001 Response LetterI M�
Senior Planner
City • Federal Way
imr9p.1
Re: Files #1 7-104236-UP & 17-104237-SE;
TECHNICAL REAEW COMMENTS
Greenline Building V, 3120 S, 34,P St, Federal W]
On behalf of Federal Way Campus, LLC, ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC is submitting this
letter in response to the first round of Technical Comments dated April 51h, 2018. Although
references to Warehouse "B" have been revised, we ask that the City please continue to
1• this application as a general commodity warehouse use known as Building
Per our usual response letters, responses have been provided in bold under the
corresponding comment,
1Technical comments made about an item on one sheet may necessitate changes
to other related sheets and related •i and it is the applicant's responsibility
to determine • such necessary adjustments. Please ensure consistent information
is communicated throughout the plan set and associated application materials,
The following responses and included revised application materials have been
reviewed and revised to ensure consistent information is communicated throughoul
the •.r set and associated application materials.
33400 Sth Ave, S. Ste 205 Ted (253) 838 6113 Evere@t (4215) 297 9900 1
Federal Way, WA 98003 Fax (253) 836 7104 ToR Free (800) 345 5694
www.esmciviL.com
Ms, Stacey Wel
June 28, 2018
Page 2 1
1 . This Response Letter (8 copies);
2. Narrative Memorandum (8 copies);
3. Process III Plan Set (8 copies);
4Impervious Surface Exhibit (8 copies);
5, Building Elevations (8 copies);
6. SEPA Checklist (8 copies);
7. TIR (4 copies);
8. TIA (4 copies);
9. Cultural Resource Analysis (Tetra Tech) (4 copies);
10, Geotechnical Report (4 copies);
11. Critical Areas Report (4 copies);
12. Response Letter to ESA Comments (4 copies);
13. Critical Area Exemption Exhibit (4 copies);
14. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan (4 copies);
15. Tree Data for 32 Acres (4 copies);
16. Tree Evaluation Report (4 copies); and
17. Compact Disk Containing Above -mentioned Items (1 CID)
i
1 . Visual Impact Analysis;
2. Air Quality Report; and
3. Environmental Noise Report
M =1
a, The "Site Data" section of the site plan on Sheet ST-01 lists two parcels as
part of the project
IN I
.12-20 W, 06
' Now W11001YON � W. W-W
WMV #PIT ytrvi I 611f NOW_
in the Building A site. Since then, the HQ BLA has been recorded and so
now Building B is entirely on its own parcel.
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,
Uniform 45 feet building height maximum has been established across all
materials,
701 8
Page 3
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.
Sheet EX-01 has been revised to list which wetlands will be filled and which
wetlands are offsite.
dldifficult to determine compliance with Federal Way City Code (FWCQ
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 clarity.
MAMUM
blank walls will be proposed in excess of 240 square feet
e. On Sheet ST-01, clarify what pedestrian connectivity is provided for site users
to bus stops along Weyerhaeuser Way,
A pedestrian pathway has been provided adjacent to the truck entrance
located on Weyerhaeuser Way S. From there, pedestrians can walk along
the sidewalk to access the bus stops,
3. Rooftop Equipment - The submittal does not provide detail on the location and
screening for ground mounted and rooftop mechanical equipment. Will rooftot,
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,
11vater Ina 32, nFin aTU,%V.-V4"_-4VQK dFJUwM MY De MOM From the stree
The development/building is currently speculative and mechanical will .
design/build. Any mechanical units if visible from the street will ha -
screening with a solid site obscuring screen in accordance with abo -
section. Refer to Code Specific Requirements, "Rooftop Equipment', She
A1.0.
June 28,2018
Page 4
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.
The applicant acknowledges the FWCC 22-1565 (a) Type 1 Landscaping
requirement No ground mounted equipment at this time. If future ground
equipment is needed, it will be screened with Type 1 landscaping to provide
a solid site barrier. Refer to Code Specific Requirements, "Ground mounted
EquipmentSheet Al D
'NOR=-
a. Review and address the enclosed December 13, 2017, letter from the city's
wetland consultant, ESA
Noted. Talasaea has provided responses to ESNs technical comments in a
separate letter included with this resubmittal.
b. Instead of the site plan, an existing conditions map is a more appropriat6
location for showing all wetlands, the stream and their standard buffers, Tht
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
Noted. EX-01 depicts existing conditions, showing wetlands, associated
buffers, streams and associated stream buffers.
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.
i W I
[Zion WAL-111WA I
June 28, 2018
Page 5
d. Sheet W11 shows a label for Wetland TB" but not Wetland TB" itself, and
Wetland "IDT' does not appear to be shown at its correct size.
set depicts existing conditions in present day.
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 T") 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.
IeU [Tom LIJU5Ui r r UF NMI
A the final buffer areas will meet the requirements of the 1994 FWCC a
the Concomitant Agreement
All wetlands have a standard 1 00-foot buffer, reducible to no le
than 50 feet through buffer averaging to replace all reduced buffe
Buffer replacement must occur outside of the Managed Forest Bu
• Z
---------------- --------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
June 0 28, 218
Page 6 1
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 111,
fr#1 rMA kvK#1 s I iTus &0.42 2 RYA
foil ., # I
rivirinermTre, it G War Fout-efBOT-ting ffl. WA
X11.17.1 allowing an averaged buffer to reduce setbacks to no less than 25
feet is permitted under Process Ill,
h. Provide a 20-acre portion plan per CZA Exhibit C, Section XII(H)(3). Thii!
drawing needs to allocate all of Parcel B into one or more 20-acre sections,
L"Jull M."41 Algol a NION11111YA01gol 41;AL
'JAY 41slartle is-
-
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 a!
the Greenline Warehouse "A" Project" (dated August 24, 2017). Why were all
of these provided?
Ms. Stacey Wei
June 28, 2018
Page 7 1
b. The numbers of significant trees differ between the two tree count
documents (documents #1 and #2, referenced in comment #5a, above).
19 1111 #rA "' W ts"FA16" N
&91T*Mr$1RP.T11MITT=1M1 - - 0- R-
All trees under 12" (regardless of species) were moved to the non-
significant tree data spreadsheet (per 1994 FWCC);
All big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and
black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), were moved to the non-
significant tree data spreadsheet (per 1994 FWCQ; and
All remaining trees with a Current Health Rating of poor, dead, or
bpi; RUM=
In the "Evaluation of Interior Trees" document it states that the Warehouse
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.
Both Building A and Building B now have separate Managed Forest Buffer
Management Plans. The essence of the management plans will be
consistent across all Sites where a Managed Forest Buffer Management
Plan becomes necessary�
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 Q Section III(B)(1).
Noted. Graphics have been revised to show the width of the Managed
Forest Buffer.
),T=L7UFrT,T-e7r
June 28,2018
Page 8
6. Significant Trees a
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 thit
section to not include width amounts, since it varies on the site.
Noted. Change made.
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.
The information previously provided has been revised and may not
match the table provided for Greenline Building "A". This is because
a recent revaluation was conducted regarding the trees on site (see
comment 5,b). TR-01 for Greenline Building B reflects the recent
revaluation as described in previous comment responses.
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.
PRECISION
IBM
9. 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 it of the plan
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.
TEN
June 28, 2018
Page 9
r, I ILI RA [;Risl I I C I 1011 NZ I In I a LZI f 0 VA'i b-ga L� lZisir-101 I I a I [*W; In tg 0
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.
GeolEngineers has revised their report to reflect accurate and consistent
,fescriptions.
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,
-------------
the "Geologic Map of the Poverty it 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, King and
Pierce Counties, Washington 2004."
St. 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 sensve area, The MFB contains portions of crcal 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,
The TIR has been updated to remove the narrative describing trails, since it is not
relevant to stormwater. Per SEPA checklist item 12(a), these trails are located on
private property and no right has been conveyed to the public for their continued
use. Therefore, the informal trails will be removed from the site by the proposed
development
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 crcal areas and associated
procedural requirements.
Ms. Stacey Wei
June 28, 2018
Page 10 1
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.
The exhibit has been revised to not include the OP-1 zoned property south of
Highway 18 in the impervious surface area calculation.
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
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.65.100.2. and 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 Droof
"The applicant has the responsibility of convincing the director that, under thit
provisions of this chapter, the applicant is entitled to the requested decision."
'11 11W W
I&INJIL !,III 1110r. 11L*i;KOJK1 21-.1 L611 oll
66,11 ffr17d7qT1Ur-rpUWFa-soF11e oes*gn si-Entaras set tort
community design guidelines.
W,17—OTMTri
June 28, 2071
Page 11
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
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 it of the Greenline
Warehouse "A" 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 requirec
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 gation measures if any are needed.
Views of a 3-climensional computer model, combining existing site conditions an't'
week See Visual Impact Analysis exhibit for details.
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?
The report is still underway. So far there is nothing on the Building B site that is of
historical significance.
7ne28 e27 81
u
Page7
Ll 16110 ]ION WIRNI
Ann Dower PW Develogment Services givision-, 253 835-2732
a n n,d owerfPS1iyg!eUg1c41 Agy,:ggrn
Technical Info rmatigo-B-ep—of.
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 (K CSM Section 1.2.2.1 J)
--
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,
MINI
Uri Ell ;F1.
61-IN al 1010 bm 1 (96 a (92 1 IN to [0 DA I ATCA 01 NaTe. I i I a I N I I V I I WAV I 110 0 $11101 (01# 1 f. I N
IiI 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 WSIDOT and obtain their approval.
Hamm=
114"1
be adequate. Section 5 of the preliminary TIR has been updated to state that for the
provided to WSIDOT for review and 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 1 00-year peak discharge
is over 0.5 cts, in order to discharge to the off'site wetland, it must be established that
the wetland is an "acceptable discharge point" (see KCSWDM, section 1.2.1 footnote
12.)
11AHMIONIMMOR MIA
une 2 �01*1�
Page 1
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 ofisite wetland must be reviewed as part of an application
for an adjustment, Provide a downstream analysis for the 4 acres that drain to the
southwest.
The detention facility itself with act as a flow splitter with dual control structures to
proportionately discharge stormwater to the appropriate threshold discharge area.
Water quality treatment will be applied following both outlets and sized
proportionately.
OTANE-AM
My, Im CH -
24. Please explain why the totals in Table 41 (25.54 acres) do not account for the entire
site 0 5.16 acres Warehouse A + 16.95 acres Warehouse acres). 6.57 acres
are not included in the table.
AMUR 10
Mull TXW'634
accounted for.
t5. 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.
t'6. 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.
The Developed Basin Map has been updated to more clearly identify the basir
boundary and areas.
Ms. Stacey WeM,
June 28, 2018
Page 14
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.
PR Because several wetlands will be displaced, address Section 3.3.7 of the KCSWDM
for addonal design requirements. Addonal storage volume may be required,
tO. As information, the city has received comments regarding stormwater. To greaI
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.
mug 2
Ms. Stacey Wei
June 28, 2018
Page 15 1
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 K.
4:10 Ne -I I A 004. 1 NO - Moo RO* N-I. I V. Re *114 0011M-
INN
M
32. Provide building dimensions on the site plam
a. Show the existing 24" pipe under the freeway and provide invert
elevations,
b. Oil control (CS WDM Special Requirement #5) must be shown
conceptually,
r-INITRUIR
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, 201T
June 28,2018
Page 16 1
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:
3
Sq. ft, / 1000
0,001
conversion
214050
Total size
642.15
Result
642
(rounded)
Applicant acknowledges that the proposed recycling area has been confirmed by
Solid Waste Division provided calculation, The calculation has been revised to
correspond to a building size of 214,295 st This yields the need for 643 st of
recycling area. Solid Waste Division calculation has been added to Sheet A1,0. No
action requested nor required.
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,
D ilrllli�!IIIIIIIIII MI11111111
38. SWR staff provided comments in response to ESM's letter to Stacey Welsh d t 0
August 25, 2017, regarding the adjacent project "Greenline Warehouse A" whit
address the proponent's desire to reduce enclosure size, as well as the potenti
use of large-scale trash compaction, Assuming similar issues will arise regardi
r•
"Greenline Warehouse Bplease refer to those related comments as appropria
The applicant comments regarding a "scaled back" approach have been
withdrawn. Applicant has offered a revised approach to recycling and solid
waste. This approach was reviewed with Mr. Van Orsow and deemed
acceptable, Recycling is being addressed in a combination of approaches. Two
internal recycling areas have been indicated on the plan and one exterior
recycling collection area with enclosure has been indicated, The total area for
these provisions slightly exceeds the required area per the FW code. In addition,
a separate solid waste container/collection area has been indicated within a
compliant enclosure. Mr. Van Orsow confirmed the FWRC has no size
requirements for a solid waste collection area. The applicant has sized the
anclosure to meet standard waste collection containers. Applicant has
2-ddressed this approach on Sheet A11,0.
[Ts, Stacey Wel
June 28, 2018
Page 17 1
39The 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 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.
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),
A] 01h 1*141* K01 All I I 1;K#j LIFA In 01 rt I A MT1 i NIMPO to N579M Me E V_ 16-1910 k"r. 11 N 1 $1 �1
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 streel
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.
Building A has been resubmitted under separate application, The Building A
improvements. As such, it is the responsibility of the Building B application and
development to provide the required improvements to meet Arterial/Collector
Section G from Loop Road to SR 18 ramps.
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 is through the roundabout and utilizing S 3201h SUSR 5
interchange,
14.417TA MITI reml
' 00 01#06 N. OTtif
IN
N-211101*10'1oi M a VIN X*XVIVI(VtV-
ddvers from utilizing Loop Road.
June 28, 01 871
Page 18
43. Provide accessible pedestrian access from Weyerhaeuser Way S. to the
Warehouse "B" building.
An accessible route from Weyerhaeuser Way S. to the Building 'B' has been
indicated in the revised plans.
1141 its
RY041 I ME 01 LOA is r. MI; 1 IQ KX# 1 •
MCI I Its
A safe pedestrian route from the building to Weyerhaeuser Way South has been
provided on the revised plans. Weyerhaeuser Road (Loop Road) does not need to
be improved to meet city standards.
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.
Ar#TW-ORYTMM - - 11TWIR-R-TMMI "#
since truck access is provided right off of the SR-1 8 ramps. Vehicle/Truck Turning
Diagrams are provided in the plan set to demonstrate that trucks could utilize the
roundabout Modification is not necessary.
46, Show existing and proposed street lighting along
Detailed design is not required at this time,
Two new city luminaire poles are proposed on the property frontage between thi;
southern truck access and the relocated crosswalk The location of these luminaim
poles is shown on the plan set sheet ST-01 . Existing street lighting is shown on EX-
01,
;
7409MOMM I =1
-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".
If Building B development is constructed ahead of Building A then the driveway
would be constructed as shown on the required site plan for that future
development The construcfion of this driiveway will likely be the same no matter
which development commences first
IT 'I 28'118
1 J '7
u7ne 28, 2018
Page 19
H I I MOM M M "A RMIR]
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.
52, The pavement analysis performed by GeoEngineers was reviewed by the Publi#
Works Street Division. Based on their review, the existing pavement condition or,
Weyerhaeuser Way will not be adequate to handle the expected truck traffic load.
The development must provide pavement design for City review and approval. Onct
the pavement design is approved by the City, the development must perform full
depth reconstruction of the roadway.
I
or-0] 11 [K* W-VA WAKEYNO ON] L-1210141 R717M 01# i i #11MM■ ®RImr.
�� I A- 0
11F.111ro M-MR& 161910*111641 a :fn R WITS-1 I
MS.
54. Based on the project description, the Institute of Transportation Engineer OTE) Tri,#
Generation Manual 9th 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
55The project trip assignment in Figure 5 and Figure 6 did not assign any truck trips
north (S 320t" St.) of the site. Will there be any trucks utilizing the S 3201h St./SR 5
interchange during AM or PM peak period? Demonstrate how the development
will prohibit truck traffic from traveling north through the rounclabouts and
potentially using the private loop road for access to the site (signage will not be
adequate).
Italsilgollima 9 0 1
TZ -1
ITG=7071'
June 28, 20171
Page 20
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.
oil
[q LOITIA I In v I (:a I A V*q LAI 11 R a a# OA-1411 0
East Campus Corporate Park (assuming full occupancy)
Former Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building (assuming full
occupancy)
57. It appears that the total trips entering and leaving the driveways did not match thit.
total trips generated by the development Are these missing trips using the existing
Weyerhaeuser Road and S 336th St. driveway? If so, please include in Figure 6. Also,
will there be any truck trips using this driveway?
U176116*20014611 is 514WO r w
Trucks will be restricted from using the driveways on the existing Weyerhaeuser
Road as described in our response to Comment #55.
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
A RM 1101111111111, M& III . tol
projects:
East Campus Corporate Park (assuming full occupancy)
Former Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building (assuming
occupancy) I
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.
Noted, this error has been corrected. The future with -project volumes provided in
the updated TLA (dated March 6, 2018) were verified to be higher than the future
without -project volumes.
Ms. Stacey Wei
June 28, 2018
Page 21 1
10. 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,
Noted, this error has been corrected, The volumes shown in the LOS printouts were
verified to match the volumes shown in the figures for all study intersections in the
updated TIA (dated March 6, 2018).
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.
moll QN-,
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 addresse4l,
Noted. The updated TLA (dated March 6, 2018) will be forwarded to WSDOT for
review,
'i,3. The SR 18 ramp intersections are expected to operate at LOS D with a maximum
of 400' 95th percentile queue length. The SR 18 ramp intersections are state
facilities and must be approved by WSDOT.
Noted. The updated TIA (dated March 6, 2018) will be forwarded to WSDOT for
review.
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,
z=6
Noted. The updated "nA (dated March 6, 2018) will be forwarded to WSIDOT for
review,
Ms, Stacey Wei
June 28, 2018
Page 22 1
MINIM
66. Transportation 14(c) - Revise to include frontage improvements and right-of-way
dedication consistent with the arterial/col lector 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.
SEPA Checklist item 14(c) has been revised.
67. Transportation 14(e) - The traffic generated by the project must be consistent with
the TIA Per the TII the project is estimated to generate 97 trips with 78 passenger
trips and 19 truck trips,
SEPA Checklist item 14(e) has been revised to reflect the trip generation numbers
found in the TLA dated March 6, 2018.
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 3201�
St. interchange.
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 Pe,ks.
70. The SR 18 ramp terminal intersections and WeyerhaeuserWay roundaboutwere 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.
�Ir7_z5T-MTr
June 28, 2 71
Page 23
Brian
basbury@lakehaven.oAr
71, Lakehaven issued Certificates of Water & Sewer Availability for the proposed
application/project on 8/4/17. However, no other application has been submitted t#
Lakehaven that is necessary to be able to 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.
Nmwl_�M_021 20=11.10-mra M-10ANI
ch ns.cah an @south king�i
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 a)
the time of building permit application,
111111101i
73, This project will require at as 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.
The proposed site plan shows 1 hydrant is provided near each comer of the building,
four total.
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
Ms. Stacey is
June 28, 2018
Page 24
Noted,
7& Fire hydrants shall be in service prior to and during the time of construction.
VNITOOTA 0=10 I
77. Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with agqWtpfljgOLs 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
construction plans,
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:
http://www.codeDublishinQ.com/WA/FederalWay/
80. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during the time of construction,
1=0 mWoff MI,
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.
I
June 28, 2018
Page 25
77Tq
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 correlativQ-
water supply curve pressure,
Fire Alarm
86. A Fire Alarm System is required.
IMMIMM MOI
IMMUSTOMOM
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.
IIMIIU�I=
89, The building shall be designed for High Piled Combustible Storage in accordance
with chapter 32 of the 2015 1 FC. This code offer's 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.
Ms. Stacey Wel
June 28, 2018
Page 26 1
Imm
Comm
I lesm8lengrlesm-jobsM86@01 101 6-0011 Wocumentfletter-005,docx