UR51 KINNIKINNICK 010111 HYPERICUM CALYCINUM ST. JOHNS NORT 50D C-v"55 VINES SYMWL SCIENTIFIC, NAME ComMON NAME PARTHEN0615%5 TRICU5PIDATA* E305TON IVY >ARY PLANT AT BASE OF LOHER RETAININ& HALL 0 HE5T PROPERTY E30UNr (01O.C. P I ki SUR\/Ey AND 51TE PLAN PROVIDED BY AZURE 65REEN CON5ULTANT5t LL6, 40q E PIONEER AVE- PUYALLUP, V4A cIb3-l2,(2!53) -nO-3144- 2. SOURCE DRiNKINI HERE MODIFIED By TALA5AEA 6014501-TANT5 FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION FILE #14-102061-00-CO SCAM or f3y. LNVSC*#M #Wmt=T CITY OF FEDERAL PI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIN& tJ IN r' MM if Date Scale 65► 1M 1 Desianed 60 1 Drawn 625 Checked Approved Project eet 0-4 Clil OF FEDER L WAY Cyr. S m __ OTY. SPACINC7 SIZE (MIN) xx x AGER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE 5a SLOOD&OOP JAPANESE 31 -7000' ACER PALMATUM 'SLOODC MAPLE AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA SERVIOEBERRY CALOGEDRU5 DECURREN5 INCENSE CEDAR REVSpIRE FLOHERINO 31 PYRU5 CALLERYANA 'RE05PIREI PEAR CHAMAECYPAR15 OE3TU5A IORACIL15' SLENDER HINOKI CYPRE55 153 CORNU S KOU5A KOU5A 006HOOP a CORNU!5 NUTTALLI I PACIFIC 006HOOrl) e-1 0 CoRyLU5 CORNUTA HESTERN HAZELNUT 2 PIGEA OMORIKA SERBIAN5PRUGE C11 PINU5 CONTORTA VAR. cONTORTA SHORE PINE 15 T ^MANO6AHA FLOHERIN<5 2rb + pRUNU5 5ERRULATA 'AMAN06AHA' (: CHERRY + p5eivOT509A MENZIE-511 DOU6LAS FIR STrRAx JAPONICA JApANE5E 5NOHBELL 10 THUJA OOGIDENTAL15 IEMERALD EMERALD 6REEN ARBORVITAE (00 6REEN' VIRE56EN5 HESTERN RED 22 T14UJA PLICATA 'VIRE50EN6 CEDAR ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE AS SHoHN 4' HT., (1.!5" TOTAL CAL) AS 5HOHN 6' HT., (1 .5" TOTAL GAL.) AS SHOHN 4HT., (1.5" TOTAL GAL) AS elHom 6HT. AS SHOHN 2.511 CAL. ASSHoHN 61 HT. AS SHOHN 1.5 OtIlL. AS 5HOHN 1.5 GAL. AS SHoHN 4'HT., (1.5" TOTAL GAL) AS 5HOHN 6' HT. AS 5HOHN (9'HT. AS 5HOHN 1.5 of CAL. AS 5HOHN (9'HT. ^5 SHOk4N 1.5" CAL. AS 5HOHN (b'HT_ AS 5HOHN 6HT. AS SHOHN 2.511 GAL. -.nmMnW NAME OTY. SPACI Ism NIP 40 A NOV fm or NP A fe ow W 40 A we to AW or to ma am 1& 110.6. 70-6. 410-0. 4'0.0. 4'0.6. 310.6. 2'0.0. 410.6, 51 0.0. 2'0.6. 310.6 . 15'0.6. 310.6. 2'0.Co 510.6. 3,0.6. 410-6. 4'0.0. 2.510-6. 540.6. 510.6. 510.6. 4'0.0. 340.6. 3,0.0. ". L 41­ nT11r. SPA611116 sizr= (mIN) 12" HT. I OAL. 2411 HT. 24" HT. 2411 HT. 011 HT. I OAL. 2411 HT, 2411 HT. tall HT. 19>11 HT. 24" HT. tall HT. I &AL. 2411 HT. 1211 HT. 2-411 HT. 2411 HT. 1211 HT. 1211 HT. 2411 HT. 1211 HT. 011 HT. IT HT. 1211 HT. qCI=m-rir_tr. NAME AS 5HOHN 2 OALLON PAR BOSTON IVY ,THEN00155U5 TRIOU5PIDATA - I 'am UM& `A=%00 *%%"%f9%0urV TOLERANT "FLANT tV M oft h,Cr TOTAL PLANTSPECIE5; 60 TOTAL VRoU&HT TOLERANT SPECIES: 34 PERCENT DROU OHT TOLERANT 51% SPECIES*: *25% MINIMUM REGUIRED PER FHR0 H.125.040(b) WV PROU6W NOTE-5 NA%TI\IE TOLE -RANT f� Lilt, I X/ V B 4 E3, MULT I - I Kvfff-, k,;;' I - I I I --/ E34S, MULTI -TRUNK (3 MIN) E345, MULTI -TRUNK (3 MIN) X 546, FULL 4 BUSHY x B4B, 51NOLE TRUNK, HELL BRANCHED 645, FULL 4 BUSHY S451 SINeLE TRUNK, HELL BRANCHED S4S,5INrvj_E TRUNKo HELL X BRANCHED B413, MULTI -TRUNK �3 MIN) X B46, FULL 4 BUSHY S4B, FULL 4 BUSHY x f34E30 5IN6LE TRUNKo HELL BRANCHED f34B, FULL 4 BUSHY X f3s,f3t 5IN6LE TRUNKo HELL BRANCHED S45, FULL 4 BUSHY 6413, FULL 4 BUSHY x 645,5INC-71-E TRUNK, HELL BRANCHED FULL 4 B05HY FULL- 4 BJ94Y FULL 4 BUSHY FULL 4 BUSHY FULL 4 BUSHY FULL 4 BUSHY FULL 4 BUSHY FULL 4 BJ544Y FULL 4 BUSHY FULL 4 BUSHY FuLt- 4 BUSHY FULL 4 OAF�*fy FULL 4 B05HY FULL 4 BUSHY MUt_­r1-5TEt-1 (3 MIN.) MULTI-5TEM (3 MIN) MULTI -CANE (3 MIN) MULTI-5TEM (3 MIN-) FULL 4 BUSHY MULTI-5TEM (3 MIN.) MULTI -STEM (3 MIN) 134E3$ FULL 4 BUSHY MULTI-5TEM (3 MIN) FUH_ 4 1305HY 545, FIJLL 4 BUSPHY MULTI -CANE (3 MIN-) NATIVE C9j9UC7HT 'TIVE OROUNC)COVER DROU&HT to 5 0 A F60 1 N 6*L kNT NATIVE S2g��l �INC�P OT*r. 51ZE (MIN) NOTES ......... TO WMMON NAME 4 BUSHY x x so=Kmr_u-. NAME '71-7 0 110.0. 1 C5AL- FULL No 5YI-WL ARc KINNIKINNICK _L 4 BUSHY x No SYMWL TosTAPHYLo5 UVA-UR51 OREEPIN& BRAMBLE -71*7 011 O.C. I 6AL. FULL RUBU5 GALYGINOIDES VWX)eHT ANV_50AFIN�6** mtAnW WAMF SIZE (MIN) NOTE-5 NATIVE TOLERANT ........ 501=m-rir-ir. NAME CIO 225 244f 0.0. . I . 6AL. FULL 4 BUSHY x x No 5yj-1W1_ 6AULTHERIA 5HALLON 5ALAL CIq 36, O.C. I OAL. FULL 4 BU5HY x X No 5YMWL poLySTIGHUM MUNITUM 5HORD FERN PROU644T TOIPWANT 07y. SPACIN& SIZE (HIN) K1r1Tr-4::;, r-101.1ENTIFIC NAME NAME 415 15 11O.C. I &AL. FULL 4 BUSHY X x ARGT05TAPHYLO5 WA4,19151 KINNIKINNICK I CvAL. FULL 4 BUSHY x P40RT 206 24 HYPERICUM CALYCINUM ST. -JOHNS Sop OR 5EED x _Cj4jp/SOFT SURFACE 5F SOD/lECOHOOD &ROUNPooVER NOTF-5: 114 THE5E AREA5 6ROUNDOoVER 5HALL q4 pARKIN6 LOT LAN050APIN6 AREA5- No HATCH'Ne OR 5YI"WL5 ARE 5HOV4N ON PLAN!5 CROUNPG0\/ER 5PECIE-5 TO BE iLANTE'> L 5HALL f3E U5ED FIR5T To FILL OUT 5PACE IN FRONT OF THE 5HRUB C'ROUP'NC_�6 AT pEp, THE 5PECIFIED 5PAGINc.7. 6ROUNDCOVER PLANT MA�RIA BE LAIC) OUT IN THE FIELD 65ROUPIN615. T 3Ev ED e It,> OUT IN THE HE 7E5, AND THEN FiLuNe IN E3ETV4EEN 5HRU13 _66AIvINC, AREAS. NO HATCHINC-7 OR 5YMWI-5 ARE 5HOV4N ON PLAN5 - PLANT55HALL 13E LA ** 6ROUN060\/ER5PE6IE'5 TO BE PLANTED IN PERIMETER LAW UNDER 0156101JOU5 TREE5 (2411 MIN. FROM TRUNK) AT APPROXIMATE 5PA6046 5HOV4N IN 56HEDULE. FIELD AND 5HALL BE PLANTED EIETI"El"HRU13 C_7ROUP'NC_�Y5 AND RAIN oARDEN DROU644T ujmocff_i�L 51ZE (MIN) NATIVE OTY. SPAON& WMMON NAME ------ SAREROOT/PLU&S HELL -ROOTED x 1501ENTIF10 "WE 5LUU 67H5E05E 152 tall O.C. x CAREX Of3NUPT^ 110.0. BAREROOT/PLUC55 HELL -ROOTED 5E06E 152 15 0 x 5AHBEAK A S,4,REp,0OT/Pj_U C55 lo-4ELL-ROOTE OAREXSTIPAT� S&E -RO VAC RLEAF RU514 152 O.C. OTED x If 0OT/Pj_U&5 HELL . .. . JUNCUS EN51FOLIU5 15 O.C. BARER JUNOU5 TENU15 SLENDER RUSH 152 PROUC?HT 15HRA) C.OMMONNAME aTy. SPACIN6 151ZE (MIN) NOTES NATIVE -rini F42 ANT 134B, MULTI-TI:PUNK x 10� SCIENTIFIC KAt4E AS 5HOHN *HT. MIN.,15' (:3 MIN) UAOER CIRGINATUI-i VINE MAPLE CAL. MULTI -CANE (5 x - �- REP-051ER 006HOOD q2 4' O.C. 2 OALLON, tall HT. MIN) (D Cop NU5 ALBA (SERICEA) - KELSEY DHARF 141 2.510-6. 1 &ALLON, 12" HT. FULL 4 Bu5HY x 0 GoRNU5 ALBA (5ERICEA) 'KEL5EYI' 006HOOD 2 OALLON, 12" HT. MULTI -CANE (3 x - BLACK THINBERRY 21 4' 0.0. MIN.) LONIGERA INVOLUORATA 51MOLE TRUNK, x - PACIFIC GRABAPPLE 21 AS!5tHOHN 4# HT. HELL BRANCHED uMALU5 (p-(RUS) FU56A 2 OALLON, tall HT. MULTI -CANE (5 x - NOOTKA R05E 41 4' 0.0. MIN) ROSA NUTKANA f!!5 I ISSTA TION NU Cv NEr% N,'.. 1. PLANT TREES ANWOR 5HRUE35 I" HI(5HER THAN DEPTH 6ROHN AT NURSERY. FOR CONTAINER TREES ANEVOR SHf;ZUS5,S6oRE FOUR 51DE5 OF ROOT13ALL PRIOR TO 2. LINO 15 EVIDENT, PLANTIN6. BUTTERFLY ROOTBALL IF ROOT CIRC AND OVEf;Z IN HEIC5HT V41TH ONE (1) 5. STAKE DECIDUOUS AND EVER6REEN TREES 4 FEET . PLACE STAKE AT THE STAKE PER TREE. STAKE TREES IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTINO OUTER E06E OF THE ROOTS OR ROOTBALL, IN LINE HITH T14E pREVAILIN& HIND. STAKES BE LOOSELY ATTACHED U5IN6 CHAIN -LOOK TREE TIES TO ALLOH FOR SOME SHALL RTICAL, PARALLEL, EVEN -TOPPED, UNSOARRED AND TRUNK MOVEMENT. STAKES TO BE VE DRIVEN INTO UND15TUf;�SED 5U6ePAr?E. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR. 4. HATER PLANTS IMMEDIATELY UPON PLANTINC-7, THEN PROVIDE MANUAL HATERIN& OR A TEMPORARY IRRIeATION 5Y5TEM TO PREVENT PLA14T MORTALITY AND ENSURE PROPER -HIME`S`� iFLANTS SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF APPROXIMATELY ONE PLANT E-5TA5L1'-':, � i - 5EA50N (&ENERALLY JUNE 15TH - INCH OF HATER EVERY HEEK DURIN& THE DRY HE FIRST OCTOBER 15TH, OR EARLIER OR LATER IF CONDITIONS HARRANT) FOR T 5EA50N AFTER PLANTIN6. IRR16ATION AMOUNTS MAY NEED TO BE INOREASED DURINO PROLONC-7EV PERIODS OF HOT, PRY HEATHER. V41TH A 5LOH-RELEASF- 6ENERAL PURP05E FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS AT MANuFAOTUREzR'5 SPECIFIED 6RANULAR FERTILIZER OR SLOH-RELEASE TABLETS RATE. NOT_E: &ROUNDHATER PROTECTIONj SEE THE OPERATIONS AND MANAC-3EMENT 1. FOR TED PEST MANUAL U51NO BEST MANA&EMENT PRACTICES (SMP9) AND INTEORA mANAe;EmENT OPM) FOR FERTILIZER, AND PE5TICIVEMERBICIVE APPLICATIONS INCLUDINO GUANTIT'�rj TIMIN& AND TYPE or- FERTILIZERS APPLIED TO LAND56APED AREAS (FHRC 1q.05-0-70) WAV_ Of BY: CITY OF FEDERAL HAY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIN6 �za AM MARM OLM r,),ATE;,. plow -m a3ur"m No. J!Wm 4nA6 - 0 u u 94 el z *104 r, TA N V1 0 zo 1, Aj u0 m 0 Ilk I Date 2015 Scale Designed 60165-5— & Drawn 'AS Checked 'Approved Project i'Shee ;_a L t 1 1, 114�) wl f , 1016 CITY 01 FEDEF L WA) CDS SET TREE STRAIC7HT AND ROOTE3ALL ON r M► OR ON COMPACTED HOLE 1/2 WITH NATIVE SOIL AND TAMP r TO STABILIZE " r r it AHAr HIRE, ,. ■. AND BACKFILL REMAINI AMENDPLANTIN(9 HOLE. RY AS yy :" TED IN THE W LANTI P INSTALLATIONr ` Er ti 5DIA. -r• 00 ♦ "' z Owl .R i i R t ![ R �Itttt!! t! ttttt �!1!t ItI1Etf#�# �� � i � il1�l �!A! 1t! [lEii Ii1E X 1 II' iI rI � 1 gill go I ' 2 TIMES ROOTBALL PIA. � PL,4NTIN"""O" C"o)"""TAIL. 2 TIMES ROOTBA"LL DIAMETER ,�r I "' r♦ • .. " Rr am s Er ° r r. ,» FORM O,r TEMPORARY r r wr SOIL DAM AROUNDr HOLD HATER. I FINISHED w " r, .» ,� r ;, . r r rr • • r r ..• � r ' �. .t • r r ;. ' Err r M l "' "" ♦ r inl tM+,.Rt RRerswrt .��.'�.. SCARIFY SIDESP HOLE;SIRE HOLE 14A5 C7000 IM " . EXISTIN6 NATIVE SOIL mii!!! , MA;M [Af4j'-w -EXCAVATE HOLE 2 WIDER THAN ROOT13ALL. 90ARIFY SIDES r. ""' w HOLE.M r A 6000 EI► . "` .. ISROUNOGOVER PLANT MATERIAL; PLANT 2" DEPTH BARK MIJILGH E!El11Ea,E1N�lE�CEEE,lE11NEr$rE.IIEi:E1X11J[IIEEEIII�MNMEEiMlrlrrrlrlEEIDErErIII�rErErrr�rl�EEEi.IEIEr(E'r,EII,I,rE�IEE,iNEJ"Elul,EE,ri11ErEEE,EIEIrIrltrEE�ErE,ir,EE.� TOPSOIL DEPTH AND TYPE AS SPECIFIED 1r O O O O ISTANCE • 1111il,r wRr ,,E lony ���RUBSER TREE DE r rr A i07tKIN ROCK ROOT BARRIER ww..­w.... *?— (IYP., BOTH SIDES) KFILL a ffN CLEAN NATIVE SO L 11-•6" MIN. REMOVE BURLAP' rRtr� i40T �'O SOLE TOP 1 3 OF T BALL t�t3T '�' � ADD WATERINl3 RING PLANTINC. U14, 2X RKaQT t ----FIRM MATNE OIL � ,p 41 1♦ Dig hole iw "�`�i times 1F'4i �i%and.4411 of the root VVl1 VV �.A i7Y deep ast(Nii:��f MOMlg• V1/ not make hale die or than � root ball. 2. Remove containers, biodzqrsyrtietic or'treated ur.ap, wire, tw+ v, or ropes, Leave natural burlap in p cee and fo c back:, Loosen the roots and spread or cut circling roots, 3. Puce trap of root bail evert with or slightly hi(O t^r than soil grade. on firm sail. Do not add sail amendments or gravel unless apap ,�nve d ny Ptiblir, NVorks 73irectrar. 4. Install 4"x 24" perforated drain pipe; f'tl witi drain ratite. pipe shot; not extend more than 1/2" otove firish grade. 5. Back fill with cleun r:c;tive snail. F'irtr sail ofound the rival bull: writer slowly and thoroughly. 6. VOch around tree with -4" wood -chip mulch. lea not placo r ulO next to tr�:nk. ROOT BARRIER: 1. Root barrier shall be rigid H gh Impact Polypropylene treated with UPI inhibitors. minimum 18" height, witl" 1 /?" rnispd vertical rihs tt" on rentnr" or ripe, oved r gtjnl. 2. Install root barrier in conUruous 24' strip, contorod can :rile, next to sidewo k and curt) according to manufa:Aurer's directions. Exposed edge shall not exterd Erore than 1/2'" above finished grade. S IAI INN: 1 I trqr,";» " 1 1 /2" by A'-O' rebor trr,±r r4nk ss. ")<a not ritive stoke thrcugh root ball. 2tt+ach tram to strafe with canvas wob oltinq, or ran aor" using a figure-8 formation. G& 1» Remove oqc') after iraa tacti(araf Fw.,rc»..+..mu.�+ WORKSpueuc T TREE PLANTING MG, NO. F'O ICI ANT R ) T \ III')' 3_29 RM"MmOT TREE A NN I F I N QS""i E�*)' #CAN =: a T J` L I L NT5 P4JE'Lrt..'t afi(S Ut Unt r Street'Free ree & Street Light Layout " 3-30 eal:�,�r+TIMENT Y I Ic. NOTE: TH15 DETAIL APPL16ABLE TO I 1 Tit PLA6E 5 UTH ONLY. FEVERAL rwvA**e CIT)00 CENTER 9-r "T LICPHT loft PETA I L 4 =T. w-07 T"'E ANP Lkwo"T LA*ir0U"_1_ .+r* am • BACK6ROUND AND BROWN TEXT/ORAPH165; A MINI OF TV40 A M I • A FIRMLYTO • +. wr TREATED WOODEN- CHAMFER AT TOP W111row LAMSUBiWOUN• lEENiN 5HALL BE PLACED Yi PLAN. 2. FINAL LOCATION5 OF 516N5 5HALL BE APPROVED IN THE FIELD BY TALA5AEA 6ON5ULTANT5 PRIOR TO IN5TALLATION. 3. A AND PERMANENT. N I NJ =RfOK I 1 101111111 516N 'lrE�j i� r 1u:"� M_ RAIN GARDEN le, dd "gym ` �`t�! •. , +z" 1, b)n n r F c� f V Y P t 4 The plants and sails in this rain garden are specifically designed to collect and treat rain water that flows cuff hard surfaces like roadways, driveways, parking Ices and rooftops. The garden will soak up and filter the storm water before it runs off to local waters. Rain gardens remove pollutants, reduce flooding and help recharge groundwater. Thank you for not walking through the rain garden. STEEL FRAME REINFORCED WIDTH.. UPON LOCATION PILAW IlMlla UA. E . LATCHTE r IIff ,rAw.. UMAI IYI"EI�IIA IM���� U � � ���R ��� ��N � n upli ��r1Ml II�IVI I ((( (■i ■����. rrj]{■' /( # a l ! r I A wrr�ww iuourwwwrwrRrr��"a��: �... �(� l� gga! �1/�J1 { r' Rra r 24" MIN. STAINLESS r ASTM APPROVED. " 2. SEE .. ! .. rFENCE POST r DETAIL ON • - OF RETAININ6 WALLS. ♦ TO 13ESTEEL FRAMERZEINFORCED r w w .r +Y� M Rlr VARIES OR APPROVED EGUAL. ADJUSTAE)LE 6ATE FRAME KIT BY HOOVER FENCE DEPENDIN9 UPONLOCATION. PLANS12" MIN. SEE I 11► .r' FENCE LOCATI r M,. .: e' ,.. M CITY OF FEDERAL A DEPARTMENT i .,.. w...:. 0 A:..< MARC TE: rIFICATO e.: �" Y t yq� ,cuss yi,, w j�ayC wl i ,� �:, ay u 9 1' 1 t2 ?' �" n t 3 v CD S 0 wo, L _P, 41 1 NO Q LANDSCAPE WORK: TH15 SECTION INCLUDES BUT 15 NOT LIMITED TO THE BE ACCEPTED. LEADERS. ANY PRUNING OF SHRUBS SHALL RETAIN A NATURAL CHARACTER. FOL.1..+'" I I N6: A COPY O1~ THE APPROVED PLAN5,5PECIFIOATION5 ,AND PE"RM I T QNQJ f5ffiAg 5HRUE35 WITH HAND OR POWERED D i-IED6E 5HEAR5. APPROVAL.5 MUST BE ON 5I TE WHENEVER. CONSTRUCTION 15 IN PRO6RF55 TEMPORARY I RRI OATI ON PREPARATION OF 6-BA5F AS REOUIRED FOR 6RA55 AND PLANTING 51505. AND SHALL REMAIN ON SITE UNTIL. PROJECT COMPLETION. RFMONVE AND REPLACE FXGE551tiELY PRUNED OR MISFORMFD STOCK FiN15H 6RADIN6 OF TOPSOIL MATERIALS. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE ON SITE, A5 NECESSARY, TO MONITOR PREPARATION OF 501L MIXTURE5. CONSTRUCTION AND APPROVE MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAN. EXCAVATION AND BAC">KFIL.L.INC-7 FOR TREES AND SHRUBS. PLANTIN OF TREES, SHRUBS AND 6ROUNDCOVFR5a MISCELLANEOUS LA APE WORK. rrr ow !M1 lM iM �. • ,yam A �1 M� .iY1 A ,�'` A. N.. AV ♦ A M/' M Mlk � X a �. !M � • q lllk #. M M # ♦ �' � � � # MMk � � A. � tMk A. � ♦. Imo. M I�b # :. M 4R: ♦ Mk wMY A. � , : A "` ♦ � .'"' # ♦ it �' Mlk '` �' op♦ a N M M ,Ilk ■k r1►.#. M i � I ♦ rr ♦ � • � 4 � �: i� �.MII MY M M rM # # '� ram. �. � # # 9 Mk ilk # 1109 w yw. ♦ ! MIM • ♦. ♦ A A IR A' ♦ � A. • :. ♦. ♦ . • IkkM : A lw. MM r1r ♦ A # A � • � �kr a M IM MMtr ! : ♦ !�' ♦ ".�lr rlk nM �,. Al w►. • w � X � � � � wk �, � rlk ♦ rr ,w w ♦ . a Mk p. MM • 1N: p., wM M4 ,i N .. W ZWX JP O P � � .i :. � 11M1 • Mlr NM � wIM �; � ".. 11M ,ilr Mi p Mlb M M �. �1 ♦ M► X. � � A ♦ � # • � M! A � MM►. A. Rom' yam. Mi yfr. +�. MIF. �... r►r wrA w► mr lw • • • wr A ♦ a MM► i► i' �' Nr /r ' !' Il MlM aA* �: ;� ,n # � A ♦ � ,1.: X ♦. � w s.. mil. � � �; I wi► +Il M' ♦ , " " �► "" I4w •I WTmA . p ♦ � ♦ 1 p. lMk � � 'I�: X X ill p. � A � �... III X. " / # alI � � � � � � ♦ � T �A + ". ♦ : OR < MV41 M"n' X it p • # •r A .. X �, �, �, � .. /" I " "' � "' �' " �/► "' • III A .. I WAIJ M Wkl : A. MI►ki►. ,�Y� . M iM p Illk ■Ir wo mill, Val ♦.. A 4F M # A7I nM., AP' Mk : �. MV i �kkr i : �. X • � �.. • M : mil. �' I� MM� Mlk A. Mlk iY` Ii I� 1�:. 4k � R ilk rk y � � W � # M # • � +Illr # ,w it r # • 1! 'e. I% '"` p � + "* ,; • ♦. ♦ �lkk � rku . � ♦ �. �. : Mlr.. �.. 1pi yam. a w A �' ""` � "` i M► � " w +M/ ! M' "" �, III a ap COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER .. A A �: yr. # # rrs ♦. y� X. all A A � w. �. �. ,A � ♦ :�. M � Mk mil. p �. � ,1�..,p� : :� ♦. � A . � A !Iw' �. �. MM Ak QI �! A M A ♦. �M ♦ �.. ♦ kls • w X r .w M f r IM A 1M''.'.. �. M: y • ilk p � «. ,� # � , ,lk �, �, �" it ♦ " • ♦ it ♦ ► A p -w so ♦ MV p.. IN # M MIk' # � MM • • llY p. #. A � �► M► I�g M! M +may A a :'�M X. • p a ♦Fs# X A.. " " � " � #' lM " � � A .. � � •Mr' :ilk Mk i �. � Mk M p. ► eM A p N fk • # MM • � M Mk Owl • w p . .. ♦ � ill.: "" "' �' +� ♦ ♦ . "' I p • ♦ K i 1/p a E ARCHITECTURAL D.AWINOS FOR ALL OUTDOOR L1OHTINO P . F I L.5. . ; � ' HIP SOFT aURFAC AALL WOOD—Gl IP/ FT ". U ABC E AREAS 5HAL,L BE SEEDED WITH WOOD—GHIP/50FT SURFACE SEED MIX (A\/AIL.ABLF AT NHW.WILPFLO RFA S.GOM) AT INSTALLATION RATES PER MANUFACTURER. PREPARATION COORDINATE THE WORK OF TN15 5ECTION WITH "IIRR16ATION SYSTEM" TF INSTALLATION r MMk f i .Mlle ws w wr lk�l I Mrr Mf I� w A ikk • �. yam. # : � : i N. ' N .. 40 # • M � M � • � M �..� � # • # :� # :yam. 40 w ♦ s ♦ � w � � + � A I� �' Mk X Qk • � � i ♦ ♦ Mlr r►' � � . � ♦ �w ik � • A ilk' • � p. : p. MF y Yk'. • #.. #. # • Ail � # A is � � � � w. � � � � � A � ♦ � :� �.. p � � 'I p .r.. N :� � • w. Ate. �..' �: X a INN • # � �, MAC M A MA A 11 � ♦ 50LTIN6 FROM IMPROPER P NINC a. APPLY ANTI —DESICCANT U51N6 POWER SPRAY TO PROVIDE AN ADEOUATE FILM OVER TRUNKS, BRANGHESSTEM5, TWI 5 AND FOLIACSF. IF DECIDUOUS TREES OR 5HRUB5 ARE MOVED IN FULL -LEAF, SPRAY WITH ANTI —DE 1 GOANT AT NURSERY BEFORE MOVI NO AND 6 I N WEEKS yS y�Y�"��' EKS �F7�1 �.. PLANTI NO. A � p � �. A A :• IIN p ilk W' YMl ill!► II/Gnme My : i:M1 ♦ rk1 dr1 � �. MM MiR X � A X dY � N. M 1Y A • X M Mk A X # •M rM �. # � ♦. ♦ w Mk � y. �y.. # y/i � � it A X. ,yMk p ykl � i�1: i •Mt yMI�II N �. A � �1 � a �y,. yy. �, # � rlr # # • s IM op Iwo w 0 • r # ♦ ♦ A rkP w 4k p • w # M w. ib �lI C-,LE6NQE ANQ PEQIF.CIION DURI NO LAND APE WORK, KEEP PAVEMENTS GLEAN AND WORK AREA IN AN ORDERLY CONDITION. a � p � � ri► Nlk # If � NM MM p � � y � � A � �1 ♦ �I/1 p.: � # � M Iw p i :. wM p p IM •. � � � rA1 : 40 .. w .lk A IP A ♦ w r M lkk llr p Mk � M/l ♦ � � #i � � � ♦ � A l* � ♦ y M! 1r Mln ♦ : � +Ilk p � wM y. p Mk. � � M MM # .. �. #. � ♦ A :. A � �#� �. � � ♦. � mil'' � � � X. r aM flat fir, JJ �; Project 1444 Az 1'Y OF FEDERAL. TMe wDa°s.��