20201112 SWC MDNS Appeal.WhseBLAW 0FFICESOFJ. RI CHARD ARAMBURU PLLC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98104-1797
Telephone 206.625.9515
Faad m i I e 206.682.1376
City of Federal Way
City Clerk's Office
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
www.aramburulavv.com
www.aramburu-eustis.com
November 12, 2020
Re: Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
for Woodbridge/Greenline Warehouse "B" (File Number 17-104237-SE), and
associated and related projects including Greenline Business Park Application
(File 17-105491)
Dear City of Federal Way:
This office represents Save Weyerhaeuser Campus (SWC) a Washington nonprofit
corporation. This letter constitutes the appeal of the Department of Community
Development's Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for Greenline Warehouse
"B" (File Number 17-104237-SE). The content of this appeal is as follows.
1. DECISION APPEALED.
SWC appeals the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for Woodbridge
Greenline Warehouse "B" issued by the City under File Number 17-1042378-SE on
October 9, 2020.' As described herein, SWC submitted extensive comments on the
Warehouse B application, but the City did not respond to or acknowledge these
comments. It is assumed that the City rejected all SWC's and all other comments
received. SWC's October 9 comment is included with this appeal at Attachment A.
2. INTEREST OF SWC.
This appeal is filed by SWC on behalf of its members. SWC is a Washington non-profit
Hereinafter, the project which is the subject of the MDNS and this appeal will
be referenced as "Warehouse B."
November 12, 2020
Page 2
corporation concerned with the future use and development of the former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Campus (WCC). SWC members own property and reside in
neighborhoods nearby the WCC and are adversely impacted by development on the
property, including aesthetic, visual, traffic, stormwater and other impacts that arise
from the development on the property.
SWC has filed numerous comments on proposals to develop the WCC beginning in
2016, providing comments on Greenline Warehouse "A" (File Number 16-102948-SE),
the Greenline Business Park application (in May, 2018), on the Warehouse "B" MDNS
on October 23, 2020, with SEPA comments for Warehouse B submitted on October 30,
2017. SWC incorporates all these comments by reference herein, along with the
comment letter of Washington Trust for Historic Preservation dated October 21, 2020
(see also Section 4.1 below) and comments made by The Cultural Landscape
Foundation, posted on their website at
https://tclf.org/weyerhaeuser-campus-forest-land-deemed-unimportant
which state, in part, "In fact, the meticulously sculpted woodlands, designed forest
edges, and the network of trails running through them, are elemental to the design and
identity of the campus."
SWC is represented in this appeal by J. Richard Aramburu, telephone (206) 625-9515,
email rick aramburu-eustis.com and aramburulaw(a-)gmail.com.
3. PROPOSED PROJECT.
The MDNS is for Warehouse "B" (File Number 17-104237-SE). The project is a
214,050 square foot general commodity warehouse with 245 parking stalls on a 16.85
acre parcel. The applicant for this project is also the applicant for two adjacent
proposals, Greenline Business Park (file 17-1054910) and Greenline Warehouse "A"
(File Number 16-102948-SE).
4. OBJECTIONS TO AND ERRORS IN THE MDNS DECISION.
4.1 ERRORS IN DEFINING SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
The SEPA Responsible Official erred in issuing the MDNS because it did not
adequately consider the cumulative impacts of other projects being proposed and
currently under review. Comments relating to the scope of the environmental review
were previously communicated to the City by letters dated November 15, 2018,
November 9, 2018, May 29, 2018 and October 23, 2020. In addition, agencies, tribes,
individuals and organizations commented on the scope of review during the comment
November 12, 2020
Page 3
period. All of these comment letters are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein (see also Section 2 above).
The cumulative impacts of these projects are required to be considered under SEPA
and it was an error for the Federal Way SEPA Responsible Official to limit review to the
single Warehouse "B" project.
4.2. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PENDING PROPOSALS WILL
HAVE A PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.
The pending proposals will have significant impacts, cumulatively and individually, on
the following elements of the environment under WAC 197-11-444:
(1) Natural environment
(a) Earth
(iv) Unique physical features
(v) Erosion/enlargement of land area (accretion)
(b) Air
(i) Air quality
(ii) Odor
(c) Water
(i) Surface water movement/quantity/quality
(ii) Runoff/absorption
(iii) Floods
(iv) Groundwater movement/quantity/quality
(d) Plants and animals
(i) Habitat for and numbers or diversity of species of plants, fish,
or other wildlife
(ii) Unique species
(iii) Fish or wildlife migration routes
(e) Energy and natural resources
(i) Amount required/rate of use/efficiency
(v) Scenic resources
(2) Built environment
(a) Environmental health
(i) Noise
(b) Land and shoreline use
(i) Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population
(iii) Light and glare
(iv) Aesthetics
November 12, 2020
Page 4
(v) Recreation
(vi) Historic and cultural preservation
(c) Transportation
(i) Transportation systems
(ii) Vehicular traffic
(iv) Parking
(v) Movement/circulation of people or goods
(vi) Traffic hazards
(d) Public services and utilities
(iv) Parks or other recreational facilities
(v) Maintenance
(vii) Water/stormwater
Under the terms of WAC 197-11-330(3)(e) the proposal is likely to:
(i) Adversely affect environmentally sensitive or special areas, such as loss or
destruction of historic, scientific, and cultural resources, parks, prime
farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or wilderness;
(ii) Adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat;
(iii) Conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of
the environment; and
(iv) Establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, involves
unique and unknown risks to the environment, or may affect public health
or safety.
Under WAC 197-11-330(3)(b) and (c), the quantitative impacts of the three pending
proposals are significant, and several impacts - even if determined to be marginal
separately - will result in a significant impact.
4.3 IMPACTS OF WAREHOUSE "B" ALONE WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
Even if the Hearing Examiner determines that review of environmental impacts beyond
the Warehouse "B" proposal may be limited, the Warehouse "B" proposal alone will
have significant impacts to the elements of the environment identified above in Section
4.2 of this appeal statement.
SWC requests that the Hearing Examiner reverse the MDNS decision and order the
issuance of a determination of significance requiring an environmental impact
November 12, 2020
Page 5
statement considering the cumulative impacts of the projects identified in Section 3
hereof. In the alternative, the Hearing Examiner is requested to reverse the MDNS
decision and order the issuance of a determination of significance and require an
environmental impact statement considering the impacts of just the Warehouse "B"
proposal identified in Section 4.2 above.
SWC reserves the right to amend this appeal and to request additional relief as may be
appropriate.
,Sincerely,
J, Richard Aramburu
WSBA # 466
Attorney for Save Weyhaeuser Campus