Tech Letter 040518CITY OF
Federal Way
Centered on Opportunity
April 5, 2018
Mr. Eric LaBrie
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC
33400 8"' Avenue South, Suite 205
Federal Way, WA 98003
eric.labrie esmcivil.com
Re: Files #17 -104236 -UP & 17 -104237 -SE; TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
Greenline Warehouse `B", 3120 S. 344'h St., Federal Way
Dear Mr. LaBrie:
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www. cityoffederalway.. com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
City departments/divisions have the following comments in response to your September 1s`, l lth, and 29`x',
2017 submittals. This proposal is subject to the provisions of the 1994 Weyerhaeuser Company
Concomitant Pre -Annexation Development Agreement (CZA), and Corporate Park Zone (CP -1) zoning
regulations in effect on August 23, 1994. Any procedural requirements must meet today's codes (FWRC
Title 19). Some comments provided herein are required and some are informative, while others may be
applicable during future steps of the project. Comments in this letter need to be addressed prior to
issuance of a SEPA threshold determination and land use application decision, or as otherwise noted.
Questions regarding technical review comments should be addressed to the referenced staff
representative.
Stacey Welsh — Planning Division, (253) 835-2634, stacew.welshkcitvoffederalway.com
1. Technical comments made about an item on one sheet may necessitate changes to other related sheets
and related documents and it is the applicant's responsibility to determine any such necessary
adjustments. Please ensure consistent information is communicated throughout the plan set and
associated application materials.
Use Process III
2. Plan Set — Please address the following comments:
a. The "Site Data" section of the site plan on Sheet ST -01 lists two parcels as part of the project.
b. The proposed height varies according to submitted documentation, with the highest building
height number shown on the site plan drawing and in the TIR at 44 feet; clarify and correct
documents as necessary.
c. Sheet EX -01 lists Wetland DQ as a wetland to be filled. Wetland DQ is not proposed to be filled.
Also for purposes of clarity, off site wetlands should be noted as such.
d. It is difficult to determine compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1564(u)
(screening of blank walls) with the scale used on the elevations drawings. It appears there are
blank wall areas greater than 240 square feet in area; please clarify.
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 2
e. On Sheet ST -01, clarify what pedestrian connectivity is provided for site users to bus stops along
Weyerhaeuser Way.
Rooftop Equipment — The submittal does not provide detail on the location and screening for ground
mounted and rooftop mechanical equipment. Will rooftop equipment be fully or partially screened
and with what type of material?
a. For rooftop mechanical equipment, per FWCC 22-960(a), vents, mechanical penthouses, elevator
equipment and similar appurtenances that extend above the roofline must be surrounded by a
solid sight -obscuring screen that meets the following criteria: (a) The screen must be integrated
into the architecture of the building. (b) The screen must obscure the view of the appurtenances
from adjacent streets and properties.
b. For ground mounted equipment, per FWCC 22-1565(a)(1), Type I landscaping is intended to
provide a solid sight barrier to totally separate incompatible land uses. This landscaping is
typically found ... around outdoor storage yards, service yards, loading areas, mechanical or
electrical equipment, utility installations, trash receptacles, etc.
4. Wetlands — Please address the following comments:
a. Review and address the enclosed December 13, 2017, letter from the city's wetland consultant,
ESA.
b. Instead of the site plan, an existing conditions map is a more appropriate location for showing all
wetlands, the stream and their standard buffers. The site as it is to be developed should be reflected
in the site plan, including averaged critical area buffers, and only buffers for critical areas that will
remain after development.
c. Sheet W1.0 of the critical areas report is labelled as an existing conditions plan. The drawing does
not reflect existing conditions in their entirety. The drawing shows Greenline Warehouse "A" and
the stormwater pond improvements, which do not exist and should be removed from the drawing.
The drawing does not show all existing wetlands. Consider providing an existing conditions map
and an additional separate drawing that demonstrates the proposed Warehouses "A" & `B"
improvements in relation to existing critical areas.
d. Sheet W 1.1 shows a label for Wetland "EB" but not Wetland "EB" itself, and Wetland "DT" does
not appear to be shown at its correct size.
e. Consider merging the Warehouse "A" and Warehouse "B" impacts and mitigation plans for Parcel
B. One example of the challenges of having two plans for Parcel B (one for Warehouse "A" and
one for Warehouse "B") is on Sheet W1.1, which shows a wetland buffer reduction for Warehouse
"B" in a wetland replacement area shown on the plan for Warehouse "A". If the plans are not
combined then, at a minimum, they must not conflict.
f. Section 7.1.4 and Sheet W 1.1 of the critical areas report discusses temporary impacts to wetland
and stream buffers that will result from site grading. The 1994 Federal Way City Code (FWCC)
and CZA do not address "temporary construction impacts" to wetland and stream buffers. An
impact is such regardless of the duration of time. Stream setback intrusions and
improvements/land surface modifications in wetland setbacks require Use Process IV application
review and approval per FWCC Sections 22-1312[c] & 22-1359[d]. The "temporary construction
impacts" need to be removed from the project and the project revised to meet required buffers, or
the averaging plan updated to average additional areas as allowed by the CZA, or a Process IV
must be submitted for wetland and stream buffer impacts.
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc, 1D, 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 3
g. Why is Section 7.1.5 of the critical areas report, "Land Surface Modifications within the Setback
(buffer) Areas" included and what areas are being referred to in this section? Per FWCC Section
22-1359(d), a Use Process IV review and approval is required for such activity. Land surface
modifications within the wetland setbacks of non-exempt wetlands cannot be permitted under a
Process III.
h. Provide a 20 -acre portion plan per CZA Exhibit C, Section XII(H)(3). This drawing needs to
allocate all of Parcel B into one or more 20 -acre sections.
5. Managed Forest Buffer —Please address the following comments:
a. The following documents were submitted in support of the application: #1 "Tree Counts on the
Two 16 -Acre Parcels..." (revised August 24, 2017); #2 "Evaluation of Interior Trees at The
Greenline Warehouse B Site" (dated September 7, 2017); and #3 "Managed Forest Buffer
Management Plan at the Greenline Warehouse "A" Project" (dated August 24, 2017). Why were
all of these provided?
b. The numbers of significant trees differ between the two tree count documents (documents #1 and
#2, referenced in comment #5a, above).
c. In the "Evaluation of Interior Trees" document it states that the Warehouse "A" and Warehouse
"B" Management Plans for the Managed Forest Buffer (MFB) are to be combined. The applicant
has maintained that those are two separate projects. If the plans are to be combined, submit said
combined document to support each warehouse project application. Also consider creating one
MFB Management Plan for the entire campus, rather than one for each project.
d. On the site plan show the distance from Highway 18 to the proposed storm pond to demonstrate
compliance with the MFB requirement from the state highway pursuant to CZA Exhibit C,
Section III(B)(1).
6. Significant Trees —
a. Address the following comments on Sheet TR -01:
i. Under the "Tree Preservation" section it states that, "native vegetation not within the 50'
width forested buffer..." However, the MFB is required to be 100 feet along Highway 18 per
the CZA. Update the statement and labelling shown for the symbol to the right of the section
to not include width amounts, since it varies on the site.
ii. The information in the last two rows of the Significant Tree Retention Calculations table
differs from what is provided for the "adjoining pond site" in the same table on Sheet TR -01
for the Warehouse "A" project. Reconcile the information provided.
b. The "Evaluation of Interior Trees at The Greenline Warehouse B Site" indicates that 13.9% of the
required amount of significant trees will be retained on site. Demonstrate how the project will
meet the required 25% in accordance with FWCC Section 22-1568(c)(1).
7. Forest Practices — A Forest Practices Class IV -General Application is required, as more than 5,000
board feet of merchantable timber will be harvested from the property in conjunction with the
development activity. The city will review the proposed Class IV -General Forest Practices in
conjunction with SEPA review, and review of associated development permits or approvals.
I7 -104236 -00 -UP Doe I.D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 4
8. Geotechnical Reports — Please address the following comments:
a. The report prepared by GeoEngineers dated August 16, 2017, indicates that a proposed grading
plan was not yet available for the site. A clearing and grading plan was submitted with the
application (Sheet 8 of the plan set). Have GeoEngineers review the grading plan and provide a
memo or addendum to their report to document their analysis, conclusions, and recommendations
related to the clearing and grading plan.
b. The report indicates that parking for 319 vehicles is planned for the development, while other
application materials indicate 255 parking spaces. The report also states that two stormwater
ponds are planned for the south part of the site, please clarify.
c. The two geotechnical reports indicate that the entire project area is Vashon till (Qvt). The
"Project Overview" section of the TIR lists Vashon till also; however, Figure 1.4 sourced from
the NRCS says it is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB), please clarify.
9. TIR — Under the "Project Overview" it indicates that the existing trail system is to be relocated to the
Managed Forest Buffer (MFB) along Weyerhaeuser Way South. Section XII(H)(8) of the CP -1 zone
allows trails that will not have a significant adverse effect on the sensitive area. The MFB contains
portions of critical areas and their buffers, which would make it difficult to accommodate a trail in
multiple locations within the MFB. It is also unclear what "relocation of the gravel roads to other
portions of the overall Weyerhaeuser site" means. Relocation of such items elsewhere on the campus
is not being reviewed as part of this project.
10. TIR Downstream Analysis — See comments below from Public Works. The downstream analysis
needs to be adequately addressed in order to determine any potential impacts. Is the pipe sized
adequately, and which off-site properties are affected and how? Off-site improvements may be
required to be evaluated for SEPA compliance and potential impacts to downstream critical areas and
associated procedural requirements.
11. Impervious Area — The exhibit (Sheet EN -02) needs to be revised to remove the property south of
Highway 18, since it is zoned OP -1, and then adjust the calculations shown as needed.
12. Use Process III Decisional Criteria — Provide a narrative demonstrating how the proposal satisfies
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.65.100.2. You are encouraged to provide the same for the
CZA.
13. Burden of Proof — In this letter, staff members have identified items that require the provision of
additional information for review. During the Notice of Application comment period, the city
received a number of public comments, which were provided to you on November 16, 2017. Please
review and address the comments to support your project. Per FWRC 19.65.080:
19.65.080 Burden of proof.
"The applicant has the responsibility of convincing the director that, under the provisions
of this chapter, the applicant is entitled to the requested decision."
SEPA Checklist
14. Environmental Documents — The submitted checklist lists an environmental noise report and air
quality technical report as having been prepared or will be prepared related to this proposal; however,
none were submitted on behalf of this application. At the August 10, 2017, preapplication meeting,
the applicant was encouraged to prepare similar materials and studies as done for the Greenline
Warehouse "A" project. Provide the noise and air reports. Conversely, it is known that a cultural
resource analysis was completed by Tetra Tech for Parcel B as part of the Greenline Warehouse "A"
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc. I.D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 5
project. Provide a copy in support of this application and update the checklist accordingly in all
applicable areas (checklist item #8).
15. Approvals/Permits — A building permit and engineering permit (EN) will be required for the project
(checklist item #10).
16. Aesthetics — A visual impact analysis of the proposed Warehouse `B" development is requested to
determine its cumulative impact on public views from two warehouses "A" & `B". Views of a 3-
dimensional computer model, combining the existing site conditions and the proposed development
shall be provided from Highway 18,1-5, and Weyerhaeuser Way S. from various points along each
route, with and without the proposed Warehouse "A" development. It is requested that a 3-
dimensional laser scanning visual impact analysis be used to capture and display the density of
existing and retained on-site vegetation from any point in the area, to accurately allow determination
of aesthetic impact from the development, and to determine mitigation measures if any are needed.
17. Historic Preservation — The August 25, 2017, comment response letter for Greenline Warehouse "A"
indicated that a full survey of the Weyerhaeuser Campus was underway and would be provided to the
City upon completion. What is the status of the report?
18. Transportation — Review the Public Works comments below, and revise the SEPA checklist and site
plan as necessary to ensure accurate information is included.
Ann Dower — PW Development Services Division, (253) 835-2732,
aiin.dower(a citynffeclr: ralway.com
Technical Information Report
Since the TIRs for Warehouse A and Warehouse B are essentially the same for land use purposes, they
have been reviewed together. The parcel that is developed first will be responsible for building the
detention pond and water quality treatment facility for both sites.
Downstream Analysis (KCSWDM Section 1.2.2.1.1)
19. The downstream analysis must provide information about offsite properties, including, at a minimum,
the WSDOT right-of-way and parcel #2121049014 to the south of the freeway.
20. Map the area that drains to the 24" pipe under the freeway and estimate the flow through it. Will the
pipe still be adequate with additional post -development flow? Provide this information to WSDOT
and obtain their approval.
21. Indicate how this project will affect parcel #2121049014. Will it impact the wetland on the property
or create any flooding problems? Since the 100 -year peak discharge is over 0.5 cfs, in order to
discharge to the offsite wetland it must be established that the wetland is an "acceptable discharge
point" (see KCSWDM, section 1.2.1 footnote 12.)
22. Since 4 acres of the Warehouse B site drains to the southwest, allowing that runoff to be routed to the
southeast along with the rest of the site runoff could impact the downstream properties and existing
downstream wetland. The TIR suggests a flow splitter, which will need to be used unless an
adjustment is applied for and approved. Impacts to the offsite wetland must be reviewed as part of an
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc. 1.D 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 6
application for an adjustment. Provide a downstream analysis for the 4 acres that drain to the
southwest.
Section 4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
23. Table 1 does not provide existing conditions information as stated.
24. Please explain why the totals in Table 4.1 (25.54 acres) do not account for the entire site (15.16 acres
Warehouse A + 16.95 acres Warehouse B = 32.11 acres). 6.57 acres are not included in the table.
25. Explain how much new and replaced pollution -generating impervious area, non -pollution generating
impervious area, and new pervious area will be created within public right-of-way. Flow control and
water quality will be required as outlined in the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
26. The basin boundary line does not show up on the Developed Basin Map. The map also says to see
Table 4.1 for basin areas, but that information is not provided in Table 4.1.
27. Although details are not required at this time, the pond outfall elevation does not appear to be feasible
considering the depth of the pond and the existing shown elevations at the outfall.
28. An agreement and necessary easements shall be recorded for the two parcels indicating access and
maintenance responsibilities.
29. Because several wetlands will be displaced, address Section 3.3.7 of the KCSWDM for additional
design requirements. Additional storage volume may be required.
Additional Information
30. As information, the city has received comments regarding stormwater. To great extent, comments
will be addressed through the permitting process. Project -specific needs for oil control, conveyance
sizing, water quality treatment, erosion control, a maintenance plan, and bonding have been
acknowledged by the applicant and will be required prior to permit approval.
Some comments requested further analysis of how development of the IRG property as a whole will
affect erosion, water quality, water temperature, ph levels, flooding, and other factors that could cause
degradation of the East Hylebos Creek Basin. By way of background, the entire IRG property lies
within the East Branch of the Hylebos Creek Basin. According to the Executive Proposed Hylebos
Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan (Basin Plan), written by King County Surface Water
Management in 1991, flooding, erosion, and habitat degradation in the middle reaches of the East
Branch were concerns at the time of the study. Several actions to repair or prevent further degradation
were proposed. BW -3 flow control was recommended, which corresponds most closely to Level 3
Flow Control in the KCSWDM. Concerns were expressed that projects aimed at improving the
Hylebos Basin will be negatively impacted by development of the IRG properties. You are
encouraged to provide a written analysis of how the Warehouse `B" development will affect the
projects and concerns outlined in the Basin Plan.
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc, I.D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 7
31. Under the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), Large Project Drainage
Review is required for larger projects within the IRG properties. Although not required for the
Warehouse A and B projects due to their size, any Large Project Drainage Review within the IRG
properties will need to include stormwater impacts from the Warehouse A and B sites as part of the
upstream and downstream analysis.
Plans
32. Provide building dimensions on the site plan.
33. Sheet SD -01:
a. Show the existing 24" pipe under the freeway and provide invert elevations.
b. Oil control (KCSWDM Special Requirement 45) must be shown conceptually.
Rob Van Orsow — PW Solid Waste Division, (253) 835-2770, Rob.VanOrsow(ii�cityoffederalway.com
34. The following SWR -related comments refer to Greenline Warehouse `B" Design Brief and
Elevations, Sheet A1.0 ("Code Specific Requirements" - Comment 5) dated August 30, 2017.
35. Comment 5 indicates the current design features a total of 725 sq. ft. of enclosure space. The
comment includes a formula that calculates 693 sq. ft. of required enclosure space. The following
calculation arrives at a slightly lower figure:
value Description
3 sq, ft. /1000
0.001 conversion
214050
total size
642.15
Result
642
(rounded)
36. "Required Screening" per FWRC 19.125.040(4) indicates a requirement for 100% site obscuring
fence, so please consider appropriate alternatives to chain link fence with slats for enclosure gates.
37. "Required Gate Width" appears to be met by gates as proposed for enclosures.
38. SWR staff provided comments in response to ESM's letter to Stacey Welsh dated August 25, 2017,
regarding the adjacent project "Greenline Warehouse A" which address the proponent's desire to
reduce enclosure size, as well as the potential use of large-scale trash compaction. Assuming similar
issues will arise regarding "Greenline Warehouse B", please refer to those related comments as
appropriate.
Sarady Long — Public Works Traffic Division (253) 835-2743, sarady.lonp,ncityoffederalway.com
39. The Public Works Traffic Division has finished its review of the submitted materials. The following
technical review items must be addressed prior to Public Works approval. Please note, these
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doe. I.D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 8
comments did not include comments from WSDOT. Traffic -related comments/concerns by WSDOT
must be addressed and approved by WSDOT prior to building permit approval.
Plans Comments
40. The Civil plans must depict the correct frontage improvement and right-of-way dedication along
Weyerhaeuser Way. Road improvements should be consistent with the depicted street section
(Arterial / Collector Section G).
41. Explain how the required improvements on Weyerhaeuser Way South would be completed. Please
specify/identify responsibilities between Warehouse "A" and Warehouse "B" for the improvements.
Please note, Warehouse "A" was required to construct the improvements from the private loop road
to SR 18 ramps. A street modification by the Public Works Director was issued for the original
Preferred Freezer which is now Warehouse "A". Warehouse B should be responsible for a portion of
the frontage improvements but in accordance with completed street modification Warehouse "A"
remains responsible.
42. It appears that trucks could utilize the loop road (private road) for access to Warehouse "B". Please
demonstrate how the development will prohibit truck traffic from traveling north through the
roundabout and utilizing S 320t" St./SR 5 interchange.
43. Provide accessible pedestrian access from Weyerhaeuser Way S. to the Warehouse `B" building.
44. Weyerhaeuser Road (private road) should be improved to city standards, which would provide a safe
pedestrian path from the site to Weyerhaeuser Way South.
45. Submit Vehicle/Truck Turning Diagram to the Public Works Traffic Division for trucks that utilize
the roundabout. This diagram will show how the appropriate design vehicle can enter, maneuver, and
leave the site without encroaching onto opposing traffic lanes or mounting a curb. The roundabout
may need to be modified to accommodate the truck traffic if applicable.
46. Show existing and proposed street lighting along Weyerhaeuser Way on the plans. Detailed design is
not required at this time.
47. Provide rights-of-way dimensions on the plan.
48. Curb ramps along Weyerhaeuser Way must meet ADA requirements.
49. The southerly shared driveway designated as truck access is located within the Warehouse "A"
parcel. Explain how this driveway will be constructed if Warehouse `B" proceeds ahead of
Warehouse "A".
50. The channelization plans should be submitted to WSDOT for comments as soon as possible. WSDOT
approval is required prior to issuance of a building permit.
51. The proposed driveways shall be limited to 30 feet in width per the concomitant agreement. Please
note, a written change to the agreement or a formal amendment must be approved by both parties to
increase the driveway width.
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc. I.D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 9
52. The pavement analysis performed by GeoEngineers was reviewed by the Public Works Street
Division. Based on their review, the existing pavement condition on Weyerhaeuser Way will not be
adequate to handle the expected truck traffic load. The development must provide pavement design
for City review and approval. Once the pavement design is approved by the City, the development
must perform full depth reconstruction of the roadway.
TIA Review Comments
53. The TIA identified a 215,365 square -foot warehouse building but the SEPA checklist specified a
217,300 square -foot warehouse/distribution center. Please clarify.
54. Based on the project description, the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual 9`" Edition LUC 150 (Warehouse) with 20 percent truck trips is appropriate for the project.
Please note, the TIA may need to be updated if the proposed use during the building permit process is
not reflective of trip generation in the traffic report.
55. The project trip assignment in Figure 5 and Figure 6 did not assign any truck trips north (S 320" St.)
of the site. Will there be any trucks utilizing the S 320`x' St./SR 5 interchange during AM or PM peak
period? Demonstrate how the development will prohibit truck traffic from traveling north through the
roundabouts and potentially using the private loop road for access to the site (signage will not be
adequate).
56. The proposal to apply a four percent annual traffic growth rate to the existing counts to estimate
horizon year volume is acceptable. Please note, typically the City uses a two percent annual growth
rate.
57. It appears that the total trips entering and leaving the driveways did not match the total trips generated
by the development. Are these missing trips using the existing Weyerhaeuser Road and S 336"' St.
driveway? If so, please include in Figure 6. Also, will there be any truck trips using this driveway?
58. Figure 7&8. Please verify the 2018 without -project AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. It appears
the 2018 without -project AM and PM peak volumes are greater than the 2017 volumes plus four
percent annual growth rate, Warehouse "A" trips and the office building to the east.
59. The 2018 without -project AM peak hour volumes depicted in Figure 7 are higher than 2018 with -
project volumes. For example, the northbound left turn volume at intersection #2 for 2018 without -
project is 19 trips higher than 2018 with -project. Please clarify.
60. The 2018 with -project volumes in the LOS printout for Weyerhaeuser Way S and Weyerhaeuser Way
Road should match the volume depicted in Figure 9. The printout depicted 21 EBR, but Figure 9 only
depicted 2.
61. Intersection #2. The trips from the vacant HQ building should be included in the LOS and queuing
analysis at Weyerhaeuser Way S and Weyerhaeuser Road driveway. This will ensure that the
intersection will be designed to accommodate the expected traffic generated by the HQ building and
the project.
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doe. LD. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 10
62. The SR 18 ramp study intersections are under WSDOT control and therefore will be subjected to their
respective established LOS standard. Please contact the state to ensure their comments/concerns have
been addressed.
63. The SR 18 ramp intersections are expected to operate at LOS D with a maximum of 400' 95"'
percentile queue length. The SR 18 ramp intersections are state facilities and must be approved by
WSDOT.
64. Based on the queuing analysis, the northbound left turn lane into the site is expected to have a
maximum queue length of 100 feet for both Warehouse "A" and Warehouse "B". The analysis
performed by staff using the queue length probability based on poisson distribution is 2 to 3 vehicles.
The recommended 240 feet left turn storage is reasonable.
65. Forward the revised TIA to WSDOT for review comments.
SEPA Checklist — Transportation
66. Transportation 14(c) — Revise to include frontage improvements and right-of-way dedication
consistent with the arterial/collector section G and pavement along Weyerhaeuser Way will be
upgraded to accommodate truck traffic. Additionally, improvements to the private road
(Weyerhaeuser Road) to public standard for safe pedestrian access.
67. Transportation 14(e) — The traffic generated by the project must be consistent with the TIA. Per the
TIA, the project is estimated to generate 97 trips with 78 passenger trips and 19 truck trips.
68. Transportation 14(g) — Revise this section to include reconstruction of Weyerhaeuser Way S.
pavement to accommodate the truck traffic. Also, discuss traffic management plan to restrict trucks
from traveling north on Weyerhaeuser Way to SR 5 and S 320`x' St. interchange.
Additional Information
As information, the city has received public comments requesting further analysis of the following
transportation items, which you are encouraged to address.
69. The existing traffic around the site (Weyerhaeuser Way South and SR 18 ramp terminal intersections)
is already congested. These roads were not designed to handle the amount and types of traffic
generated by the proposed development. Provide capacity analysis for the roadway segment and
intersection LOS to address these concerns during the AM, PM and Weekend Peaks.
70. The SR 18 ramp terminal intersections and Weyerhaeuser Way roundabout were not designed to
handle the types of truck traffic by the project. Verify the design vehicle can maneuver through the
roundabouts and SR 18 interchange on/off ramps using AutoTURN software. Provide plot of the
design and verification.
Brian Asbury — Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, (253) 946-5407, basburyglakchaven.or
71. Lakehaven issued Certificates of Water & Sewer Availability for the proposed application/project on
8/4/17. However, no other application has been submitted to Lakehaven that is necessary to be able to
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc. LD, 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 11
more specifically determine the applicant's requirements for connection to Lakehaven's water &/or
sewer systems to serve the subject property. As previously noted, applicant will need to submit an
application for either Developer Pre -Design Meeting or Developer Extension Agreement for
Lakehaven to formally commence the water and/or sewer plan review process. Lakehaven
encourages owners/ developers/applicants to apply for Lakehaven processes separately to Lakehaven,
and sufficiently early in the pre-design/planning phase to avoid delays in overall project development.
Chris Cahan — South King Fire & Rescue, (253) 946-7243, chris.cahan onthkin fire.o
Water Supply
72. Fire Flow: The required fire flow for this project is 3,000 or 4,000 gallons per minute depending on type
of construction. A Certificate of Water Availability including a hydraulic fire flow model shall be
requested from the water district and provided at the time of building permit application.
Fire Hydrants
73. This project will require at least 4 fire hydrants in approved locations*. Additional fire hydrants may be
needed to meet minimum spacing requirements of 525 or 600 feet between each hydrant depending on
type of construction.
74. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered unless fire apparatus access roads
extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstructions of such roads.
75. *Hydrant(s) spacing along access roads and location in relationship to buildings and sprinkler FDC shall
be approved by Fire Marshal's Office
76. Fire hydrants shall be in service prior to and during the time of construction.
Emergency Access
77. Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all requirements of Fire Access Policy 10.006 (attached).
78. The site plan did not provide detail to verify the following requirements: angles of approach, departure
and minimum ground clearance
79. Designated and marked fire lanes may be required for emergency access. This may be done during the
plans check or prior to building final. Requirements and marking options can be found in Title 8 of the
Federal Way Revised Code: liUp://www.rodepti lishiU com/WA/Pedera]Way/
80. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction.
Vehicle Access Gates
81. All vehicle access gates shall comply with Gate Policy (attached).
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc. 1 D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 12
Fire Department Lock Box
82. A recessed fire department "Knox" brand key box shall be installed on the building near the front
entrance. Location(s) will be approved by the plan reviewer or Deputy Fire Marshal onsite.
Fire Sprinkler System
83. An NFPA 13 lire sprinkler s stem is re wired.
84. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all occupancies where the total floor area included
within the surrounding exterior walls on all floor levels, including basements, exceeds 5,000 square feet.
Fire walls shall not be considered to separate a building to enable deletion of the required automatic fire -
extinguishing system.
85. The system demand pressure (to the source) required in a hydraulically designed automatic fire sprinkler
system shall be at least 10 per cent less than the correlative water supply curve pressure.
Fire Alarm
86. A Fire Alarm System is required.
87. City Code requires an automatic fire detection system in all buildings exceeding 3,000 square feet gross
floor area. The fire alarm system is required to monitor the sprinkler system including water flow.
Provide full notification as required by NFPA 72. Complete coverage smoke detection is not required for
this project; This fire detection system shall be monitored by an approved central and/or remote station.
Emergency Responder Radio Coverage
88. All buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based
upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication system at the exterior of the
building.
High Piled Storage
89. The building shall be designed for High Piled Combustible Storage in accordance with chapter 32 of the
2015 IFC. This code offers options for fire protection based on the intended use of the building. Some
options will limit the commodity and height of storage in the warehouse.
CLOSING
Please be aware that this review does not preclude the city from requesting additional information related
to any of the topics discussed above. Please submit revised application materials as appropriate,
accompanied by the completed "Resubmittal Information Form" (enclosed). Pursuant to FWRC
19.15.050, if an applicant fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days of being
notified that such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city
shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decisions with respect to such an application.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at staegy.welsli@ciiyoffederalwAy.com,
253 835-2634.
I7 -104236 -00 -UP Doc, l,D. 77284
Mr. LaBrie
April 5, 2018
Page 13
Sincerely,
Stacey Welsh, AICP
Senior Planner
enc: December 13, 2017 Memo from ESA
Resubmittal Information Form
c: Brian Davis, Community Development Director
Robert "Doc' Hansen, Planning Manager
Jim Harris, Planner
Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator, via email
Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District, via email
Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue, via email
Felix Palisoc, WSDOT, PalisoFra)wseiot.wa. ov
Tom Messmer, tmessmerTbindustrialreal_tygroup.com
Matt Reider, M tt.Reidcr mncivil.c m
17 -104236 -00 -UP Doc. I D. 77284