HEX 21-003 Woodbridge Bldg B Process III Appeal1
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
RECEIVED
3 R
ECRU D
JUL 2 2021
JUL 23 � 21
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT City Clerk's Dffice
City of Federal Wav
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
1117:ta
Appeal by Save Weyerhaeuser Campus
of the Process III Project Approval dated
July 6, 2021 under City File 17-104236-
UP for Woodbridge Building "B" also
known as Greenline "Warehouse B"
am
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Comes now Save Weyerhaeuser Campus and appeals the decision described
herein pursuant to FWRC 19.05.360, 19.65.120 and other applicable code.
1. IDENTITY OF APPELLANT.
The appellant herein is Save Weyerhaeuser Campus (SWC), a Washington
nonprofit corporation organized and existing to protect and preserve the community and
natural values of the Weyerhaeuser Campus. SWC is represented in this matter by J.
Richard Aramburu of the Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu, PLLC, located at 705 2nd
Avenue, Suite 1300, Seattle, Washington 98104, Telephone (206) 625-9515, Facsimile
(206) 682-1376, email Rick@Aramburu-Eustis.com. SWC submitted multiple
comments on the Woodbridge Building "B" project (including when it was referenced as
"Greenline Warehouse 'B"') and other projects within the Weyerhaeuser campus and
has standing under FWRC 19.65.120. These comments are incorporated by reference.
LAW OFFICES OF
J. RICHARD ARAUBURU, PLLC
7052N°AVE., SUITE 1300
S(EAT rLE 98104
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1 FAXZ (2�6) 68251376
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
2. DECISION BEING APPEALED.
SWC appeals the Process III Project Approval issued by the City on July 6,
2021. A copy of that decision is attached and is referenced here as "the Decision."
3. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED ERRORS.
The Process III Decision is in error for the following reasons.
3.1 The City failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the other applications
pending for development in the CP-1 zone found in the CZA, including "Warehouse `A"'
and the "Greenline Business Park," which are being proposed by the same applicant.'
3.2 Pursuant to FWRC 19.65.100(2a i , the proposal, singularly and when
considered cumulatively with Warehouse A and the Greenline Business Park, is not
consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and Finding 36 in the Decision is
in error for the following reasons:
3.2.1 The plan does not limit growth outside the City center to areas that
are already urbanized. Id., Chapter II, page II-2.
3.2.2 The proposal does not protect environmentally sensitive areas,
including North Lake, on -site wetlands, and the Hylebos watershed. Id. The proposal
fails to consider the de -watering of wetlands and interruption of ground water recharge
on downstream resources, including East Hylebos Creek. Id.
3.2.3 The proposal does not retain open space, enhance recreational
opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource
lands and water and develop parks of recreational facilities. Id.
3.2.4 The proposal does not protect and enhance the state of
Washington's high quality of life, including air and water quality and the availability of
water, due to the project development and extent, as well as adverse impacts from
'The application here was for "Greenline Warehouse B," but the applicant has rebranded the proposal as
"Woodbridge Building 'B'." See Decision at Finding 1. Because the proposal remains for a "general
commodity warehouse with 245 parking spaces," herein we will refer to the proposal as "Warehouse B" to
prevent confusion regarding the actual proposal.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2
LAW OFFICES OF
J. RICRAMi ARAMBURU, PLLC
705 2- A.V F ., SUITE 1300
SEATTLE98104
(206 625-9515
FAX (2 6) 682-1376
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
large amounts of vehicle and truck traffic. Id.
3.2.5 The proposal does not "identify and encourage the preservation of
lands, sites and structures that have historical significance." Id.
3.2.6 The proposal does not "create an attractive, welcoming and
functional built environment." Id., Chapter II, page II-8. The proposal creates a large
warehouse structure in a sensitive area in a residential community.
3.2.7 The proposal does not "use development standards and design
guidelines to maintain neighborhood character and ensure compatibility with
surrounding uses." Id.
3.2.8 The proposal does not "preserve and protect Federal Way's single
family neighborhoods." Id., Chapter II, page II-11.
3.2.9 The proposal does not "protect residential areas from impacts of
adjacent non-residential uses." Id.
3.2.10 The proposal does not require "development to be compatible and
well integrated into its surrounds and adjacent zone through site and building design
and development standards that reduce or eliminate land use conflicts, ensure project
aesthetics and improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and safety. Id., Chapter II,
page II-14.
3.2.11 The proposal violates Comprehensive Plan Goal LUG 8 because
the proposal does not "create office and corporate park development that is known
regionally, nationally and internationally for its design and function."
3.2.12 The proposal violates Policy LUP 49 because the proposal will not
"encourage quality development that will compliment existing uses."
3.2.13 The Decision failed to impose mitigating conditions to address
inconsistency with the foregoing elements of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan.
3.3 Pursuant to FWRC 19.65.100 2 a ii , the proposal, singularly and when
considered cumulatively with Warehouse A and the Greenline Business Park, is not
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3
LAW OFFICES OF
J. RICHARD ARAWIBURO, PLLC
70521°AVE.,SUITE1300
SEATTLE19104
206 625-9515
FA {2 6}6B2.13576
1
2
3
4
5
6
1�
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent with all applicable provisions of the Federal Way codes for the following
reasons:
3.3.1 The proposal does not meet the standards of the current stormwater
design manual because the applicant has not prepared a complete downstream
analysis to consider impacts to streams and wetlands, including North Lake and the
several branches of Hylebos Creek.
3.3.2 The proposal does not consider or analyze impacts to drainage,
including that the discharge of drainage water is not at the natural locations and not at
the same volume as under preexisting conditions.
3.3.3 The proposal does not consider adverse impacts to groundwater
and downstream resources caused by the interruption of groundwater infiltration due to
the construction of large impervious surfaces, including the elimination of storage of
stormwater in current wetlands on site.
3.3.4 The proposal does not provide for the collection and treatment of
` surface water and removal of pollutants, including petroleum products, from surfaces
used by vehicles and trucks.
3.3.5 The proposal does not meet the criteria in the CZA (Section XI, A.2)
that "alterations to existing landscaping in connection with new development shall
match or be compatible with existing vegetation."
3.3.6 The hydrological model used to size stormwater detention ponds
overestimates existing peak flows from the site and underestimates the volume of
required stormwater detention.
3.3.7 The areas of Warehouse A and Warehouse B should be considered
a single project on a single site for purposes of compliance with the applicable
stormwater manual.
3.4 Pursuant to FWRC 19.65.100(2}(a}(iiij, the proposal singularly, and when
considered cumulatively with Warehouse A and the Greenline Business Park, is not
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4
LAW OFFICES OF
J. Ric HARD ARAMBURU, PLLC
705 VE AVE.. SUITE 1300
SATTLE 98104
(206 625-9515
FAI (2 6) 682-1376
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
consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare, for the following reasons:
3.4.1 The proposal will create truck and freight traffic, and associated
construction (e.g., Conditions of Approval 29, 30, 33, 34) that will create dangerous
circumstances to pedestrians, bicyclists and local traffic as well as impacts to water
quality from runoff from roads impacted by project traffic.
3.4.2 The Director did not consult with other organizations in making his
determination, including impacted tribes and WRIA 10 organizations in downstream
areas.
3.4.3 The proposal did not comply with executive basin plans for the
Hylebos Watershed, including, but not limited to the Pierce County Hylebos Watershed
Plan, the Earth Corps Hylebos Watershed Plan and the King County East Hylebos
Watershed Plan.
3.5 Pursuant to FW RC 19.65.100 2 a iv , the streets and utilities in the area of
the subject proposal singularly, as well as when including the cumulative impacts from
Warehouse A and the Greenline Business Park, are not adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal for the following reasons:
3.5.1 The streets in the vicinity of the project, including Weyerhaeuser
Way and other local streets, and on and off ramps from State Route 18, are insufficient
and inadequate to accommodate the impacts from Warehouse B.
3.5.2 The streets in the vicinity of the project, including Weyerhaeuser
Way and other local streets, and on and off ramps from State Route 18, are insufficient
and inadequate to accommodate the impacts from the several projects currently
proposed by the Applicant, including Warehouse B.
3.5.3 The Traffic Impact Assessment fails to provide analysis of all known
or proposed projects in the vicinity of the proposal that may contribute traffic to the
same streets or highways as the subject proposal.
3.5.4 The street reconstruction described in Condition 29 will create a de -
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5
LAW OFFICES OF
J. RICHAFiu ARAMBiJRII, PLLC
705 "'AVE., SUITE 1300
S E ATT LE 98 t 04
206 625-9515
FA (2 6)682-1376
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
facto reclassification of Weyerhaeuser Way South as a truck route, inconsistent with
the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan.
3.6 Pursuant to FWRC 19.65.100 2 a v , the access to the subject property is
not at the optimal location and configuration.
3.7 Pursuant to FWRC 19.65.100 2 a vi , the traffic safety impacts for all
modes of transportation, both on and off site, are not adequately mitigated.
3.7.1 The proposal, including mitigation, does not mitigate for the traffic
safety impacts on local streets from project traffic, including large trucks.
3.7.2 The proposal will create truck and freight traffic that will create
dangerous circumstances to pedestrians, bicyclists and local traffic using the adjacent
streets.
3.8 Identification of specific dis uted factual findings and conclusions of the
director. The following Findings are disputed in part or in full: 1, 2, 4, 6 (Second and
Third Paragraphs), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 32, 35, 36, 37 and Conclusion.
3.9 Included for review by the Hearing Examiner is the SEPA appeal of the
101912020 MDNS filed on November 12, 2020.
4. CONCLUSION.
The Hearing Examiner is requested to consider the cumulative impacts of the
IRG proposals for Weyerhaeuser Campus and to deny the Warehouse B proposal as
currently configured. rGt
Respectfully submitted this day of July, 2021
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 6
FICE F J. R1CHA I] ARAMB u PLLC
J. Richard Aramburu, W S A #466
Attorney for Save Weyerhaeuser Campus
LAW 6FF3CES OF
J. McHARP ARAMB1l RU PLLC
7052—AVE—SIJITE 5300
SEATTLFSS104
2 ✓J45B25.5515
EA i2 91 582-1376
U
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2021
CITY
C0M UNITY DEVELOPMENT
D RCHWE D
JUL 23 _021
City Clerk's Office
City of Federal Way
July 23, 2021
SWC APPEAL
NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
ATTACH M ENT A
R LE #17-104236-U P; Process III Project
Approval —Woodbridge Bldg "B"
CITY OF
Federal Way
Centered or: Opponunriy
Mr. Eric I.aBrie
ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC
33400 811, Avenue South, Suite 205
Federal Way, WA 98003
•ri ,l•t ri • Ciles�nci�•ii.czim
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
33325 81h Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
253-835-7000
www.ci!yoffederalway.com
Re: File #17-104236-UP; PROCESS III PROJECT APPROVAL
Woodbridge Building "B"; 3120 South 344,h Street, Federal Way
Dear Air. LaBrie:
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
July 6, 2021
2021-07-22
APPEAL
ATT.A
The Community Development Department has completed an administrative land use review of the proposed
Woodbridge Building "B" (formerly Greenline Warehouse "B") project located at 3120 South 344,h Street.
The applicant proposes the construction of a 45-foot-tall, 214,050 square -foot general commodity warehouse
-,Ath 245 parking spaces, and associated site work, including wetland fill, on a 16.85-acre site (parcel
6142600200), along with improvements to the right-of-,vay for Weyerhaeuser Way South.
In a February 8, 2019, letter you requested that the Greenline Warehouse "B" project now be referred to as
Woodbridge Building "B." They are the same project and any reference to Greenline Warehouse "B" should
be considered as a reference to Woodbridge Building "B."
The Process III blaster Land Use application submitted September 1, 2017, with subsequent resubmittals of
September 11, 2017, September 29, 2017, J une 28, 2018, J my 10, 2018, August 15, 2018, September 18, 2018,
October 9, 2018, February 12, 2019, and July 30, 2020, is hereby approved with conditions based on the enclosed
findings of fact, incorporated into this decision in full, and the following conclusions based on those facts:
1. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
2. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with applicable zoning regulations in effect on
August 23, 1994 (Federal ray Cite Code [lAvc ]), and procedural requirements of the current
code (P'edewl IF''ay Revised Code [FWRC]);
3. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare;
4. As conditioned, the streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to
serve the anticipated demand from the proposal;
5. As conditioned, the proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and
configuration; and
6. As conditioned, traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off -site,
are adequately mitigated.
The remainder of this letter outlines the land -use review process required for this particular site improvement;
summarizes the .Slate Enoironnienlal Polig Act (SF.PA) process; lists conditions of the land use decision; and provides
other procedural information. This land -use decision does not authorize the initiation of construction activities.
REVIEW PROCESS
The proposal is subject to the provisions of the 1994 Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation
Development Agreement (CZA) and zoning regulations in effect on August 23, 1994 (FWCC). Any
procedural requirements must meet the current code (FWRC). The site is within the Corporate Park (CP-1)
zoning district. Warehousing, distribution, and corporate offices are permitted uses in this zone according to
Mr. Eric LaBrie
Page 2 of 3
July. 6, 2021
CZA Exhibit C, Section VII. The proposed uses, not exempt from SEPA, are procedurally reviewed under
Use Process III, Projeazipprowl. The Director of Community Development makes a written decision on the
application based on the criteria listed under F'1Y7RC 19.65.100.
SEPA PROCESS
The City of Federal Way issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on October 9, 2020,
according to ll,"asliiugton zldwinistratir . Code (1fi,'AC) 197-11-350. Following the review of the environmental
checklist, the city determined the proposal, with appropriate mitigation, would not have a probable significant
�nnie»tal hnpact Statenientwould not be required, and SEPA-based
adverse impact on the environment, an Enrir
mitigation is necessary. A SEPA appeal was filed on November 12, 2020. The SEPA appeal hearing will occur
after issuance of the Use Process Ill decision and expiration of its associated appeal period. The SEPA
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Use Process III conditions of approval, listed below.
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Both concerning the city's Use Process Ill review and the corollary SEPA analysis for the Woodbridge
Building "B" proposal, the city has carefully considered and has been guided by, as applicable, the prior
administrative and judicial decisions issued concerning the applicant's adjacent Building "A" proposal.
Without limitation of the foregoing, the city has been appropriately informed by the Hearing Examiner's
September 12, 2019, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Decision, and the Examiner's October
29, 2019, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision on Reconsideration in Cause No. IAEX 18-003;
19-001, as well as the Bing County Superior Court's June 10, 2020, Order Denying Land Use Petitions in
Consolidated Case No. 19-2-30502-9 KNT.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval, which are listed in Finding of Fact #37 in Exhibit "A," arc reasonably necessary, and
are proportionately tailored, to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting application approval.
BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
This Process Ill land use decision does not constitute a building permit or authorize clearing/grading activities.
See the enclosed Commercial Building Permit Checklist. If you have any questions regarding building permit
submittal, please contact the Permit Center at . •ritni c •n cr ed it r ff cleraItea .com or 253-835-2607.
REQUESTS FOR CHANGE OF VALUATION
Per RX RC 19.65.100(4)(i), affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax
purposes, notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
APPROVAL DURATION
Per FWRC 19.15.100(2), "...the applicant must substantially complete construction for the development
activity, use of land, or other actions approved and complete the applicable conditions listed in the use
process III decision within five years after the final decision of the city on the matter, or the decision
becomes void. If a land -use petition is filed under Chapter 36.70C RCW in King County superior court, the
time limits of this section are automatically extended by die length of time between the commencement and
final termination of that litigation. If the development activity, use of land, or other action approved under
17.1 042.YA TP D- ID RI2.36
Mr. Eric LaBrie
Page 3 of 3
July 6, 2021
this chapter includes phased construction, the time limits of this section may be extended in the decision on
the application, to allow for completion of subsequent phases." Time extensions to the decision may be
requested before the lapse of approval following the provisions listed in RXVRC 19.15.110.
APPEALS
Per FV IRC 19.05.360, the effective date of issuance is three calendar days following the date of this letter, or
July 9, 2021. According to FWRC 19.65.120(1), this land -use decision 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. According to FWRC 19.65.120(2), a written notice of appeal must be delivered to the
Community Development Department within 14 calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director,
or July 23, 2021. The appeal must be accompanied by cash or a check, payable to the City of Federal Way, in
the amount of the fee as established by the city. The notice of appeal must contain a statement identifying the
decision being appealed, along with a copy of the decision; a statement of the alleged errors in the director's
decision, including identification of specific factual findings and conclusions of the director disputed by the
person filing the appeal; and the appellant's name, address, telephone number and fax number, and any other
information to facilitate communications with the appellant. Appeals are governed by process IV (Federal
Way Hcaring Examiner).
CLOSING
This land -use decision does not waive compliance with future City of Federal Way codes, policies, and
standards relating to this development. if you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact
Principal Planner Stacey Welsh at 253-835-2634 or s[ace; .welslt ctityolfedrralu=a}.rr�trl.
Sincerely,
Digitally Signed July 6, 2021, at 8: 00 AM
Brian Davis
Community Development Director
ene: Exlubit ".A," Findings for Project Approval
Right-of-\N'ay Modification Letter from City of Federal Way to ESAI Consulting Engineers, June 22, 2018
Commercial Building Permit Checklist
Approved mevations
Approved Site Plan
Approved landscape Plan
Stacey Welsh, Principal Planner
Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste & Recycling Coordinator
Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer
Brian Asbury, Lakchaven Water & Sewer District
Scan Nichols, South Ding Fire & Rescue
Duffy AlcColloeh, \\•SDOT,
John Wilson, Ding County Assessor, #ADAI-AS-0708, 500 41h Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, .esss:r.irtfifc�kioz+cfyun uc'
Dana Osrenson, doggyngi ruir g.c
Nohely 1\1oreno, nnhc ylTx csmeirsl.rnm
UP 111 Commenters
SEPA Commenters
1'-1(42M-1'P Doc 11) 81254.
4ikCITY OF 401;::tSN;:P
Federal Way
Exhibit A
Findings for Project Approval
Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.65, "Process III Project Approval"
Woodbridge Building "B" Project, File #17-104236-UP
The Director of Community Development hereby makes the following findings according to content
requirements of the Process III written decision as outlined in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)
19.65.100(4). These findings are based on a review of city documents and items submitted by the applicant
and received September 1, 2017, September 11, 2017, September 29, 2017, June 28, 2018, July 10, 2018,
August 15, 2018, September 18, 2018, October 9, 2018, February 12, 2019, and July 30, 2020.
For reference: FWRC=Federal Way Revised Code (current code); FWCC=Federal Way Cily Code
(1994 code); CZA=Concomitant Zoning Agreement; and CZA Exhibit C=CP-1 regulations.
1. Proposal — The proposal is Woodbridge Building "B" (formerly Greenline Warehouse `B"),
construction of a 45-foot-tall, 214,050 square -foot general commodity warehouse with 2451 parking
spaces and associated site work, including wetland fill, on a 16.85-acre site (parcel 6142600200),
along with improvements to the right-of-way for Weyerhaeuser Way South. Since the original
submittal, a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) was recorded (city file 17-101484-SU), altering the lot
lines of the subject property. Future submittals related to this project must contain the most current
legal description. This will be made a condition of approval.
In a February 8, 2019, letter the applicant requested that the Greenline Warehouse `B" project now be
referred to as Woodbridge Building "B." They are the same project and any reference to Greenline
Warehouse `B" should be considered as a reference to Woodbridge Building -B."
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation —The proposal is subject to the provisions of the 1994
Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Development Agreement (CZA) and zoning
regulations in effect on August 23, 1994 (Federal Way City Code [FWCC]). Any procedural
requirements must meet the current code (Federal Wray Revised Code [FWRC]). Zoning for the subject
property is Corporate Park (CP-1). Warehousing, distribution, and corporate offices are permitted uses
in the CP-I zone according to CZA Exhibit C, Section VI1, "Pennitted Uses on Those Portions of the
CP-1 Zoned Property Lying Outside the Managed Forest Buffer." The CZA states that warehousing
and distribution are allowed, subject to Process IV, Hearing Examiner review (FWRC Chapter 19.70)
when such a facility is within 200 feet of a single-family zone or use. The subject property is not
within 200 feet of a single-family zone or use. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP)
designation for the subject property is Corporate Park.
I The submitted site plan (Sheet ST-01) prepared by ESM, Junc 18, 2018 (resubmitted June 28, 2018). states 'Parking: 245 car
stalls (8 ADA accessible) however, the drawing shows 244 total parking spaces.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page I of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doe. I.D. 81257
The proposal was reviewed as a general commodity warehouse with an associated office. A future
change in the type of use and/or occupancy shall require review for compliance with applicable
requirements, and to determine any impacts, including revisiting the SEPA threshold determination
and Use Process III decision, as needed. This will be made a condition of approval.
3. Site Plan Review Process —The project requires review under Process III, Project Approval. The
Director of Cominunity Development makes a written decision on the application based on the
criteria listed under FWRC 19.65.100.
State Environmental Policv Act (SEPA) — The proposed improvements exceed categorical exemption
levels according to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800. The city issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on October 9, 2020 (city file 17-104237-SE). The
threshold determination comment period ended October 23, 2020, and the appeal period ended
November 13, 2020. The city received comments during the public comment period on the MDNS.
The city considered all comments received. A SEPA appeal was filed on November 12, 2020. The
SEPA appeal hearing will occur after the issuance of this Use Process III decision and the expiration
of its associated appeal period.
5. Public Notice — According to Process III regulations, a Notice of Application (NOA) was published in the
Federal Way Mirror, posted on the subject property, posted on each of the official notification boards of
the city and public libraries located within the city, and mailed to the persons receiving the property tax
statements for all property within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property on October 13, 2017.
Approximately 51 written comments were received on the application. According to SEPA regulations, a
notice of the MDNS was published in the Federal Way Mirror, posted on the subject property, mailed to
all owners of real property as shown in the records of the county assessor located within 300 feet of the
site, emailed to agencies, and sent to people who provided comments in response to the NOA, on October
9, 2020. Approximately 40 written comments were received on the MDNS.
6. Public Comments — Approximately 51 written comments were received on the application. The comments
generally relate to alleged environmental impacts, traffic, zoning, design, process, infrastructure &
utilities, pollution, noise, odor, economic impacts, public health & safety, quality of life, property values,
neighborhood character, historic preservation, and green space. Approximately 40 written comments were
received on the MDNS. The MDNS comments generally relate to alleged environmental impacts,
transportation, stormwater, wetlands, tree removal, noise, economics, quality of life, historic preservation,
green space, and that any changes must be compatible with the existing design of the campus. Several
MDNS comments also discuss the separate Woodbridge Building "A" (formerly Greenline Warehouse
"A") and Woodbridge Corporate Park (formerly Greenline Business Park) projects currently under review
by the city. Concerning these separate projects, the comments received by the city variously assert that
cumulative SEPA review and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are required.
The city has carefully and thoroughly considered each of the comments received as part of the city's
review of the application. All of these comments will be included within the administrative record for
this proposal and will accompany the application throughout the city's project review process.
The city also provides the following response concerning the comments requesting a master plan,
cumulative SEPA review, and/or an EIS for the project. A master plan was not proposed or otherwise
requested by the applicants, and no applicable statutory or local code provision allows the city to
unilaterally require the preparation of a master plan. The applicants have also elected to submit separate
complete application submittals for projects on the former Weyerhaeuser Campus, which the city is
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 2 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
required by law to process. (Also, see the finding below regarding "cumulative impacts analysis.")
And unless there are significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, a SEPA
Determination of Significance requiring preparation of an EIS is inappropriate. The city's SEPA
Responsible Official has determined that this standard has not been met concerning the project. Finally,
the city is generally prohibited from requiring an applicant to provide mitigation of a project to an extent
that exceeds the project's anticipated impacts. The city accordingly cannot require the Woodbridge
Building `B" project to mitigate an impact that it does not cause or otherwise contribute to.
7. Bulk & Dimensional Requirements— Per Section III.13 of the CP-1 regulations, no building setbacks
are specified in the CP-I zone except for the continuous Managed Forest Buffer (MFB), which states
that a continuous MFB shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the CP-I property. Please see
section 9, Managed Forest Ba ffer (MFB), below for further information regarding the MFB.
Section III of the CP-1 regulations states that "The aggregate impervious surface coverage by all
permitted uses, primary and accessory, shall not exceed 70 percent of the total CP-I zoned property."
The applicant submitted an "Impervious Area Exhibit," prepared by ESM, June 18, 2018, which
shows the existing impervious coverage in the CP-I zone is 11.6 percent and the construction of the
proposed project would increase it to 15.7 percent (the proposed increase in the impervious area also
includes Woodbridge Building "A").
Per Section IX of the CP-I regulations, the maximum building height is six stories. The tallest
proposed component of the project is the building a145 feet in height, which is less than six stories.
8. Parking Requirements — Off-street parking shall comply with the 1994 zoning code as modified by
the provisions of Section Xlll of the CP-I regulations. Required parking is one parking space per 300
square feet of gross floor area (gfa) for the office and one for every 1,000 square feet of gfa for the
warehouse. No floor plan has been submitted, so the exact breakdown of office and warehouse space
has not been determined. As an example, if 10 percent of the building is an office, then required
parking would be: for the office (21,405/300 = 72) and the warehouse (192,645/1000 = 193), for a
total of 265 parking spaces. For reference, the site plan depicts 244 parking spaces. A condition of
approval will require the building permit application plan set to include a section with a parking
analysis that demonstrates compliance with the required parking ratios.
9. Managed Forest B1 ffer (MFB) — Section I11.13 of the CP-I regulations states, "A continuous Managed
Forest Buffer shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the CP-1 property." The depth of the
setback is 50 feet where the perimeter abuts a city road and 100 feet where abutting a state highway.
A 50-foot buffer is shown along Weyerhaeuser Way, which is the perimeter of the CP-I property in
that area. A 100-foot buffer is shown along State Route 18 (SR-1 8), which is the perimeter of the CP-
I property in that area.
Planned activities in the MFB include managed forest, a 10-foot wide pedestrian path, fencing, a
driveway, and signage, which are allowed according to CZA Exhibit C, Section VI1I, "Uses on Those
Portions of the Property Lying Within the Managed Forest Buffer."
Per CZA Exhibit C, Section X.B.2, within the MFB natural materials are preferred for fencing.
Fencing is required around wetland buffers. Also, stormwater conveyance infrastructure is planned
within the MFB west of Stream EA. Such activity is pennitted within the MFB per CZA Exhibit C,
Section VIII.D.2, which allows minor grading or filling associated with permitted uses within
forested areas not requiring review or approval under Section X11("Environmentally Sensitive
Areas"). Per the CZA, the activity must be supervised by the Forester.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 3 of30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
Per Section IV.B of the CP-I Zoning Regulations, the property owner shall designate a qualified
Forester and prepare a General Maintenance Plan (GMP). The property owner has designated Brian
Gilles of Gilles Consulting as the Forester and a GMP has been submitted for review. The Managed
Forest Buffer Management Plan of the Greenline Building B Site, June 26, 2018, is approved with the
following condition:
• Work is not allowed within Wetlands DP, DT, Stream EA, and associated buffers, as
stream setback intrusions and improvements/land surface modifications in non-CZA
exempt wetland setbacks require Use Process IV application review and approval per
FWCC Sections 22-1312(c) and 22-1359(d).
10. Landscaping —Section XI of the CP-I regulations states that "The provisions of this section shall
modify the application of Chapter 22, Article XVIi (Landscaping), of the FWC[C] in the CP-I zone."
This modification language states in part, "All portions of the Property not used for buildings, future
buildings, parking, storage or accessory uses, and proposed landscaping areas shall be retained in a
`native' or pre -developed state." The preliminary landscape plan (Sheet LA-01) shows portions of the
property outside of areas for buildings, future buildings, parking, storage or accessory uses, and
proposed landscaping areas to be retained in a "native" or pre -developed state.
Per FWCC Section 22-1564(w), "All loading areas shall be fully screened from public right of way or
non-industrial/manufacturing uses with Type 1 landscaping." The project contains a loading area on
the east side of the building facing Weyerhaeuser Way. The preliminary landscape plan (Sheet LA-01)
shows that there is existing vegetation to remain inside and outside of the MFB, along with
supplemental planting if necessary to screen the loading area from Weyerhaeuser Way. There are notes
on Sheet LA-02 that reference Type I and Type Il landscaping for additional, supplemental, and
replanting purposes. A condition of approval will require installation of all additional, supplemental,
and replanted Type 1 and 11 landscaping, as indicated on Sheet LA-01 and LA-02, before the building's
final inspection.
Section XLD of the CP-I regulations states, "New parking areas shall comply with minimum
standards of the FWC[C]; except that selection and distribution of plant material conforming to
existing development shall be preferred." Per FWCC Section 22-1567(b)(1)(a)(ii), interior parking lot
landscaping is required at the rate of 22 square feet of Type IV landscaping per parking stall, when 50
or more parking stal Is are provided. As 244 parking stalls are provided, 5,368 square feet of parking
lot landscaping is required (244 x 22 = 5,368). Plan Sheet LA-012 shows 6,501 square feet of
proposed parking lot landscaping. If the number of parking spaces increases such that the required
parking lot landscaping exceeds the 6,501 square feet shown, then additional parking lot landscaping
will be required.
FWCC Section 22-1567(c) contains requirements for the location and size of parking lot landscape
islands. Sheet LA-01 of the plan set shows that all parking lot landscape islands meet the criteria.
'- The submitted preliminary landscape plan (Sheet LA-02) states 252 parking stalls are proposed and that the total square feet of
interior parking lot landscaping proposed equals 11,209 total square feet and 7,701 square feet if only counting 350 square feet
For areas larger than 350 square feet. FWCC Section 22-1567(c) limits the size ofparking lot landscape islands to a maximum of
305 square feet, not 350 square feet. The site plan drawing shows 244 parking stalls are being provided, not 252 stalls, which
requires 5.368 square feet of parking lot landscaping (244 x 22 = 5,368). On Sheet LA-01, 6,501 square feet of parking lot
landscaping is shown, counting only 305 square feet for areas larger than 305 square feet.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 4 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
FWCC Section 22-1567(c)(1) requires parking areas adjacent to the public right-of-way to incorporate
berms at least three feet in height within perimeter landscape areas, or through other means as listed
in the code section, to reduce the visual impact of parking areas and screen automobiles. Plan Sheet
LA-01 shows that the 50-foot wide MFB, along with other existing vegetation that will remain, will
substitute for the berm to screen parking areas near Weyerhaeuser Way.
Section XI.A.3 of the CZA states, "Selection and installation of plant material in all forested areas
shall be the responsibility of the designated Forester." In the MFB Management Plan, the Forester has
identified a recommended plant palette. On landscaping plan set Sheet LA-02, it lists species to be
used within the MFB. The following species are listed on Sheet LA-02 and are not listed in the MFB
recommended plant palette: Wild Ginger, Wood Fern, and White Flower Rhodie. A condition of
approval will require that these species be removed from the landscaping plan submitted with the
building permit.
11. Tree RetentionlReplacement — According to FWCC Section 22-1568, the development must retain or
replace 25 percent of the existing significant trees on site. According to the submittal, the Building
"B" property contains approximately 607 significant trees. The parcel will retain significant trees in
the MFB and other areas proposed to remain undisturbed. Plan set Sheet TR-01 (Tree Retention Plan)
shows that approximately 29 percent of the significant trees on the Building "B" site will be retained.
This requirement is satisfied. A condition of approval will require all significant trees to be retained
within the MFB and within areas planned to remain undisturbed according to the submitted plan set
(Sheets TR-0I & GR-01) to the maximum extent feasible.
12. 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. Per FWRC 19.120.200(1)(a), "A Class IV — General Application shall be
approved based on an approved clearing and grading plan and tree and vegetation retention plan and
prior to conducting forest practices on the project site." A condition of approval will require the
applicant to obtain Forest Practices approval before the issuance of the building permit.
13. Critical Areas — Section 12 of the CZA addresses environmentally sensitive areas. The project site
contains wetlands and a stream. The applicant submitted a critical areas report prepared by Talasaea,
which has subsequently been revised and submitted for review. The most recent version is "Critical
Areas Report Greenline Building B," revised June 26, 2018. In the report, the consultant notes that the
revised report assumes that the construction of Greenline Building "A" is complete and therefore, the
built condition of Building A is the baseline condition. This baseline consists of Stream EA with an
averaged buffer, Wetland DT with an averaged buffer, and Wetland DP with a regular buffer.
For Woodbridge Building `B," the applicant plans to make minor revisions to the Stream EA averaged
buffer and Wetland DT averaged buffer from the baseline condition of built Greenlinc Building "A."
The report was sent to the city's consultant, ESA, for a peer review. Throughout the review, ESA
completed site visits and reviewed relevant documents. In their April 1, 2019, memorandum, they state
the following comments and recommendations, some of which the city will incorporate into conditions
of approval as appropriate:
"After review of these documents, ESA has the following comments and recommendations
regarding the revised submittal documents:
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 5 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
• "The Revised Report includes wetland descriptions of the wetlands onsite as recommended
by ESA, however, the Revised Report does not include an analysis of wetland functions as
required by Section 22-1356(b) of the 1994 Federal Way Code.
• "If Talasaea is considering the built -condition of Building A to be the existing conditions
for the Building B proposal, Sheet W1.0 of the Revised Report should be revised to show
the reduced buffers for Stream EA and Wetlands DT, DR, and DQ to be consistent with the
proposed buffers on Sheet W 1.2 of the CAR for Greenline Building A. Cun•ently Sheet
W 1.0 shows the buffers as if Building A was not built.
• "If Talasaea is considering the built -condition of Building A to be the existing condition for
the Building B proposal, Sheet EX-01 should not show wetlands impacted by the
construction of Building A. This sheet should also be revised to show the reduced buffers
mentioned in the bullet above and the footprint of the Building A proposal.
"Plan sheets that show the proposed development should show the buffers post -
development, including averaged wetland and stream buffer. Currently the plan sheets do
not show the averaged wetland buffers for Stream EA and Wetland DT.
• "It is unclear why an area of wetland buffer replacement for Building A is located south of
the road between Buildings A and B. This area of buffer addition was not included on
documents we reviewed for Building A.
• "According to the Response Letter, "Some buffer modification to offsite critical areas
(Wetland DT and Stream EA) are occurring as part of the Building A application to
accommodate the required stormwater drainage easement. These same buffers will be
modified a second time to accommodate the edge of the Greenline Building B development.
"ESA recommends that if buffers are modified for the Building A application they remain
modified and protected in perpetuity. Buffers should not be modified a second time to
accommodate the Building B development. We recommend that buffer modifications
proposed in the application for Building A be established so they reflect the buffers that
will ultimately be needed for Building B as well.
• "As mentioned above, ESA has not received a response to comments and recommendations
submitted in the review memo for Building A (dated April 3, 2018). Many of these
comments were on inconsistencies between report text, figures, and the plan sheets. We
recommend that once these inconsistencies are resolved in the submittal for Building A, the
submittal documents for Building B are also revised where necessary."
Some of the above consultant recommendations from ESA will be made conditions of approval. The
CZA allows buffer averaging with limitations, and the applicant is proposing buffer averaging as
detailed above. For reference, CZA Sections XII.F and XII.G address wetland and stream setback
(buffer) averaging. The proposed Stream EA buffer averaging involves three locations where the
buffer is reduced to no less than 25 feet and two locations where the buffer is to be replaced. The area
to be averaged does not extend beyond the boundaries of the site plan. The proposed Wetland DT
buffer averaging involves one location where the buffer is reduced to no less than 50 feet and two
locations where the buffer is to be replaced. The areas to be averaged do not extend beyond the
boundaries of the site plan.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 6 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
For clarity, in addition to the required revisions to the critical areas report detailed above, the applicant,
as a condition of approval, shall show/label on Sheet W 1.1 the size of each area of buffer reduction and
replacement to demonstrate that each reduction is compensated for at the location of the critical area
where that reduction occurs. Adjustments shall be made if necessary. As a condition of approval, areas
of wetland and stream buffer replacement shall be enhanced with native vegetation, as necessary, to
ensure buffer function continues post -development.
On Sheet W 1.1 there is an area labeled as "buffer replacement for Parcel A," which is located near
the driveway entrance off of Weyerhaeuser Way and has the proposed pedestrian trail within it. This
buffer replacement area was not shown in materials submitted for the Woodbridge Building "A"
project. Woodbridge Building "A" is a separate project. The CZA does not allow for buffer averaging
to extend beyond the boundaries of the site plan. This area is also separated from wetlands located on
Parcel A by a driveway; averaged buffer areas must be in proximity to their wetland. The "buffer
replacement for Parcel A" shown on Sheet W 1.1 is not approved and as a condition of approval shall
be removed from Sheet W 1.1. In several locations within the critical areas report it is stated that
replacement buffer area will be located outside of the MFB as required by the city. It is fine to have
some averaged buffer area within the MFB; the original concern was the placement of all buffer
replacement areas within the MFB or making the entire MFB a buffer replacement area.
CZA Section 12.H.3 states, "H. Exemption. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of
Section 22, Article XIV of the FWC and requirements of this Agreement: 3. Development affecting
wetlands which are individually smaller than 2,500 square feet and/or cumulatively smaller than
10,000 square feet in size in any 20-acre section of this property;" For clarity, the "property"
referenced in the CZA citation is all property subject to the CZA, not an individual development site.
Future projects need to allocate their entire site area into one or more 20-acre sections. Wetlands DP
and DT are non-exempt and subject to applicable provisions of the CZA and FWCC.
Per FWCC Section 22-1270, "The city may require other constriction techniques, conditions and
restrictions on development in order to minimize adverse impacts on steep slopes, wells, streams,
regulated lakes or regulated wetlands." To protect the function of the wetlands, a condition of
approval will require permanent fencing at the outer edge of the wetland buffer for Wetland DT.
Fencing around Wetland DP's buffer is not appropriate as it is located within the buffer of Stream
EA. The boundary between the wetland buffer and contiguous land shall be identified with permanent
signs. Permanent signs shall be a city -approved type designed for high durability. Signs must be
posted at an interval of one per every 150 feet and maintained by the property owner in perpetuity.
Public Works has a standard detail for the wetland sign. The wetland sign must meet the standard
detail required by Public Works.
While wetland impacts are exempt from city mitigation requirements as permissible in the CZA, the
Talasaea report describes federal and state regulations as follows: "Wetland impacts on the Project
Site are subject to applicable State and Federal regulations. Wetland impacts are regulated on the
Federal level by Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) is responsible for administering compliance with Section 404 via the issuance of Nationwide
or Individual Permits for any fill or dredging activities within wetlands. Any project that is subject to
Section 404 permitting is also subject to requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
administered by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Because direct wetland impacts are proposed on
the Project Site, the project would be required to comply with all Section 404 and 401 permitting
requirements prior to any construction -related activities that would affect `waters of the US.' A
permit application will be submitted to the Corps to address the proposed critical area impacts for
Greenline Building B in conjunction with Greenline Building A."
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 7 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-1ri1-UP; Doc. I.D. 81257
In January 2018, the city conducted a preapplication meeting for construction of Corps -required
compensatory mitigation at an off -site location on parcel 152104-9178, for wetland impacts
associated with Greenline Buildings A & B. As was stated in the September 8, 2017, Preapplication
Conference Summary for the Greenline Warehouse "B" project, "In addition, the city will not issue
any approvals to fill wetlands until all state, federal, or other agency permits as may be required to fill
the wetlands have been obtained and verification provided to the city." In recognition of FWCC
Section 22-1224, this will be made a condition of approval.
14. Tacoma Smeller Plume — The former Asarco copper smelter in Tacoma caused widespread soil
contamination with lead and arsenic in parts of King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Thurston counties. This
1,000 square mile area is known as the Tacoma Smelter Plulne. The state cleanup level for arsenic is
20 parts per million (ppm). According to the Department of Ecology mapping checked in 2019, the
subject property is located in the Tacoma Smelter Plume detect area containing under 20 ppm arsenic;
therefore, testing of site soils is not applicable.
15. Clearing & Grading — There is an approximately 34-foot elevation change across the property, from
the northwest to the southeast. The preliminary cut/fill analysis is 19,700 cubic yards (stripping),
31,800 cubic yards (cut), 55,400 cubic yards (fill), and 23,600 cubic yards (net fill). According to the
SEPA checklist, "Cuts in the west and fills in the east will be completed to create a level development
pad. A small portion of structural fill material will be imported for the building foundation. Native on -
site material will be used for general fill." The applicant submitted a geotechnical report, "Revised
Geotechnical Engineering Services Report, Proposed Greenline Building B Development Federal
Way, Washington," on June 21, 2018, prepared by GcoEngineers. The report states, "The finish floor
elevation for the structure is planned to range from Elevation 393 feet in the southeast to 396.4 feet in
the northwest. Cuts and fills will be required to create the building pad. Soil cuts are planned through
most of the building pad and appear typically less than 5 feet. One exception is in the northwest comer
where cuts up to about 12 feet will be required in the proposed parking area. The greatest fill thickness
(approximately 7 feet) is required in the southeast comer of the building footprint. We understand that
a 2H:1V (horizontal: vertical) cut slope will be used to establish planned grade along the northwest
boundary. A 6- to 13-foot high retaining wall is planned for the east and southeast margin of the site.
We understand that the wall type has not been determined." Land surface modification activities will
be reviewed for consistency with applicable standards outlined in FWCC Division 7 and Chapter
19.120 FWRC as part of construction permitting.
16. Design Guidelines — Section X of the CP-I regulations states that "Provisions of the FWC[C] relating
to fagade measurement, modulation, distance between structures, or materials, other than those
specified herein, shall not apply to this zone." The FWCC states that one of the purposes of site plan
review is, "To encourage proposals that embody good design principles that will result in high quality
development on the Subject property." The city adopted non-residential community design guidelines
in 1996, after the effective date of the CZA. In the September 8, 2017, Preapplication Summary
Letter for the Greenline Warehouse "B" project, the applicant was encouraged to meet the city's
design guidelines to complement the other buildings in the area.
On Sheet A1.0 of the plan set, the architect provides a design narrative:
"Tllis design has been envisioned with a clear mindset of the surrounding landscape and
regional materials. Sourcing materials and design elements from the Pacific Northwest
aesthetic allows this warehouse building to blend in with the surrounding character of
Federal Way. Located on a well-known site, we have included timber accents and artistic
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 8 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
reveal patterns to emphasize the history and character of the area. Entry nodes, visible to
the public streets, are comprised of large expanses of glass, glue laminated timber framing,
fagade modulation, large canopies and arcades. Building signage will be provided with
non-traditional methods including regional materials and forms, strong composition with
the building design and unique signage elements. Altogether, the proposed approach to the
building is of superior design quality and deep appreciation for the character and history of
the chosen site and the region."
Sheet A1.0 explains the incorporation of a selection of current FWRC design guidelines (FWRC
Chapter 19.115), including fagade modulation; use of a canopy and arcade at the building entries;
recessed windows and panels; artistic reveal patterns; paint scheme; indentations; overhangs;
emphasizing the building entrances with transparent glass; timber beams; and large overhangs.
FWCC Section 22-1564(u) requires building walls that are uninterrupted by a window, door, or other
architectural feature, that are 240 square feet or greater in area, and not located on a property line, to
be screened by landscaping. On Sheet A1.0, the architect states that "no blank walls exist on the
elevations with an uninterrupted area greater than 240 s.f. A combination of vertical banding,
mountain reveal patterns, varying window shapes, trellis features and main entry design demonstrates
compliance with FWCC 22-1564(u)." Sheet ALL states, "applicant acknowledges in final building
permit elevations no blank wall surface greater than 240 s.f. will be proposed."
17. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment —The submittal does not provide detail on the location and screening
for rooftop and ground -mounted mechanical equipment. A condition of approval will require the
building permit submittal to address these items:
a. For rooftop mechanical equipment, per FWCC Section 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; and (b) the screen must obscure the view of the
appurtenances from adjacent streets and properties.
b. For ground -mounted mechanical equipment, per FWCC Section 22-1565(a)(1), Type 1 landscaping
is intended to provide a solid sight barrier to totally separate incompatible land uses. This
landscaping is typically found around mechanical or electrical equipment and utility installations.
18. Garbage/Recycling — FWCC Section 22-949 provides requirements for the garbage receptacle and
dumpster placement and screening. The project will have two interior recycling collection areas
within the building and a recycling dumpster enclosure across from the truck court. A solid waste
enclosure is also proposed across from the truck court. The enclosures will not be located within a
required yard or buffer area. The enclosures are proposed to have concrete tilt -up panels with metal
deck -clad gate doors, with all metals painted. Per FWCC Section 22-1564(d), "All trash enclosures
shall be screened from abutting properties and/or public rights of way by a 100 percent sight -
obscuring fence or wall and appropriate landscape screen." Per FWCC Section 22-1564(b), "All
outside storage areas shall be fully screened by Type I landscaping a minimum of five feet in width,
as described in section 22-1565(a), unless determined by the community development review
committee (CDRC) that such screening is not necessary because stored materials are not visually
obtrusive." Sheet LA-01 shows existing vegetation to be retained adjacent to the enclosure area, but
no verification if it meets or exceeds Type I landscaping. A condition of approval will require the
building permit landscaping plan to provide Type I landscaping a minimum of five feet in width on
the north and south sides of the combined enclosure area.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 9 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
Regarding sizing of facilities, referencing June 18, 2018, "Sheet No. A1.0," the proponent
acknowledges that the code requires the provision of a minimum of 643 square feet in area for
recycling storage space. "Solid waste" includes both garbage and recycling. The code sets minimums
for recycling space, but in practice, space set aside for garbage storage typically more than doubles
the minimums set for recycling alone.
In addition to one exterior recycling enclosure, the applicant states they are providing two interior
recycling collection areas of 242 square feet each. Setting aside designated space is the first step, and
as a condition of approval, plans must demonstrate: 1) how occupant use of these designated areas
will integrate with service access; and 2) how the storage and collection of other garbage generated
on -site comply with FWCC Section 22-949(e)(1), which states the recycling storage area and garbage
storage area shall be adjacent to each other.
As noted above, while a total area of 644 square feet has been designated for recycling receptacles,
this only satisfies the minimum required area for storage space for recyclables. The smaller area
designated for garbage storage (approximately 160 square feet) does not conform with the first clause
of FWCC Section 22-949, which states, "storage areas for garbage and recyclables shall be required
to be incorporated into the design." in practice, garbage storage space typically more than doubles the
designated space for storage of recyclables. As such, the garbage enclosure may be inadequate for the
proposed building due to its size. Plans do not appear to accommodate a realistic level of service for a
site occupant. Therefore, as a condition of approval, plans must demonstrate that the garbage and
recycling storage needs have been incorporated into the design and planned for in ways that will serve
occupants over time.
For purposes of general guidance, if the applicant's design objective is to rninimize the area
designated for solid waste storage, consider designing to accommodate waste compaction equipment.
The current enclosure design is incompatible with the use of large-scale compaction equipment,
which may be the most economical long-term management option for a facility this large. For these
reasons, the plans could designate interior access point(s) leading to the loading dock area where
compaction equipment would be stationed. Based on facility size, a tenant may require more than one
compactor (one for garbage and one for recyclables) so the design could show how it would
accommodate two compactors adjacent to each other. Another form of compaction is balers (typically
used for compacting waste cardboard). Accommodations for compaction equipment could be
specified within the interior recycling storage space areas. Planning for this equipment would require
a reconfigured enclosure design. The two exterior enclosures can be eliminated if plans are revised to
indicate placement and access to adequate compaction equipment. To further accommodate
compaction equipment, revised plans should factor in overhead clearances, power access, drainage
management, and similar site needs.
19. Lighting — The proposal will include outdoor lighting. Per FWCC Section 22-954(c), "The applicant
shall select, place and direct light sources both directable and nondirectable so that glare produced by
any light source, to the maximum extent possible, does not extend to adjacent properties or to the
right-of-way." A condition of approval will require the submittal of a lighting plan before the issuance
of a building permit for verification that this code criterion will be met.
20. Open Space — Section 13 of the CZA states:
"The Property has significant open space currently used for running, walking, kite flying
and other recreational activities. These uses may continue at Weyerhaeuser's discretion.
The City agrees not to require any dedication or conveyance of the Property or any
Exhibit A —Findings for Project Approval Page 10 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
portion for public purposes, provided, that in connection with any new development
applications within 200 feet of State shorelines, the City may require public trails, water
access or open space as may be required by adopted City codes."
The parcel involved with this development proposal contains trails. According to the applicant's
submittal, the trails will be removed from the site by the proposed development. The subject property
is not within 200 feet of state shorelines; therefore, the city cannot require the applicant to provide
public trails.
21. Norse — The applicant was requested to provide a noise report prepared by a qualified expert to verify
that the noise generated by the site operation would not exceed the city's thresholds for noise outlined
in FWRC 7.10. The applicant submitted an environmental noise report (Greenline Building "B"
Development, Federal Way Washington Environmental Noise Report, July 2018, by Ramboll
Environ) that concluded, "The assessment found that operation of the proposed Project would result
in acoustically negligible increases in ambient noise at nearby residential receivers, and between no
increase and very minor increases at nearby commercial receivers. The proposed Project would be
within compliance of applicable noise limits at all nearby residential and commercial receivers. An
evaluation of the actual facility design, once submitted, should be completed to ensure that the types
and numbers of equipment to be installed at the warehouse, as well as warehouse activities, are
consistent or similar to those identified in this report." This shall be made a condition of approval (a
SEPA mitigation measure).
Regarding construction -related noise, the report states, "The following may help to reduce to the
potential for high levels of noise from construction equipment or activities, as may be received at
existing noise -sensitive land uses and therefore would help to reduce the potential for perceived impact:
• "Require that all equipment be fitted with properly sized mufflers, and if necessary, engine intake
silencers.
• "Require that all equipment be in good working order.
• "Use quieter construction equipment models if available, and whenever possible use pneumatic
tools rather than diesel or gas -powered tools.
• "Place portable stationary equipment as far as possible from existing residential and noise -sensitive
commercial areas, and if necessary, place temporary barriers around stationary equipment.
• "For mobile equipment, consider replacing typical pure -tone backup alarms with ambient -sensing
and/or broadband backup alarms."
Regarding the operation of the project, the report states, "Noise mitigation measures are not
warranted at this time." Under the conclusions section, it states, "A detailed review of final operating
conditions should be completed to ensure that this noise study accurately and conservatively reflects
future Project operation." Conditions of approval will implement the above -listed items (SEPA
mitigation measures).
22. Air Quality — The applicant was requested to provide information related to emissions associated with
the operation of the facility, and a detailed study by a qualified expert about the effect of particulate
matter from diesel tricks on the environment and downwind properties. The applicant submitted an
air quality report (Greenline Building "B" Development, Federal Way Washington Air Quality
Report, June 2018, by Ramboll Environ) that concluded, "At the time of this analysis, the exact use of
the warehouse had not been established. However, it is anticipated that the warehouse will be used for
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 1 I of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
general commodities that do not require cold storage. Furthermore, the warehouse will not include
processing or manufacturing facilities. Sources of air pollution typical of a general commodities
warehouse include emergency generators and vehicles used by employee commuter trips and truck
deliveries." A condition of approval (a SEPA mitigation measure) will require the air quality analysis
to be revised and the SEPA threshold determination revisited if the proposed use of the building
includes cold storage, processing, or manufacturing.
The report also states, "With implementation of required measures to provide reasonable controls of
dust and odors, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant air
quality impacts."
Regarding air quality impacts during construction, the report states, "The following is a list of
possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce potential air quality impacts during
construction of the project.
• "Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition.
• "Require all off road equipment to be retrofit with emission reduction equipment (i.e., require
participation in Puget Sound region Diesel Solutions by project sponsors and contractors),
including particulate matter traps and oxidation catalysts to reduce MSATs.
• "Use biodiesel or other lower -emission fuels for vehicles and equipment.
• "Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers when possible.
* "Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce
regional emissions of pollutants during construction.
• "Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e.g., limit idling to a maximum of 5 minutes).
• "Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to
buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations.
• "Locate constriction staging zones where diesel emissions won't be noticeable to the public or
near sensitive populations such as the elderly and the young.
• "Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM to and deposition
of particulate matter.
• "Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that would be exposed for long periods.
• "Cover all trucks transporting materials, wet materials in trucks, or provide adequate freeboard
(space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to reduce PMio emissions and
deposition during transport.
• "Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off site by
vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways.
• "Remove particulate matter deposited on paved, public roads, sidewalks, and bicycle and pedestrian
paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions.
• "Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind blown debris.
■ "Route and schedule construction trucks to reduce delays to traffic during peak travel times to
reduce air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds."
Exhibit A — findings for Project Approval Page 12 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. J.D. 81257
A condition of approval will implement the above -listed items (a SEPA mitigation measure).
Regarding the operation of the project, the report states, "The analyses described above indicate the
proposed project would be unlikely to result in any significant adverse air quality impacts.
Consequently, no operational mitigation measures are warranted or proposed."
23. Historic and Cultural Preservalion —As part of the April 5, 2018, technical comment letter for
Woodbridge Building "B," the applicant was requested to provide the cultural resource analysis that
was completed by Tetra Tech for Parcel B as part of the Woodbridge Building "A" project. For
clarification, Parcel B is the Woodbridge Building "B" site. The report applicable to the Woodbridge
Building "B" site is "Project #TAL-1593," by Tetra Tech, undated. The applicant provided the report
to the city on behalf of Building "B" on June 28, 201 S. This report was previously sent to the
Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) as detailed below:
The applicant submitted reports regarding archaeological resources in the project area for the
Woodbridge Building "A" project ("Project #TAL-1593", by Tetra Tech, undated & Project #TAL-
157217", by Tetra Tech, undated). These materials were sent to DAHP by the city.
DAHP provided an April 24, 2017, letter to the city in response stating, "We concur with the findings
of the two Tetra Tech reports regarding archaeological resources in the project area of potential effect
(APE) for the first and revised project areas. While addressing archaeological resources in the two
project areas, the reviewed materials are not responsive to our recommendations to conduct a
comprehensive survey and inventory of the former Weyerhaeuser headquarters campus. As clearly
stated in our letter, we request and recommend that the campus be surveyed and recorded by
professionals with expertise in architectural history as well as cultural resources to document historic
and cultural resources on the entire campus."
The letter further states, "As a clarification, DAHP's recommendation is not a request for listing of the
Weyerhaeuser building or associated resources in the National Register of Historic Places. Rather, we
are recommending that the property be surveyed and inventoried in order to document the historical
and architectural significance of the site for future planning purposes. A National Register listing is an
honorary recognition that follows a defined nomination process; whereas a survey and inventory of
cultural and historic resources is a planning tool and database for informed design -making."
The August 25, 2017, comment response letter from the applicant for Woodbridge Building "A"
indicated that a fill survey of the Weyerhaeuser Campus was underway. The full survey may be
forthcoming, but the information the city has received does not indicate any historic resources on the
site. In the applicant's June 28, 2018, comment response letter for Building "B" they stated, "The
report is still underway. So far there is nothing on the Building B site that is of historical significance."
The city also received an October 31, 2017, letter from the Washington State Department of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The letter was in response to a citizen requesting a
"Determination of Eligibility" for the National Register for the headquarters building and its
landscape. The DAHP letter stated, "While not yet 50 years old the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters
would easily qualify for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (under criteria A & C) as a
ground breaking design that has been studied by generations of architects, architectural historians,
landscape architects and historians." Further, "Specific details as to the boundaries of a listing would
need to be defined after further study but most likely includes the full 260 acres as initially developed
by Sasaki, Waller & Associates." Also, "We would welcorne a National Register application for the
building anytime. However keep in mind that per federal regulations, National Register listing
requires owner consent."
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 13 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
On July 30, 2020, the applicant submitted a memorandurn prepared by Cardno entitled: "Built
Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus for Compliance with
Section 106 of the NHPA — Comments on SEPA Compliance for Woodbridge Building B" in which they
conclude:
"We have analyzed the Woodbridge Building B proposal with regard to historic resources under
SEPA. On the Building B property, the only feature identified in the Survey as contributing to
the recommended NRIIP-eligible District is the 50-foot tree buffer adjacent to Weyerhaeuser
Road as it relates to the experience of a driver on Weyerhaeuser Road. Tile Building B site plan
shows that the project preserves a 50-foot or greater tree buffer adjacent to Weyerhaeuser Road.
Based on these factors, we conclude that the Building B proposal will not result in significant
adverse impacts to the recommended NRHP-eligible District as defined under SEPA."
The city evaluated the Cardno conclusion of no significant adverse impacts in its SEPA determination
and determined it was correct.
The NHPA Section 106 process is a separate, federal regulatory procedure independent of the city's
local project permit review framework. The Section 106 process is not within the city's control, and it
contains standards that are different from those implicated in this Process III decision. The city
acknowledges that the outcome of the NHPA Section 106 process may result in mitigation measures
(either mandatory and/or voluntary) that are separate from and in addition to any requirements
imposed through the city's review of the applicant's proposal.
24. Additional Permitting — Additional permitting, such as engineering review and a building permit, are
required for site development; none of which have been applied for at this time. It is the applicant's
responsibility to identify and obtain all required state, federal, or other agency permits.
25. Transportation — As a component of the Use Process III application, projects undergo traffic
concurrency analysis according to the state Growth Management Act (GMA); goals and policies of the
FWCP; and Chapter 19.90 FWRC, "Transportation Concurrency Management." A Capacity Reserve
Certificate was issued in November 2017. The number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by
that project was 78. A transportation impact fee is required and will be calculated based on the fee
schedule in effect at the time a building permit application is filed and must be paid before permit
issuance. A traffic study was submitted for review, IRG Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, WA
Transportation Impact Study, TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest, March 6, 2018. Additional
transportation -related matters are addressed in the sections below.
26. Right -of -Way Modification — The Deputy Public Works Director issued a right-of-way modification
for Greenline Warehouse "A" outlining required frontage improvements for both Warehouse "A" and
Warehouse "B," with timing and bonding requirements (city file #18-102212-SM). See the enclosed
June 22, 2018, decision document. The building permit site plan shall reflect the requirements
outlined in this letter; this shall be made a condition of approval. Construction plans shall be included
in the building pen -nit submittal for review and approval.
27. Northbound Lef!-Tura Lame — Before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
construct a northbound left -turn lane on Weyerhaeuser Way South at the southerly driveway (truck
access) to provide safer and more efficient access into the site. The northbound left -turn lane storage
shall be designed to accommodate the 95th Percentile queues length, ensuring left turn queues will
not block the through traffic lane. The channelization plan must be reviewed and approved by the city
and WSDOT. This shall be made a condition of approval (a SEPA mitigation measure).
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 14 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
28. Trucks — The traffic study stated that all truck trips are expected to utilize the primary driveway on
Weyerhaeuser Way South. It is expected that all truck trips will be traveling to and from the south
using the Weyerhaeuser Way South/SR-18 interchange and therefore study, mitigation, or
improvements were not required for other road segments. The traffic study does not, however,
demonstrate how the applicant will prevent trucks entering or exiting the facility from allowing this
travel. Without adequate supporting documentation/planning, there is nothing prohibiting trucks from
utilizing the South 320'h Street/I-5 interchange, South 336'h Street, and Weyerhaeuser Way South as
an alternate route to the site. Based on the above, the applicant has not demonstrated mitigation of
additional truck traffic onto non -designated truck routes, such as Weyerhaeuser Way South north of
the site, including impacts to the pavement.
i. Before building permit issuance, the applicant shall install weight limit signs on Weyerhaeuser
Way South from South 320'h Street to the project driveway, and South 336'h Street from 20'h
Avenue South to Weyerhaeuser Way South (a SEPA mitigation measure).
ii. The applicant submitted a traffic study, IRG Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, WA
Transportation Impact Study, TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest, March 6, 2018. The
development is estimated to generate 954 daily trips with 97 trips occurring during the PM peak
hour (78 passenger and 19 truck). These trips will be served by two driveways (private loop road
driveway north of the site and truck access driveway next to SR 18) on Weyerhaeuser Way South.
According to the traffic study, all truck trips will utilize the proposed truck access driveway on
Weyerhaeuser Way South and will be traveling to and from the south using the Weyerhaeuser
Way South/SR-18 interchange. Daily, I-5 southbound congestion routinely occurs between SR 18
and the South 320'h Street interchange. To avoid traffic congestion and reduce travel time due to a
shorter distance, trick trips with origin and destination from the north could utilize South 320'h
Street/I-5 interchange, South 336'h Street, and Weyerhaeuser Way South as an alternate route to
the site. The traffic study has not demonstrated how the applicant will prevent this alternative truck
route (South 320'h Street fl-5 interchange, South 336'h Street, and Weyerhaeuser Way South) to the
site. Weyerhaeuser Way South from South 320'h Street and SR-18 is not a designated truck route
and therefore, the roadway cannot support heavy vehicle weights. In general, heavier vehicles
cause more damage to the road than light vehicles. The federal government estimated that an 18-
wheel truck causes the same damage to the road as 9,600 cars. Based on the above, the applicant
has not demonstrated mitigation of additional truck traffic onto non -designated truck routes such
as Weyerhaeuser Way South north of the site, including impacts to the pavement.
As such, before a certificate of occupancy is issued, the applicant shall provide a fully executed
bond for 120 percent of the engineer's estimate for design and construction costs to upgrade the
existing pavement on Weyerhaeuser Way South, from the proposed truck entrance to South 320'h
Street. The bond term shall be for three years from the time of notification by the applicant of full
occupancy and use of the facility unless a shorter term is mutually agreed to in the implementation
agreement discussed below. The applicant shall provide the engineer's estimate.
Should the truck trips generated by the project traveling north of the site (to or from the site)
exceed 28 truck trips per week as outlined in the implementation agreement discussed below, the
city will use the bond for design and construction costs to upgrade the existing pavement on
Weyerhaeuser Way South, from the proposed truck entrance to South 320t1i Street, and/or from
the proposed truck entrance to SR-99 via South 336`h Street, to the city's required design
standards. In the alternative, the applicant may choose to design and construct the implicated
roadway(s) identified by the city. For this condition, a "truck" shall mean a vehicle rated more
than 30,000 pounds gross weight as discussed in Chapter 8.40 FWRC.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 15 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
Before building permit issuance, the applicant and the city shall enter into an implementation
agreement to set forth the conditions by which the city will monitor the truck trips; how the city
will make its determination that the applicant has exceeded the 28 or more truck trips per week;
]low notice will be provided to the applicant; the cure period for the applicant to remedy the
excess truck trips described in the above condition; when the city will call the bond or require the
applicant to construct the implicated roadways; the bond conditions; and all other requirements
deemed necessary by the city.
29. WSDOT—The SR-18 ramp terminal intersections are under Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) control and are subject to WSDOT's established standards. The traffic
study prepared by TENW for Woodbridge Building "A" (formerly Greenline Warehouse "A") was
revised to address WSDOT comments about LOS and queuing analysis at the SR-18 ramp terminal
intersections. After the MDNS for Woodbridge Building "A" was issued, WSDOT identified and
requested mitigation for the westbound SR-18 off -ramp right turn storage. Due to additional trips
generated by the project impacting this intersection, the 95th Percentile queues length for the AM
peak hour would exceed the available right turn storage. As such, WSDOT requested that the
westbound SR-18 off -ramp right turn storage be extended from the existing 100 feet to 300 feet. A
Modified MDNS was issued for Woodbridge Building "A" to include that mitigation measure.
WSDOT confirmed in May 2019 that they reviewed the traffic study for both Warehouse "A" and
"B" and the mitigation was for both Warehouse "A" and "B." The mitigation measure regarding the
SR-18 off -ramp right turn storage applies to the Woodbridge Building `B." Before the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct right -turn storage for the westbound SR-18 off -
ramp to mitigate the impact to the westbound off -ramp to the satisfaction and with approval of
WSDOT (a SEPA mitigation measure). Before engineering plans approval, WSDOT approval of the
traffic study and channelization plans shall be provided. This shall be made a condition of approval.
Also, per the October 29, 2019, Hearing Examiner's Request for Reconsideration Decision for Grcenline
Warehouse "A," the following SEPA mitigation measure shall be made a condition of approval:
"Cumulative traffic impacts from Warehouse A and B and the Greenline Business Park to the
SR 18 westbound ramp intersection with Weyerhaeuser Way South shall be evaluated and
mitigated in a SEPA analysis addendum and/or revision to the Warehouse A and B T1A. PM
peak hour cumulative impacts shall be included in the T1A analysis or added to the
concurrency review for Warehouse A as the city finds most consistent with its regulations.
The city shall determine if WSDOT has jurisdiction over the SR 18 intersection. if WSDOT
has jurisdiction over the SR 18 intersection, WSDOT LOS standards shall be applied to the
intersection and any necessary pro-rata mitigation for Warehouse A shall be formulated in
consultation with WSDOT as contemplated in Conclusion of Law No. 8 of the Final
Decision. if WSDOT doesn't have jurisdiction over the intersection, city LOS standards shall
be applied, and pro-rata mitigation for Warehouse A imposed as necessary. All mitigation
shall be subject to RCW 82.02.020 and constitutional nexus/proportionality."
Both the imposition and adequacy of this condition were subsequently upheld in the King County
Superior Court's June 10, 2020, Order Denying Land Use Petitions in Consolidated Case No. 19-2-
30502-9 KNT.
The Hearing Examiner's condition has since been satisfied. After consultation with WSDOT, the city
confirmed by a December 19, 2019, memorandum that the SR 18 westbound ramp intersection with
Weyerhaeuser Way South is located within WSDOT limited access; that WSDOT has jurisdiction
over the intersection; and that WSDOT's LOS standards shall apply in the manner and to the extent
provided by state law.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 16 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
On July 22, 2020, the applicant's transportation consultant, TENW, provided a technical
memorandum containing a SEPA analysis addendum to the Warehouse "A" and `B" TIA that
addressed the Hearing Examiner's condition. The TENW memorandum acknowledged that WSDOT
has established a LOS D standard for the SR 18 westbound ramp intersection with Weyerhaeuser
Way South. TENW proceeded to conduct, and document, a cumulative traffic impacts analysis for
Warehouse A, Warehouse B, and the Business Park encompassing trip generation, trip distribution
and assignment, and future traffic volumes. The TENW analysis determined that the SR 18
westbound ramp intersection with Weyerhaeuser Way South is anticipated to operate at acceptable
(i.e., LOS D or better) levels with or without the three proposed projects, and therefore that no
additional mitigation or pro-rata share allocation is required to satisfy the Examiner's condition.
TENW's July 22, 2020, addendum was evaluated by the city. On August 18, 2020, the city's Traffic
Engineer determined that the addendum met the requirements of the Hearing Examiner's condition
and that no additional mitigation was necessary for the SR-18 westbound ramp intersection with
Weyerhaeuser Way South. The Community Development Department documented this conclusion in
a Conditions Compliance Verification memorandum on September H, 2020.
30. Pavement — A pavement analysis for Weyerhaeuser Way South was performed by GeoEngineers
("Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Weyerhaeuser Way South, 32011i Street to SR 18
Weyerhaeuser Campus Property Federal Way, Washington," August 29, 2017). Per the pavement
analysis, the development is expected to nearly triple the loading on the existing pavement (EASLs)
along the truck route on Weyerhaeuser Way South. Furthermore, the pavement in the project area is
approaching the end of its useable life. The Street Division has reviewed the pavement analysis and
determined that the existing pavement on Weyerhaeuser Way South, south of the site, from the
proposed truck entrance to the SR-18 interchange must be fully reconstructed (subgrade soils and new
pavement) to accommodate the expected truck traffic load. The applicant shall provide pavement
design for city review and approval before engineering plans submittal. Once the pavement design is
approved by the city, the development shall perform full -depth reconstruction of the roadway segment
impacted by the truck traffic. This shall be made a condition of approval (a SEPA mitigation measure).
31. Transit —The project proposes to relocate the existing crosswalk and affiliated bus stops. Due to bus
stop and crosswalk relocation, the project will install new foundations, relocate existing benches and
signs, and provide new shelters. Details on the relocated bus stops and transit -related improvements
will need to be shown on the engineering submittal, which shall be made a condition of approval.
32. Stortmvater — The project will be required to meet the requirements of the 2016 King Cotnaty Sub face
Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to that manual.
Conservation flow control and enhanced basic water quality requirements apply. This is considered a
high -use site requiring oil control per Special Requirement #5 in the KCSWDM. Best Management
Practices must be implemented to augment flow control. Flow control and water quality requirements
may apply to required public right-of-way improvements. Based on a review of the submitted
documents, the following shall be made conditions of approval:
a) The Right -of -Way Modification decision issued on June 22, 2018, includes improvements to
Weyerhaeuser Way South. As a part of building permit approval, water quality treatment and
flow control shall be provided for the public right-of-way as outlined in the regulations in place at
the time a building permit application is received.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 17 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
b) The applicant states that this project drains to an offsite wetland on parcel #2121049014;
however, no detail has been provided concerning the wetland. Therefore KCSWDM Chapters
3.3.5 through 3.3.7 may apply. If the amount of impervious surface area proposed by the project
is greater than or equal to 10 percent of the 100-year water surface area of a closed depression,
then a point of compliance analysis must be done to verify that the water surface levels are not
increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding occurs, up to and including the 100-year
frequency. The applicant has not provided a comparison of the proposed impervious surface area
to the surface area of the wetland or closed depression, nor have they provided a minor floodplain
analysis to establish an assumed base flood elevation. Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) must
therefore be considered a minimum standard, and the applicant will be required to provide
additional flow control if the site's impervious area meets or exceeds the 10 percent threshold, or
a flooding problem will be created or exacerbated. The applicant shall provide necessary
documentation and mitigation before building permit issuance.
c) As stated in the KCSWDM section 1.2.2.1, the applicant shall submit a critical areas report for
the offsite wetland on parcel #2121049014. The critical areas report shall be completed as
outlined in FWRC 19.145.080, reviewed by an outside peer reviewer at the developer's expense,
and approved before approval of the final TIR and before building permit issuance.
d) Before building permit approval, WSDOT approval of the project's impacts on storm drainage
conveyance within WSDOT right-of-way shall be provided.
e) Before building permit issuance, a downstream analysis for the four acres that drain to the
southwest must be provided.
f) Low Impact Development measures, as required by the KCSWDM, must be implemented to
provide flow control mitigation for both frontage improvements and onsite improvements.
g) The critical areas report referenced in the Preliminary TIR needs the date corrected. The reference
will need to be updated in the final TIR.
11) Also, per the Hearing Examiner's October 29, 2019, Request for Reconsideration Decision for
Greenline Warehouse "A," the following shall be made a condition of approval:
i. The applicant shall supplement its stormwater plan to demonstrate compliance and
consistency with the Executive Proposed Basin Plan Hylebos Creek and Lower
Puget Sound (King County Surface Water Management, 1991).
This condition has since been satisfied. The applicant's consultant, ESM Consulting Engineers,
LLC, provided a preliminary technical memorandum on February 7, 2020. In response to city
staff review comments, ESM submitted a revised version of the technical memorandum on April
22, 2020. The revised ESM memorandum supplemented the applicant's original stormwater plan
to demonstrate compliance and consistency with the 1991 Hylebos Basin Plan. Each of the
potentially applicable basinwide and East Hylebos-specific recommendations identified in the
1991 Hylebos Basin Plan were specifically addressed in the memorandum. ESM's technical
memorandum was evaluated by the city. On July 22, 2020, the city's Development Services
Manager determined that the analysis contained in the ESM memorandum met the requirements
of the Hearing Examiner's condition and directed that the memorandum be incorporated into the
Final TIR for the proposal. The Community Development Department documented this
conclusion in a Conditions Compliance Verification memorandum on September H, 2020.
33. Water/Sewer — Lakehaven Water & Sewer District is the water and sewer service provider.
Lakehaven issued certificates of water and sewer availability in August 2017; certificates are valid for
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 18 of 30
Woodbridge Building'B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
one-year from the date of issuance. Before issuance of a building permit, updated certificates of water
and sewer availability shall be submitted. This shall be made a condition of approval.
Per Lakehaven, the water and sewer system facilities indicated on the resubmittal plan set are generally
consistent with previous Lakehaven system design/layout comments. No other application has been
submitted to Lakehaven that is necessary to be able to determine the applicant's specific requirements
for connection to Lakehaven's water and/or sewer systems to serve the subject property. The applicant
will need to apply for either a 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.
34. South King Fire & Rescue — South King Fire & Rescue (SKF&R) reviewed the application and has the
following comments, listed here as information and to be addressed at the building permit submittal.
• The required fire flow for this project is 3,000 or 4,000 gallons per minute depending on the 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.
• This project will require at least four 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 the type of construction.
• Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered unless fire apparatus access roads
extending between properties and easements are established to prevent obstructions of such roads.
• Hydrant spacing along access roads and location in relationship to buildings and sprinkler FDC shall
be approved by the Fire Marshal's Office.
• Fire hydrants shall be in service before and during the time of construction.
• Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all requirements of Fire Access Policy 10.006.
• The site plan did not provide detail to verify the following requirements:
o Angles of approach, departure, and minimurn ground clearance.
• Designated and harked fire lanes may be required for emergency access. This may be done during
the plans check or before the building final. Requirements and marking options can be found in Title
8 of the FWRC.
■ Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable before and during the time of
construction.
• All vehicle access gates, if any, shall comply with the SKF&R Gate Policy.
• 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.
• An NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system is required.
• 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. Firewalls shall not be considered to separate a building to enable deletion of the required
automatic fire -extinguishing system.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 19 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
• The system demand pressure (to the source) required in a hydraulically designed automatic fire
sprinkler system shall be at least 10 percent less than the correlative water supply curve pressure.
■ A fire alarm system is required.
• 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.
• 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.
■ The building shall be designed for High Piled Combustible Storage per 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.
35. Cumulative Impacts Analysis —Woodbridge Building "B" is proposed on parcel 6142600200. A
separate project, Woodbridge Building "A" (formerly Greenline Warehouse "A") located on parcels
6142600005 and 6142600200 received land -use approval in February 2019. The SEPA threshold
determination and land use decision were appealed (Cause No. HEX 18-003; l 9-001). The Hearing
Examiner denied the appeal and sustained the Use Process III decision and MDNS with the addition
of two conditions pertaining to traffic and stormwater. A Request for Reconsideration was filed and
the Hearing Examiner revised the two conditions. The Hearing Examiner's decision was appealed to
Superior Court. Superior Court denied the appeals and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's Decision on
June 10, 2020. Subsequently, the two conditions have been incorporated into the Woodbridge
Building "B" decision and have been satisfied as noted above.
The two projects will utilize common driveway access off of Weyerhaeuser Way and the same
stormwater pond located on parcel 6142600200; although, the addition of Building "B" requires the
pond to be enlarged from its size if it only served Building "A."
With respect to the potential cumulative impact on public views, the city required the applicant to
provide a visual impact analysis of Woodbridge Building "B" to identify any cumulative impacts on
public views from development of the two buildings (A and B). The August 10, 2018, analysis
prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers concludes that the building will only be minimally visible
through a screen of trees from the viewpoints studied. A second October 9, 2018, analysis prepared
by ESM Consulting Engineers was done to study additional viewpoints and concluded that the
proposed buildings would not be visible from the additional points studied.
At this time, the Woodbridge Corporate Park (WCP) land use application is still under review. A
visual impact analysis was submitted for the WCP. The city has provided technical comments,
including requiring modifications and supplemental view impact analysis, and is continuing to work
with the applicant on the matter.
The city took the cumulative visual impacts analyses for Woodbridge Buildings "A" and "B," as well
as the visual impact analysis for the WCP, into account in reviewing Building `B." Based upon the
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 20 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
visual studies submitted and all other pertinent information, the city has determined that, as approved
and conditioned herein, Building "B" will not create any significant adverse environmental impacts to
public views.
There are no other common elements between the Woodbridge Building `B" project and the
Building "A" and/or WCP proposals. The city has not received indication from the applicant that the
two projects will be constructed simultaneously; therefore, there are no cumulative impacts
anticipated from the construction process itself.
The city was guided by the Hearing Examiner's original decision and his reconsideration decision in
Cause No. HEX 18-003; 19-001 in performing the analysis of its cumulative impact for this decision
and the corollary SEPA review. Tile city thoroughly evaluated the projects for any cumulative impacts
in making this determination. As part of the project review, the city evaluated Building `B" with
regard to FWRC 19.100.030(2) and SEPA's cumulative impacts requirement. The projects share a
parcel in common, 6142600200. As the Hearing Examiner acknowledged, cumulative impact review is
effectively incorporated into and implemented through various overlapping city development
regulations. The analysis of cumulative impacts for Woodbridge Building "B" is reflected throughout
this decision and the corollary SEPA review.
Many of the project submittal documents for Woodbridge Building "B" reference Woodbridge Building
"A," in particular:
a) IRG Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study, TENW
Transportation Engineering NorthWest, March 6, 2018.
i. The LOS and queuing analysis for Woodbridge Building `B" included trips from
Woodbridge Building "A."
b) Critical Areas Report Files #17-104236-UP & #17-104237-SE, Greenline Building B Federal
Way, Washington, Talasaea Consultants, Inc., revised June 26, 2018.
c) Greenline Building B Preliminary Technical Information Report, ESM Consulting Engineers
LLC, June 28, 2018.
d) Greenline Building B Visual Impact Analysis, ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, August 10, 2018.
e) Vision Analysis Greenline Building B, ESM Consulting Engineers LLC, October 9, 2018.
In addition, regarding WAC 197-1 1-060(3)(b), Woodbridge Building "B" can proceed without
Woodbridge Building "A" and is not reliant upon Woodbridge Building "A" taking place to proceed.
Woodbridge Building "B" does not depend on Woodbridge Building "A" as justification for its
implementation and the projects are not interdependent parts of a larger proposal. In other words,
Woodbridge Building "B" and Woodbridge Building "A" do not meet the WAC 197-11-060(3)(b)
threshold to require evaluation of the two projects in the same environmental document.
Another separate project, the Woodbridge Corporate Park (WCP) (formerly Greenline Business
Park), was submitted in November 2017. The WCP is proposed on other parcels within the former
Weyerhaeuser Campus. The WCP does not propose to share a common parcel, access point, or utility
facilities with Woodbridge Buildings "A" or "B." Regarding WAC 197-11-060(3)(b), Woodbridge
Buildings "A" and "B" can proceed without the WCP and are not reliant upon the WCP taking place
to proceed themselves. Woodbridge Buildings "A" and `B" are not interdependent parts of the WCP
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 21 or30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
and do not depend on the WCP as justification for their implementation. The WCP does not meet the
WAC 197-11-060(3)(b) threshold to require the evaluation of the other projects in the same
environmental document.
Although the city has not, except where indicated, evaluated the Woodbridge Building "A," Building
"B," and WCP proposals in a single environmental document under WAC 197-11-060(3)(b), the
potential for cumulative impacts was a predominant focus of the city's project review under both the
FWRC and SEPA. The city performed a thorough, comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis
consistent with the previous decisions of both the Hearing Examiner and the Superior Court. Except
as indicated in this decision and/or the October 9, 2020, MDNS, no such cumulative impacts were
identified. Based upon this analysis, the city is confident that no gaps in information or necessary
mitigation exist.
36. Director's Decision Criteria — The Director of Community Development makes a written decision on
the application based on the criteria listed under FWRC 19.65.100(2)(a):
a. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
i. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) designation for the subject property is
Corporate Park. The FWCP (revised 2015) contains the following goals and policies:
o LUG8: Create office and corporate park development that is known regionally, nationally,
and internationally for its design and function.
■ According to the applicant, "Craft Architects has considered the natural surroundings
and existing built structures on the Federal Way Campus, LLC property. In their
design, Craft Architects has, included timber accents and artistic reveal patterns to
emphasize the history and character of the area. Entry nodes, visible to the public
streets, are comprised of large expanses of glass, glue laminated timber framing,
fagade modulation, large canopies and arcades."
For clarification, regarding the building's entry node, the loop road is a private road,
not a public street.
o LUG9: Work collaboratively to evaluate and realize the potential of the (former)
Weyerhaeuser properties in East Campus.
* The former Weyerhaeuser properties in East Campus are privately owned. According
to the applicant, "East Campus has been developed. This process III application to
develop Building `B' is a collaboration of City approved code and the property
owner's plans to revitalize this area of Federal Way through development as
permitted by the Concomitant Agreement."
o LUP 49: In the East Campus Corporate Park area, encourage quality development that
will complement existing uses and take advantage of good access to I-5, Highway 18, and
future light rail as well as proximity to the City Center.
■ According to the applicant, "Building `B' shares the same quality of development as
the building located in the East Campus. Furthermore, the proposed access to Building
`B' takes advantage of its proximity to Highway 18. Pedestrian vehicles may travel
east or west on Weyerhaeuser Way S. and may access future light rail stations."
o NEP10: The City may continue to require environmental studies by qualified professionals
to assess the impact and recommend appropriate mitigation of proposed development on
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 22 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
environmentally critical areas and areas that may be contaminated or development that
may potentially cause contamination.
■ See the "Critical Areas," "Air Quality," and "Noise" sections of this report.
o NEP86: Support state and federal air quality standards and the regulation of activities that
emit air pollutants.
■ See the "Air Quality" section of this report.
o NEP87: Utilize building design, constriction, and technology techniques to mitigate the
negative effects of air pollution on indoor air quality for uses near sources of pollution
such as Interstate-5.
■ See the "Air Quality" section of this report.
o NEP l 02: The City will evaluate potential noise impacts associated with non-residential
uses and activities located in residential areas as part of the site plan review process.
w See the "Noise" section of this report.
b. The proposal is consistent with all applicable provisions of the FWRC;
i. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with applicable zoning regulations in effect on
August 23, 1994 (FWCC), and procedural requirements of the current code (FWRC), as
detailed in this report.
c. The proposal is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare;
i. The Community Development and Public Works Departments, along with Lakehaven Water
& Sewer District and South King Fire & Rescue, have reviewed the project for conformance
with codes designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Additional details will be
reviewed at the building/engineering permit stage.
d. The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal;
i. See the "Transportation," "Water & Sewer," "Stormwater," and "Conditions of Approval"
related sections of this report.
e. The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration; and
i. Access to the site will be provided via Weyerhaeuser Way and a loop road (private road). See
the "Transportation" and "Conditions of Approval" sections of this report.
L Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately
mitigated.
i. See the "Transportation" and "Conditions of Approval" sections of this report.
37. Conditions of Approval — The following conditions of approval are attached to the Process III decision:
1. Future submittals related to this project shall contain the property's most current legal description.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 23 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
2. The proposal was reviewed as a general commodity warehouse with an associated office. A
future change in the type of use and/or occupancy shall require review for compliance with
applicable requirements and to determine any impacts, including revisiting the SEPA threshold
determination and Use Process III decision, as needed.
3. The building permit application plan set shall include a section with a parking analysis that
demonstrates compliance with required parking ratios.
4. Work is not allowed within Wetlands DP, DT, Stream EA, and associated buffers, as stream
setback intrusions and improvements/land surface modifications in non-CZA exempt wetland
setbacks require Use Process IV application review and approval per FWCC Sections 22-1312(c)
and 22-1359(d).
5. Before building final inspection, all additional, supplemental, and replanted Type I and 11
landscaping, as indicated on the Use Process III preliminary landscaping plan (Sheets LA-01 and
LA-02), shall be installed.
6. In the landscaping plan submitted with the building permit, the following species listed on Sheet
LA-02 in the MFB recommended plant palette: Wild Ginger, Wood Fern, and White Flower
Rhodie, shall be removed.
7. All significant trees shall be retained within the MFB and within areas planned to remain
undisturbed as indicated on the Use Process III tree/vegetation retention plan and clearing and
grading plan (Sheets TR-01 & GR-01) to the maximum extent feasible.
8. The applicant shall obtain Forest Practices approval before the issuance of a building permit.
9. The following amendments shall be made to the critical area report before issuance of a
building permit:
a) Include an analysis of wetland functions as required by Section 22-1356(b) of the 1994 FWCC.
b) If Talasaea is considering the built -condition of Building "A" to be the existing conditions for
the Building `B" proposal, Sheet W 1.0 of the revised report shall be revised to show the
reduced buffers for Stream EA and Wetlands DT, DR, and DQ to be consistent with the
proposed buffers on Sheet W 1.2 of the report for Woodbridge Building "A." Currently, Sheet
W 1.0 shows the buffers as if Building "A" was not built.
c) The applicant shall show/label on Sheet W 1.1 the size of each area of buffer reduction and
replacement to demonstrate that each reduction is compensated for at the location of the
critical area where that reduction occurs. Adjustments shall be made if necessary.
d) The "buffer replacement for Parcel A" shown on Sheet W L I is not approved and shall be
removed from Sheet W 1.1.
e) When ESA's comments on inconsistencies between report text, figures, and the plan sheets
are resolved in the submittal for Building "A," the submittal documents for Building `B"
shall be revised where necessary.
10. Plan sheets that show the proposed development shall show the buffers post -development,
including the averaged wetland and stream buffers.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 24 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
11. Areas of wetland and stream buffer replacement shall be enhanced with native vegetation, as
necessary, to ensure buffer function continues post -development. Planting details shall be shown
on the landscape plan submitted with the building permit.
12. Installation of permanent signs and split rail fencing is required at the outer edge of the wetland
buffers for Wetland DT and shall be completed before final inspection for the building permit.
13. The boundary between the wetland buffer and contiguous land shall be identified with permanent
signs, which shall be a city -approved type designed for high durability. Signs must be posted at
an interval of one per every 150 feet and maintained by the property owner in perpetuity.
14. The city shall not issue any approvals to fill wetlands until all state, federal, or other agency permits
as may be required to fill the wetlands have been obtained and verification provided to the city.
15. The building permit submittal shall address the following:
a) Rooftop mechanical equipment, including 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; and (b) the screen must obscure the view of the appurtenances
from adjacent streets and properties.
b) Type I landscaping is required around ground -level mechanical and electrical equipment and
utility installations unless precluded for safety and access reasons.
16. The building permit landscaping plan shall provide Type 1 landscaping a minimum of five feet in
width on the north and south sides of the combined trash/recycling enclosure area.
17. Before building permit issuance, plans shall demonstrate: 1) how occupant use of the designated
garbage/recycling areas will integrate with service access; and 2) how the storage and collection
of other garbage generated on -site complies with FWCC Section 22-949(c)(1), which states the
recycling storage area and garbage storage area shall be adjacent to each other.
18. Before building permit issuance, plans shall demonstrate that the garbage and recycling storage
needs have been incorporated into the design and planned for in ways that will serve occupants
over time.
19. Before issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan shall be submitted for verification of
compliance with FWCC Section 22-954(c).
20. Before building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit an evaluation of the facility design by
a qualified professional to ensure that the types and numbers of equipment to be installed at the
warehouse, as well as warehouse activities, are consistent or similar to those identified in the
noise report (Greenline Building `B" Development, Federal Way Washington Environmental
Noise Report, Rambo]] Environ, July 2018, a SERA mitigation measure).
21. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction with quarterly
reports submitted by the applicant to the city documenting compliance starting from the
issuance of the building permit and concluding at issuance of a certificate of occupancy (SEPA
mitigation measures):
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 25 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
a) All equipment shall be fitted with properly sized mufflers, and if necessary, engine
intake silencers.
b) All equipment shall be in good working order.
c) Use quieter construction equipment models if available and whenever possible, use
pneumatic tools rather than diesel or gas -powered tools.
d) Place portable stationary equipment as far as possible from existing residential and
noise -sensitive commercial areas, and if necessary, place temporary barriers around
stationary equipment.
e) For mobile equipment, consider the placement of typical fixed pure -tone backup alarms with
ambient -sensing and/or broadband backup alarms.
22. A detailed review of final operating conditions shall be completed to ensure that the noise study
accurately and conservatively reflects future project operation. A report documenting the
assessment prepared by a qualified professional shall be submitted to the city six months after the
certificate of occupancy is issued (a SEPA mitigation measure).
23. If the proposed use of the building includes cold storage, processing, or manufacturing, the air
quality analysis ("Greenline Building `B" Development, Federal Way Washington Air Quality
Report," Ramboll Environ, June 2018) must be revised and the SEPA threshold determination
revisited before the building pen -nit issuance, or if no building pen -nit is required, then before
business license issuance (a SEPA mitigation measure).
24. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction with quarterly
reports submitted by the applicant to the city documenting compliance starting from the
issuance of the building permit and concluding at issuance of the certificate of occupancy
(SEPA mitigation measures):
a) Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition.
b) Require all off -road equipment to be retrofit with emission reduction equipment (i.e., require
participation in Puget Sound Region Diesel Solutions by project sponsors and contractors),
including particulate matter traps and oxidation catalysts to reduce MSATs.
c) Use biodiesel or other lower -emission fuels for vehicles and equipment.
d) Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers when possible.
e) Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce
regional emissions of pollutants during construction.
f) Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e.g., limit idling to a maximum of
five minutes).
g) Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors such as fresh air intakes to
buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations.
h) Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions won't be noticeable to the public, or
near sensitive populations such as the elderly and the young.
i) Spray exposed soil with water or another suppressant to reduce emissions of PM in and
deposition of particulate matter.
j) Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that will be exposed for long periods.
k) Cover all trucks transporting materials, wet materials in trucks, or provide adequate freeboard
(space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed), to reduce PM10 emissions and
deposition during transport.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 26 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
1) Provide wheel washers to remove particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off -site
by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways.
m) Remove particulate matter deposited on paved, public roads, sidewalks, and bicycle and pedestrian
paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions.
n) Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind-blown debris.
o) Route and schedule construction trucks to reduce delays to traffic during peak travel times to
reduce air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds.
25. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a northbound left -turn
lane on Weyerhaeuser Way South at the southerly driveway (truck access) to provide safer and
more efficient access to the site. The northbound left turn lane storage shall be designed to
accommodate the 95th Percentile queues length ensuring left -turn queues will not block the
through traffic lane. The channelization plan must be reviewed and approved by the city and
WSDOT (a SEPA mitigation measure).
26. Before building permit issuance, the applicant shall install weight limit signs on Weyerhaeuser
Way South from South 320'h Street to the project driveway, and South 330h Street from 20"'
Avenue South to Weyerhaeuser Way South (a SEPA mitigation measure).
27. The applicant submitted a traffic study, IRG Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, WA
Transportation Impact Study, TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest, March 6, 2018. The
development is estimated to generate 994 daily trips consisting of 795 passenger vehicle trips and
199 truck trips. These trips will be served by two driveways (private loop road driveway north of
the site and truck access driveway next to SR 18) on Weyerhaeuser Way. According to the traffic
study, all trick trips will utilize the proposed truck access driveway on Weyerhaeuser Way South
and will be traveling to and from the south using the Weyerhaeuser Way South/SR-18 interchange.
Daily I-5 southbound congestion routinely occurs between SR-18 and the South 320"i Street
interchange. To avoid traffic congestion and reduce travel time due to a shorter distance, truck
trips with origin and destination from the north could utilize the South 3201h Street/1-5 interchange,
South 3361h Street, and Weyerhaeuser Way South as an alternate route to the site. The traffic study
has not demonstrated how the applicant will prevent this alternative truck route (South 320i1'
Street/1-5 interchange, South 336"' Street, and Weyerhaeuser Way South) to the site. Weyerhaeuser
Way South from South 320"' Street and SR-18 is not a designated truck route and therefore, the
roadway cannot support heavy vehicle weights. In general, heavier vehicles cause more damage to
the road than light vehicles. The federal government estimated that an 18-wheel truck causes the
same damage to the road as 9,600 cars. Based on the above, the applicant has not demonstrated
mitigation of additional truck traffic onto non -designated truck routes such as Weyerhaeuser Way
South north of the site, including impacts to the pavement.
As such, before the certificate of occupancy issuance, the applicant shall provide a fully executed
bond for 120 percent of the engineer's estimate for design and construction costs to upgrade the
existing pavement on Weyerhaeuser Way South. from the proposed truck entrance to South 320'h
Street. The bond term shall be for three years from the time of notification by the applicant of full
occupancy and use of the facility unless a shorter term is mutually agreed to in the implementation
agreement discussed below. The applicant shall provide the engineer's estimate.
Should the truck trips generated by the project traveling north of the site (to or from the site)
exceed 28 truck trips per week as outlined in the implementation agreement discussed below, the
city will use the bond for design and construction costs to upgrade the existing pavement on
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 27 of 30
Woodbridge Building `B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
Weyerhaeuser Way South, from the proposed truck entrance to South 320`' Street, and/or from
the proposed truck entrance to SR-99 via South 336`h Street, to the city's required design
standards. In the alternative, the applicant may choose to design and construct the implicated
roadway(s) identified by the city. For this condition, a "truck" shall mean a vehicle rated more
than 30,000 pounds gross weight as discussed in Chapter 8.40 FWRC.
Before building permit issuance, the applicant and the city shall enter into an implementation
agreement to set forth the conditions by which the city will monitor the truck trips; how the city
will make its determination that the applicant has exceeded the 28 or more truck trips per week;
how notice will be provided to the applicant; the cure period for the applicant to remedy the excess
truck trips described in the above condition; when the city will call the bond or require the
applicant to construct the implicated roadways; the bond conditions; and all other requirements
deemed necessary by the city (a SEPA mitigation measure).
28. Before engineering plans approval, WSDOT approval of the traffic study and channelization
plans shall be provided.
29. The existing pavement on Weyerhaeuser Way South (south of the site), from the proposed truck
entrance to the SR-18 interchange, must be fully reconstructed (subgrade soils and new pavement)
to accommodate the expected truck traffic load. The applicant shall provide the pavement design
for city review and approval before engineering plans submittal. Once the pavement design is
approved by the city, the development shall perform full -depth reconstruction of the roadway
segment impacted by the truck traffic (a SEPA mitigation measure).
30. Before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct right -turn storage for
the westbound SR-18 off -ramp to mitigate the impact to the westbound off -ramp to the satisfaction
and with approval of WSDOT (a SEPA mitigation measure).
31. Cumulative traffic impacts from Warehouse A and B and the Greenline Business Park to the SR 18
westbound ramp intersection with Weyerhaeuser Way South shall be evaluated and mitigated in a
SEPA analysis addendum and/or revision to the Warehouse A and B TIA. PM peak hour
cumulative impacts shall be included in the TIA analysis or added to the concurrency review for
Warehouse A as the city finds most consistent with its regulations. The city shall determine if
WSDOT has jurisdiction over the SR-18 intersection. if WSDOT has jurisdiction over the SR-18
intersection, WSDOT LOS standards shall be applied to the intersection and any necessary pro-rata
mitigation for Warehouse A shall be formulated in consultation with WSDOT as contemplated in
Conclusion of Law No. 8 of the Final Decision. If WSDOT doesn't have jurisdiction over the
intersection, city LOS standards shall be applied and pro-rata mitigation for Warehouse A imposed
as necessary. All mitigation shall be subject to RCW 82.02.020 and constitutional nexus/
proportionality (a SEPA mitigation measure).
32. Details on the relocated bus stops and transit -related improvements shall be shown on the
engineering submittal.
33. A Right -of -Way Modification was issued on June 22, 2018, outlining required frontage
improvements for both Warehouse A and Warehouse B, with timing and bonding requirements.
The building permit site plan shall reflect the requirements outlined in this letter. Construction
plans shall be included in the building permit submittal for review and approval.
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 28 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
34. The Right -of -Way Modification issued on June 22, 2018, includes improvements to
Weyerhaeuser Way South. As a part of building permit approval, water quality treatment and
flow control shall be provided for the public right-of-way as outlined in the regulations in place at
the time a building permit application is received.
35. The applicant states that this project drains to an offsite wetland on parcel 2121049014; however,
no detail has been provided concerning the wetland. Therefore KCSWDM Chapters 3.3.5 through
3.3.7 may apply. If the amount of impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than
or equal to 10 percent of the 100-year water surface area of a closed depression, then a point of
compliance analysis must be done to verify that the water surface levels are not increasing for the
return frequencies at which flooding occurs, up to and including the 100-year frequency. The
applicant has not provided a comparison of the proposed impervious surface area to the surface
area of the wetland or closed depression, nor have they provided a minor floodplain analysis to
establish an assu ned base flood elevation. Conservation Flow Control (Level 2) must therefore
be considered a minimum standard, and the applicant will be required to provide additional flow
control if the site's impervious area meets or exceeds the 10 percent threshold, or a flooding
problem will be created or exacerbated. The applicant shall provide necessary docu nentation and
mitigation before building permit issuance.
36. As stated in the KCSWDM Section 1.2.2.1, the applicant shall submit a critical areas report for
the offsite wetland on parcel 2121049014. The critical areas report shall be completed as outlined
in FWRC 19.145.080; reviewed by an outside peer reviewer at the developer's expense; and
approved before approval of the final TIR and before building permit issuance.
37. Before building permit approval, WSDOT approval of the project's impacts on storm drainage
conveyance within the WSDOT right-of-way shall be provided.
38. Before building permit issuance, a downstream analysis for the four acres that drain to the
southwest must be provided.
39. Low Impact Development measures, as required by the KCSWDM, must be implemented to
provide flow control mitigation for both frontage improvements and onsite improvements.
40. The critical areas report referenced in the Preliminary TIR needs the date corrected. The reference
will need to be updated in the final TIR.
41. The applicant shall supplement its stormwater plan to demonstrate compliance and consistency
with the Executive Proposed Basin Plait Hylebvs Creek and Lower Puget Sound (King County
Surface Water Management, 1991).
42. Before issuance of a building permit, updated certificates of water and sewer availability shall
be submitted.
CONCLUSION
As conditioned, the proposed site plan application has been determined to be consistent with the FWCP;
with all applicable provisions of the FWCC and FWRC; and with public health, safety, and welfare. The
streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval Page 29 of 30
Woodbridge Building "B" Project 17-104236-00-UP / Doc. I.D. 81257
the proposal, and the proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration
for access. The proposed development is consistent with Process III, Project Approval, decisional criteria
required under Chapter 19.65 FWRC.
The proposed site plan and application attachments have been reviewed for compliance with the FWCP,
pertinent zoning regulations, and all other applicable city regulations. Final construction drawings will be
reviewed for compliance with specific regulations, conditions of approval, and other applicable city
requirements. This decision shall not waive compliance with future City of Federal Way codes, policies,
and standards relating to this development.
Prepared by: Stacey Welsh, Principal Planner
Exhibit A — Findings for Project Approval
Woodbridge Building `B" Project
Date: June 24, 2021
Page 30 of 30
17-104236-00-UP / Doc.1.D. 81257
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2021
COM UTY NITY DV OPMEI
D
City Clerk's Office
City of Federal Way
July 23, 2021
SWC APPEAL
NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
ATTACHMENT B
10/9/2020 MDNS Filed on Nov 12, 2020
2021-07-22
APPEAL
ATT.B
LAW OFFICES OF J. RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300 www.aramburulaw.com
Seattle, WA 98104,1797 www.aramburu.eustis.com
Telephone 206.625.9515
Facsimile 206.682.1376
November 12, 2020
City of Federal Way
City Clerk's Office
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
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:/Itclf.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 rickRaramburu-eustis.com and aramburulaw[tr)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) Move ment/ci rcu I ation 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,
> Ax6. Richard Aramburu
W SBA # 466
Attorney for Save Weyhaeuser Campus
November 12, 2020
SWC SEPA Appeal
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
LAW OFFICES OF J. RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98104,1797
Telephone 206.625.9515
Facsimile 206.682.1376
October 23, 2020
Stacey Welsh
Federal Way City Hall
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
www.aramburulaw.com
www.aramburu-eur,tis.com
Via Email:
Stacey.Welsh@
cityoffederalway.com
Re: MDNS for Woodbridge Warehouse "B" Development (File No. 17-104237-SE)
Dear Ms. Welsh:
This office represents Save Weyerhaeuser Campus (SWC), a Washington nonprofit
corporation organized and existing to protect and preserve the community and natural
values of the former Weyerhaeuser Campus and adjacent areas. SWC has been active
over the past several years in providing comment on proposals by Industrial Realty
Group (IRG) to develop three projects on the former Weyerhaeuser Campus.
On October 9, 2020, the Federal Way SEPA Responsible Official issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposed Woodbridge Warehouse
"B," a 214,050 square foot general commodity warehouse with 245 parking spaces on a
16.85 acre site (hereinafter Warehouse B). The proponent is Federal Way Campus
LLC. The comment period for this proposal ends on October 23, 2020.
This letter constitutes SWC's comments on the Warehouse B proposal. In summary,
the MDNS was issued in error for two reasons. First, the City did not adequately
consider the impacts of the entirety of the IRG proposals on the former Weyerhaeuser
Campus, including Greenline Warehouse "A" (File No. 16-102948-SE) and the
Woodbridge (formerly Greenline) Business Park (File No. 17-105491) as well as
Warehouse B. These overall proposals clearly would have significant adverse impacts.
Second, the impacts of Warehouse B alone create a reasonable likelihood of more
than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. In either case, the currently
issued MDNS should be withdrawn and scoping should begin for preparation of a full
environmental impact statement.
This comment letter incorporates the comments provided by SWC on the Greenline
Business Park proposal by letter dated May 29, 2018, attached hereto (see Attachment
A) and incorporated by this reference. In that letter, SWC indicated that the Greenline
Business Park and Warehouses A and B should be consolidated for land use and
October 23, 2020
Page 2
environmental review.' The cumulative impacts of these three projects should be
considered.
STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION.
Under the SEPA rules the City must determine whether a proposal "is likely to have a
probable significant adverse environmental impact." WAC 197-11- 330(1)(b). A sin le
significant impact is enough to warrant an EIS, but also "(c) Several marginal impacts
when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact" Id. at
330(3)(c). Here there are several impacts that must be considered, including impacts on
historic resources, as outlined by letters from King County, the State of Washington
Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP), the Cultural Landscape
Foundation and other agencies and individuals that submitted comments to the City
regarding the Weyerhaeuser Campus. SWC has read these letters, agrees with them
and incorporates them by reference herein.
PROJECT PROPOSAL.
The application, according to the MDNS, is for a "general commodity warehouse." This
use sets a number of environmental parameters, trip generation parameters, standards
regarding release of air pollution, the need for limitation of impervious surfaces, etc. to
address expected environmental impacts. For reasons stated herein, SWC believes
that the MDNS has been issued in error.
IRG has represented, however, in its filings before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) other possible uses for Warehouse B (and Warehouse A). Accordingly, the
City's decision should explicitly provide that the MDNS is issued solely for the "general
commodity warehouse" and will become null and void if there is any change in use for
the proposal. If the use of the site, or use of the building, changes from the explicit
application before the City, the permit and development process, including SEPA,
should start over with the new project information.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
As noted in our May 29, 2018 letter and reinforced by Hearing Examiner and court
decisions, the environmental impacts of Warehouse A and B and Greenline Business
Park projects must be reviewed cumulatively. Comments herein supplement our 2018
letter.
The Greenline Business Park has also been under consideration for several years, in
' IRG has rebranded its projects on the former Weyerhaeuser site as the "Woodbridge" proposals.
Because SWC's prior communications and City decisions reference the "Greenline" proposal we continue
that reference.
October 23, 2020
Page 3
parallel with Warehouses A and B. Like Warehouse A, the City has had multiple and
detailed documents before it as part of the Greenline Business Park application.
In the Warehouse A MDNS the City contended that Warehouse B and the Greenline
Business Park are complex projects that may take additional time for review, thus
environmental review under SEPA could not take place at the time of the Warehouse A
application. The City's position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
Under WAC 197-11-055, two obligations are created for local government. First, under
Subsection 1:
The SEPA process shall be integrated with agencyagenLcy activities at the earliest
possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values,
to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems.
(Emphasis supplied.) This obligates the local government to assure that SEPA
becomes a part of local decision making. Second, under Subsection 2:
(2) Timing of review of proposals. The lead agency shall prepare its threshold
determination and environmental impact statement (EIS), if required, at the
earliest ossible point in the plgnning and decision -making process, when the
principal features of a proposal and its environmental impacts can be reasonably
identified.
(a) A proposal exists when an agency is presented with an application or
has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more
alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the environmental
effects can be meaningfully evaluated.
(Emphasis supplied.) Under WAC 197-11-310(2):
(2) The responsible official of the lead agency shall make the threshold
determination, which shall be made as close as possible to the time an agency
has developed or is presented with a proposal (WAC 197-11-784). If the lead
agency is a GMA county/city, that agency must meet the timing requirements in
subsection (6) of this section.
(Emphasis supplied.) WAC 197-11-784 provides that: "A proposal exists at that stage in
the development of an action when an agency is presented with an application ... "
Note that with the use of the word "shall"in WAC 197-11-310(2) the requirement is
mandatory, but the City has not issued a threshold determination for the Greenline
Business Park, despite having detailed project plans and environmental reports for
more than three years. The City's failure to act violates its obligation to issue a
threshold determination "as close in time as possible to the time an agency ... is
presented with a proposal."
October 23, 2020
Page 4
The time for the City to issue a threshold determination for the Greenline Business Park
project has long since passed. The applicant long ago submitted environmental
documents and abundant detail is available for review. SEPA requires review of the
cumulative impacts of the Greenline Business Park and Warehouse A along with those
of Warehouse B. These impacts are significant, and an environmental impact statement
is required. The MDNS should be withdrawn.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
The City's decision relies on a traffic study prepared by TENW on March 6, 2018, IRG
Greenline Buildings A and B Federal Way, WA Transportation Impact Study, TENW
Transportation Engineering NorthWest (March 6, 2018). The court has clearly directed
the City, however, to consider the traffic impacts of the Greenline Business Park and
Warehouse A, along with other traffic impacts, in evaluating the traffic impacts of
Warehouse B. Rather than conduct the necessary analysis, however, the City imposes
a vague condition, in Mitigation Measure #11, that "cumulative traffic impacts" from
Warehouse A, Warehouse B and the Greenline Business Park on the S.R. 18
westbound ramp intersection with Weyerhaeuser Way "shall be evaluated and
mitigated" in SEPA documents. SWC believes this and other traffic -related conditions
are incomplete and inadequate, for several reasons.
1. The City has in hand, for Warehouse A, an updated traffic study showing a
continued loss of service (LOS) failure and a conflicting conclusion of no LOS failure.
Both are relevant to and need to be evaluated for Warehouse B, and the differences
reconciled in the public record, allowing for meaningful public review and comment.
The LOS failure is documented in the updated Traffic Impact Analysis for Warehouse
A, dated March 24, 2020. It concluded that the cumulative impacts of Warehouses A
and B and the Greenline Business Park will continue to cause a LOS failure (level E, in
violation of WSDOT standards) at the intersection of Weyerhaeuser Way S and SR-18.
On April 6, 2020, TENW followed up with an analysis of how the costs of mitigating the
increased traffic levels should be allocated among IRG's projects. These costs would
be minimal, though, because TENW had recommended shifting IRG's mitigation
responsibility to the driving public: it suggested that WSDOT merely re -time the traffic
signal to bring impacts below the LOS threshold.
WSDOT, on reviewing the TIA, declined to commit to changing the SR-18 light timing
and took issue with TENW's characterization of any such action as mitigation. Swires,
Mike & Maan, Sidhu, Memorandum to Ramin Pazooki & Duffy McColloch re
Woodbridge Business Park —Updated Traffic Impact Analysis, p. 2, Washington State
Department of Transportation (June 18, 2020). WSDOT said it was not requesting any
additional mitigation at this time. This leaves the LOS failure —a significant
environmental impact —unmitigated. The City should as a result be requiring an EIS for
Warehouse A.
October 23, 2020
Page 5
For reasons that are not clear in the record, however, on July 22, 2020, TENW
submitted a short "SEPA analysis addendum" to the City referring to a new, July 17,
2020 updated TIA for the three projects. In contrast to the March 24 TIA (and the
previous TIA presented to the Hearing Examiner), the "addendum" said the new TIA
concluded there would be no LOS failure at the SR-18 intersection. Remarkably, it said
the delays at the intersection after all three projects are built (47.5 seconds) will be
lower than the delays without any of the projects (53.1 seconds, as reported in previous
studies).
The new TIA obviously raises questions about its methodology and assumptions. To
our knowledge, however, it is not included in the record for Warehouse A or Warehouse
B. We do not know whether it was presented to WSDOT for review, nor whether its
assumptions are realistic, and whether it otherwise protects the State's interests.
Consideration of these impacts is required not only by SEPA, but by FWCC
19.90.120(2), which requires:
...consideration of the cumulative impacts of all development permit applications
for contiguous properties that are owned or under the control of the same
owner...
Instead of disclosing the more current (and conflicting) information, however, and
allowing meaningful public review and comment, the City relies on a 2018
transportation impact study that is now more than two and one-half years old for SEPA
analysis in an October, 2020 MDNS.
This lack of disclosure is inconsistent with SEPA and denies the public the information
needed to make meaningful comments on a project. Mitigation Measure 11 indicates
that cumulative traffic analysis could be included in the future, in a SEPA analysis
addendum or a revision to the Warehouse A and B TIA. It does not disclose or explain
the existence of conflicting and confusing studies covering the same property. The City
should withdraw the Warehouse B MDNS for this reason alone until the record is
complete and the public has had the chance to evaluate it.
2. Mitigation Measure 8 also discussed traffic volumes and impacts for travel to
and from the site, including origins or destinations north of the site. Because of the
impact of such traffic on residential and commercial areas north of the site, and
continuing congestion concerns at South 32011, including impacts from 1-5 off and on
ramps, the City should require that the applicant prohibit all trucks using the facility from
using Weyerhaeuser Way north of the site and require installation of traffic control
measures to enforce that requirement. This would include contract provisions with
customers and users of Warehouse B, prohibiting access from the north.
October 23, 2020
Page 6
The reports conducted on the campus's historic values, discussed below, find that the
curving, tree -lined roads are an important aspect of the environmental and historical
value of the campus. Mitigation Measure 8 would allow IRG to eliminate those curving
roads with ease, and with little further review of the impacts. The City believes that IRG
will balk at the costs of rebuilding these roads, but that is an untested assumption. One
can easily envision the opposite outcome: that a wide, straight thoroughfare allowing
industrial trucks to run parallel to a crowded 1-5 would be well worth the cost for IRG.
Without real legal and contractual restrictions, the City is relying on an untested belief
as its only mechanism to avoid serious, adverse impacts to the quality of the
neighborhoods and the historic nature of the campus. We object strongly to the gamble
the City is engaged in, essentially pre -approving a new industrial truck route without
even a minimal evaluation of its environmental and other consequences.
3. The cumulative impacts discussed in Mitigation Measure #8 should not be
limited to impacts to S.R. 18, but consider all impacted intersections and roadways in
the City of Federal Way or other impacted areas.
IMPACTS ON HISTORIC RESOURCES.
The impacts to historic resources of the current proposal, taken individually and
cumulatively with Warehouse A and the Greenline Business Park, are significant and
require either the preparation of an environmental impact statement or significant
mitigation. The City's analysis of these impacts for Warehouse B relies on incomplete
and outdated information. The MDNS is not supported and should be withdrawn.
The historical importance of the former Weyerhaeuser corporate campus is
exceptional. This is evidenced by IRG's own consultant, Cardno, Inc., in identifying it as
a historic district eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Cardno
prepared a Built Environment Survey, a report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) and the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP)2. According to the Built Environment Survey, p. 6-3:
The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus is an exceptional
example of built heritage that responds to its Northwest context by integrating
buildings and landscape into a synergistic whole while using materials, design,
and workmanship to reflect the corporate identity projected by the Weyerhaeuser
Company at this time in its history. The campus is also an outstanding example
of the work of landscape architect Peter Walker (SWA) and architect Edward
Charles Bassett (SOM). The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters
campus is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district ...;
2 Michelle Sadlier et al., Built Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters
Campus, Federal Way, Washington, Cardno, Inc. (July 29, 2020).
October 23, 2020
Page 7
The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus, as defined below,
is a historic property so exceptional in historical and design importance that it
has achieved significance within the past 50 years.
Unfortunately, the City did not consider the Built Environment Survey in its SEPA
analysis on Warehouse B. Instead of referencing that 150+ page report, the SEPA
records reference a one -page Memorandum from Cardno to IRG, Built Environment
Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus for Compliance
with Section 105 of the NHPA — Comments on SEPA Compliance for Woodbridge
Building B, Cardno, July 27, 2020 (Cardno SEPA Memo).
The Cardno SEPA Memo states the consultant's opinion that the impacts of
Warehouse B on the campus's historic resources are not significant under SEPA. This
reflected a similar opinion Cardno expressed in another report, on the effects of
Warehouses A and B under the National Historic Preservation Act.3 Cardno has since
revised that second report, to reach the opposite conclusion:
Cardno recommends that the Woodbridge Building A and Woodbridge Building
B projects, along with their associated detention pond, will have an adverse
effect on the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District by
diminishing the integrity of the recommended contributing 50-foot buffer east of
Weyerhaeuser Road and the driving views the buffer provides.
(Emphasis provided.) Michelle Sadlier et al., Evaluation of Effects for the Proposed
Woodbridge Building A and Woodbridge Building B Projects, Federal Way,
Washington, Cardno, Inc., p. i (September 14, 2020). The City thus acted on
incomplete and outdated information in its MDNS decision on Warehouse B.
Even under Cardno's former position, however, the City's conclusions about the effects
of Warehouse B on historic values are incorrect. The applicant contends, and the City
appears to rely heavily on the idea, that the visual impacts of its industrial warehouses
are mitigated by a fifty -foot tree buffer. The tree buffer is inadequate, however, for three
reasons.
First, assessing the impacts of Warehouse B alone is not appropriate; the
impacts of Warehouse A., at least, should be included as they are adjacent to one
another and no construction has begun on Warehouse A.
Second, the site for Warehouse A and Warehouse B is a substantial wooded
area that should be included as part of the Historic District or a contributing area
thereto. We agree with the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation's position that
3 Michelle Sadlier et al., Evaluation of Effects for the Proposed Woodbridge Building A and Woodbridge
Building B Projects, Federal Way, Washington, Cardno, Inc. (September 14, 2020).
October 23, 2020
Page 8
the entire wooded parcel is a contributing feature of the National Register eligible
district, not just the 50-foot buffer and driving views recommended by Cardno. The
U.S. Army Corps has not taken a position on this issue, and we expect it will be the
subject of well-informed stakeholder debate. We believe the destruction of the interior
forest stands for construction of Warehouse B would be a significant adverse
environmental impact requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or
significant mitigation.
And third, the minimal fifty -foot tree buffer is physically inadequate to buffer and
protect the campus's historic values, and the City's analysis has not taken into account
the expected loss of trees to windthrow and other edge effects.
Buffers must "obscure Warehouse [B] from sight," to quote the standard articulated by
the Hearing Examiner', to avoid probable significant adverse impacts to historic
resources. It is clear from the visual studies submitted to the City that Warehouse B will
be visible from the road, not "out of the way," and will cause adverse impacts _See the
photos in Greenline Building B, Visual Impact Analysis, ESM Consulting Engineers
(August 10, 2018).
As ESM notes, the buffers around Warehouses A and B are already sparse. In addition,
50' is too narrow to protect against the inevitable loss of trees from windthrow and other
edge effects once the site is disturbed. IRG's arborist pointed out the risk of loss of
trees in Brian Gilles, Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan at the Greenline
Building B Site, Gilles Consulting (rev. June 26, 2018). On pages 5-6 he describes this
well-known phenomenon in Pacific Northwest forests:
Tree Risk Assessment must be taken seriously on this project and all of the
Campus development projects. This is due to the physiology of the trees
themselves, their growth in dense stands, the soils, and the large storms that
descend upon the region irregularly. When trees grow in a forest such as this,
they depend on the trees around them to buffer them from the wind and other
storm impacts. This results in a different physically structured tree than the same
species of the same age growing in an open setting such as a field, a park, or a
pasture.
Trees growing in a dense forest are tall and skinny. They do not have broadly
tapered bases or large buttress roots. They do not need them due to the
buffering effect of the forest as a whole. Their job is to grow tall and fast to catch
sunlight. If they do not keep up with the neighboring trees, they get shaded out
and slowly decline and die. Therefore, their internal resources are spent on
height growth.
' Findings of Fact 13, Hearing Examiner decision.
October 23, 2020
Page 9
This is relevant and important in that, when dense forest trees are suddenly
opened to the wind and storm elements, by clearing of adjacent trees, they
are instantly vulnerable to windthrow in severe weather. This is because, as
noted above, they do not have adequate structure in their lower trunks and
buttress roots. This can be seen when driving forested lands in the northwest
and looking at wind -thrown trees at the edges of recent clear cuts.
Foresters have known this for over 100 years and have a term for it. They call
it, "New Edge." New Edge refers to the trees on the edge of a recent clear-cut.
There can be a high percentage of tree failures near the `new edge' created by
the clearing/logging of trees in a dense forest due to the growth characteristics
noted above. It can take a tree or line of trees along a newly cleared edge many
years to develop larger and roots and lower trunks to withstand large storm
loads.
Soils and saturated soils also play a huge role in tree risk assessment. The
region is known to have areas of hard pan or clay deposits below the surface.
Water can build up on top of these impenetrable layers and restrict roots from
penetrating deep. This can predispose a tree to fail if it is growing over one of
these dense layers and the soil is saturated and a storm overloads the strength
of the roots and soil.
The last comment about saturated soils is especially relevant here. The buffers most
vulnerable to windthrow are those on the windward side of the buffer (i.e., the down-
wind side of new openings). Because Federal Way's prevailing winds are from the
Southwest (especially during storms), the City should expect damage to the buffers
between Warehouses A and B and Weyerhaeuser Way S, the very buffers that are
most needed to block the driving views from the road. Compounding the problem,
IRG's documents have identified at least three wetlands in the managed forest buffer
along Weyerhaeuser Way S. Any trees growing in these wetland soils are even more
likely to come down after they lose the stands behind them. This will open even more
holes in the buffers, further increasing the visibility of the buildings.
How wide does a buffer need to be to resist windthrow and other damaging edge
effects? This was a major issue in Pacific Northwest forests in the late 90s as practices
improved to protect water bodies and fish habitat. According to experts, microclimate
effects generally extend about "one to three tree heights into forests," or roughly 100' to
600' considering all impacts. Rochelle, James A. et al., Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife
and Management Implications, p. 117, Brill (1999). On federal forest lands, scientists
used 300' as a conservative buffer to protect streams in the Northwest Forest Plan.
Washington's forest practice rules adopted stream buffers ranging from 100' (50' on
each side) to over 300' (both sides) under the 1999 Forests and Fish Agreement. The
EIS on Washington's rules used 75' as the minimum width for a riparian management
October 23, 2020
Page 10
zone (RMZ) for an "acceptable" amount of blowdown, which science suggests will still
be 15-20% of the trees. According to the EIS:
Another important aspect considered when evaluating the alternatives was
susceptibility to windthrow or blowdown. If an RMZ experiences substantial
windthrow, it may not be capable of maintaining desired functions.... The RMZs
under all alternatives are likely to experience some degree of windthrow in
localized areas. Windthrow is a normal occurrence in forests but is known to
increase along harvest unit edges after timber harvest opens formerly interior
forest trees to more direct wind effects (Harris 1989).
RMZs along streams are subject to similar increases in windthrow. Several
studies have attempted to define the relationship between riparian windthrow
and various physical and biological features such as topography, valley
morphology, aspect, slope, soil wetness, and tree type (Steinblums et al. 1984;
Harris 1989). Though these site -specific factors may increase the vulnerability of
an RMZ to wind events, no single factor has emerged as being of particular
importance on a landscape scale. However, since blowdown is generally greater
at the windward edge of a buffer, alternatives with wider RMZs would provide
more protection for riparian function.
Pollock and Kennard (1998) reanalyzed several windthrow data sets looking at
the relationship between buffer width and the likelihood of windthrow. They
reached the conclusion that buffers of less than 75 feet have a higher probability
of suffering appreciable mortality from windthrow than forests with wider buffers.
Data for blowdown within buffers from seven studies reported in Grizzel and
Wolff (1998) had a mean windthrow level of about 15 percent for 344 sites in
western Washington and Oregon with maximum windthrow levels ranging from
17 to 100 percent. Median windthrow levels were usually somewhat lower than
the mean because the data are not normally distributed with relatively few sites
having extensive blowdown. For example, the mean windthrow level for sites
reported by Andrus and Froelich (1986) was 21.5 percent while the median value
was 15.5 percent (i.e., half of the sites had less than 15.5 percent windthrow).
Windthrow levels in Southeast Alaska were found to average about 9 percent in
66-foot no -harvest RMZs over a 4 to 6 year period following harvest, and most
windthrow levels were less than 15 percent (Martin et al. 1998).... Susceptibility
to blowdown is addressed as appropriate in the effects analysis using a 75-feet
buffer width as a general guideline.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 4, p. 4-105.
The City needs to reevaluate its buffer requirements to factor in the predictable loss of
October 23, 2020
Page 11
10-15% of all of the significant trees plus the loss of most or all of the trees on wetland
soils. These impacts will be significant, and planting new trees will not be enough to
take their place. It will be decades before new trees provide the height, width, and depth
of crown provided by the existing forests on the Weyerhaeuser campus.
STORMWATER ANALYSIS.
As described above, the stormwater impacts of applicant's Warehouse A, Warehouse B
and Greenline Business Park should be considered together. IRG submitted its
environmental checklist on the Greenline Business Park project on October 13, 2016,
more than four years ago. That checklist described 1,067,000 square feet of new
warehouse facilities and 2,947,175 square feet of new impervious surface. A
preliminary stormwater analysis describing runoff from the site has been prepared.
In addition, the City has required a cumulative impact analysis for traffic at the
Warehouse B site in Mitigation Measure #11 that includes Warehouse A, Warehouse B
and the Greenline Business Park. No logical reason exists as to why cumulative impact
analysis for stormwater should not also be prepared, consistent with the City's
environmental analysis of cumulative impacts for traffic. The stormwater impacts of the
Greenline Business Park combine with those of Warehouse A and Warehouse B south
of the Campus and will flow south into the Hylebos Creek system. Given the Greenline
Business Park proposal is twice as large as the Warehouse A and Warehouse B
proposals together, the combined impact of all three projects to the Hylebos Basin will
unquestionably be significant. Further, the Greenline Business Park proposal was
initiated with the City more than four years ago, indicating the need to combine its
impacts with the Warehouse A and B proposals. See WAC 197-11-784.
CONCLUSION
The MDNS on Warehouse B has been issued in error. The proposal, individually and
cumulatively with other proposals, will have probable significant adverse impacts on the
environment. The MDNS should be withdrawn, a determination of significance issued,
and scoping initiated for an environmental impact statement.
i ere Iy
J. Richard Aramburu
JRA:cc
cc: Save Weyerhaeuser Campus
A.RAMBURU & Eusus, I[, LP
Attorneys at Law
J. Richard Aramburu
rick@aramburu-cusds.com
Jeffrey M. Eustis
eustis@.aramburu-eustis.com
May 29, 2018
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave. S.
Federal Way, WA 98003
Attn: Brian Davis, Director
Department of Community Development
And Jim Harris
Planner
20201023 Attachment A
5-29-18 SWC GBP &
Whse A & B Comment
720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel 206.625.9515
Fax 206.682.1376
www.aramburu-eustis.com
Via Email:
Brian.Davis@cityoffederalway.com
Jim.Harris@cityoffederalway.com
Re: Greenline Business Park Application (File #17-105491);
Proposals for Warehouse A (#16-102947-00-UP, 16-102948-00-SE) and
Warehouse B (#17-104236-UP, 17-104237-SE).
Dear City of Federal Way:
This office represents Save Weyerhaeuser Campus., a Washington nonprofit
corporation organized and existing to protect and :preserve the community and :natural
values of the Weyerhaeuser Campus.
On May 14, 2018, the City of Federal Way determined that the application for the
Greenline Business Park (GBP) was complete. That proposal, made by Industrial
Realty Group of Los Angeles (IRG), includes the construction of three buildings totaling
approximately 1,068,000 square feet on a .parcel of 146 acres .and revisions to an
existing parking lot adding 806 parking stalls, which will involve, among other activities,
filling wetland and improving existing roads in the vicinity. On May 18, 2018, the City
issued a Notice of Master Land Use Application, initiating a fourteen day comment
period. The Notice indicates that the proposal will be reviewed under the
"Weyerhaeuser Company Pre -Annexation Concomitant and Zoning Agreement" (CA),
which places the property in the CPA zone created by the CA.
Previously, IRG submitted complete applications for two other construction projects also
located in the CP-1, Warehouses A and B. Warehouse A is a 225,950 square foot
warehouse building on 13.7 acres with 245 parking stalls; Warehouse B is a 217,300
June 4, 2018
Page 2
square foot warehouse building with 244 parking spaces immediately adjacent to
Warehouse A. The Warehouse A/B proposals will use a common access road and the
same stormwater detention pond. These two projects are owned by the same applicant
as for the Greenline Business Park. The City has not issued a threshold determination
under SEPA for either of IRG's Warehouse proposals.
In this letter, SWC provides comment on the rules, regulations and standards applicable
to the pending permit applications. First, any review of the business park proposal under
both current zoning and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) must consider the
consolidated and cumulative impacts of all three pending proposals and cannot proceed
with separate, individual, fragmented review. Second, the existing rules and
regulations, including the CA, cannot be read to vest applications to rules and standards
adopted twenty-four years ago. In several specific areas, the City should apply current
standards and regulations adopted after Ordinance 94-219 (including the CA and its
zoning) was adopted in 1994. These issues will be addressed below.
1. THE CITY MUST CONDUCT COMBINED AND CONSOLIDATED REVIEW OF THE
THREE PENDING PROPOSALS.
1.1. SEPA REVIEW. Because of the background of this proposal, the City is
required to conduct consolidated land use and environmental review of the pending
applications, not segmenting or bifurcating review. This is based on the following.
A. ONE OWNER. The entire 426-acre Weyerhaeuser Campus was purchased
in 2016 by IRG, a California developer of warehouses and business parks.
B. THREE CURRENTLY PENDING APPLICATIONS. IRG has filed applications
for use of significant portions of the Weyerhaeuser Campus, including the GBPark,
Warehouse A and Warehouse B, which have all been deemed complete by the City.
These three applications will be referenced herein as the "IRG Applications." Each of
the applications is currently pending and no threshold determination has been issued for
any of them. Comments on the GBP are due on June 4, 2018.
C. SAME ZONE FOR ALL PARCELS. The IRG Applications are all in the CP-1
zone. That zone is only applicable to the Weyerhaeuser Campus parcels and not to
any other properties in the city.
D. UNDER SEPA, THE THREE PENDING APPLICATIONS MUST BE
CONSIDERED IN A SINGLE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
The City of Federal Way has adopted by reference most of the Washington State
SEPA Rules, WAC Chapter 197-11, into Federal Way's code in FWC 14.05.020.
June 4, 2018
Page 3
Included in this adoption is WAC 197-11-060, including Subsection (b). This section
provides as follows:
(b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough
to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in the same
environmental document. (Phased review is allowed under subsection (5).)
Proposals or parts of proposals are closely related, and they shall be discussed
in the same environmental document, if they:
(i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of
proposals) are implemented simultaneously with them; or
(ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger
proposal as their justification or for their implementation.
In addition, WAC 197-11-060(c) provides as follows:
(c) (Optional) Agencies may wish to analyze "similar actions" in a single
environmental document.
(i) Proposals are similar if, when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable
actions, they have common aspects that provide a basis for evaluating their
environmental consequences together, such as common timing, types of
impacts, alternatives, or geography. This section does not require agencies or
applicants to analyze similar actions in a single environmental document or
require applicants to prepare environmental documents on proposals other than
their own.
(ii) When preparing environmental documents on similar actions, agencies
may find it useful to define the proposals in one of the following ways: (A)
Geographically, which may include actions occurring in the same general
location, such as a body of water, region, or metropolitan area; or (B) generically,
which may include actions which have relevant similarities, such as common
timing, impacts, alternatives, methods of implementation, environmental media,
or subject matter.
These provisions were considered in Indian Trail Property Owner's Assn v. City of
Spokane, 76 Wn.App. 430, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). There a shopping center
redevelopment and expansion were under review, including a large grocery store and
other features. However, two parts of the overall proposal were not included in the
original environmental checklist and threshold determination, a car wash and large
underground storage tanks, and were proposed for later environmental review. On a
challenge to this segmented environmental review, the Court of Appeals said as follows:
Cumulative Effects. We note at the onset that the responsible official's initial
evaluation of the underground fuel storage tanks separate from other phases of
the proposal was in error. Parts of proposals which are "related to each other
June 4, 2018
Page 4
closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in the
same environmental document." WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). Here, a phased review
of the project was clearly inappropriate because it would serve only to avoid
discussion of cumulative impacts. WAC 197-11-060(5)(d)(ii). See also WAC 197-
11-060(3)(b). However, the error was cured when the original MDNS and DNS
were withdrawn, and the cumulative effects of the entire project considered
before a new MDNS was issued.
Redevelopment of the shopping district also included plans for a car wash. In B1
zones, a car wash requires a special permit. When addressing neighborhood
concerns about the noise impacts from the car wash, the hearing examiner
responded "there is no car wash in this application and a special permit must be
applied for before a car wash can be built in conjunction with this use". To the
extent the hearing examiner was approving separate SEPA review for the car
wash, he was in error. WAC 197-11-060(3)(b). However, the error was harmless
because the responsible official considered the impact of the car wash when
making the threshold determination and required mitigation measures for it.
76 Wn.App. at 443.
As noted above, the IRG Applications have a common owner (IRG), common
timing (all have complete pending applications), common geography (all on the
Weyerhaeuser Campus), common impacts and common zoning (CP-1, applicable only
to this property). The most significant impacts of the combined proposals affect traffic
and transportation, with significant impacts to off -site city roads and state highways
including 1-5 and SR 18. Complete and accurate traffic and transportation analysis
should include not only the three current proposals, but an accurate analysis for the
future use of the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters building (more than 300,000 square feet),
which is currently offered for lease by IRG to a single tenant. Currently, the traffic report
for Warehouse A, for example, does not include potential traffic from Warehouse B, the
GBP, or the Weyerhaeuser headquarters building. The projects, individually and
cumulatively, will also impact downstream water resources, including the Hylebos
stream, Milton's East Hylebos Ravine, Fife's Lower Hylebos Nature Park and associated
wetlands and habitat. The GBP proposal alone will total 1,441,000 square feet of
impervious surface.
Under the applicable regulations and caselaw, it would be error for the City to
conduct separate environmental review for IRG's proposals. The City should require
IRG to submit an environmental checklist that includes the cumulative impact of all three
projects. There appears to be little question that a proposal with more than 2,Op0,000
square feet of structure and other impervious surfaces will have a significant impact on
the environment and accordingly requires an environmental impact statement (EIS).
June 4, 2018
Page 5
1.2. LAND USE REVIEW. In addition, the three development proposals are
included within the "Corporate Park 1" or "CP-1"zone, which was adopted by the City in
Ordinance 94-219 as a part of the annexation of this and other nearby property in 1994.
The CP-1 zone only applies to the former Weyerhaeuser Campus. Ordinance 94-219
also reached certain "Conclusions of Law," beginning at page 4; these Conclusions
applied to the entire annexation area, including the property where the three pending
proposals are located. Conclusion B states that the property, as a whole, has "unusual
environmental features" and that the ordinance is the "means to preserve and protect
these natural features," again referencing the entire annexation area. Conclusion C
states that "any development in the corporate headquarters area is low density
characterized by large expanses of open space." The applicant contends that the 1994
CA controls development on the Weyerhaeuser Campus. While that is not entirely
correct, as pointed out below, it is apparent that the CA requires that the entire site be
considered when development proposals are made. For example, under Paragraph
14.2 of the CA, existing streets had "been constructed to meet capacity needs for on -
site development up to an additional 300,000 square feet of Corporate Office Park
development;" this provision regarding street capacity is applicable to the entire site.
The CP-1 zone found at Exhibit C to the CA also stresses that the entire site is to
be considered together in review and analysis. The CP-1 zone states its Purpose and
Objectives, saying that the properties in the zone:
...are characterized by large contiguous sites with landscape, open space
amenities, and buildings of superior quality. The property appropriate for such
uses is unique, and demands for such uses are rare. Consequently special land
use and site regulations are appropriate for such properties.
CP-1 Zone, page C-1. Subsection A states "This property is subject to its own unique
standards of review processes as set forth in the Agreement." Id. The same is true of
provisions for "Off -Street Parking" found in Exhibit C, in Section XIII at page C-18, that
although new development shall require compliance with applicable off-street parking
requirements:
the aggregate of all proposed and existing uses on the property may, subject to
the approval of the Director, be considered as a whole in establishing the
minimum number of vehicles spaces required, .. .
It is wholly inconsistent with the CP-1 zoning, and the background of the CA and
Ordinance 94-219, to separately consider individual projects when the City recognizes
that the proposals are located on a unique property. This is especially true when IRG,
the property owner, has three complete and pending applications to use substantially all
of the CP-1 zoned area. Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that since 1994 the City
has considered the Weyerhaeuser Campus unique and has adopted unique standards
June 4, 2018
Page 6
of review applicable to the entire site. Site development, by a common property owner,
must be considered as a consolidated whole for permitting purposes.
2. THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO APPLY CURRENT CODES AND STANDARDS, NOT
THOSE IN EFFECT IN 1994.
As noted above, Ordinance 94-219 is now twenty-four years old, but the
applicant for the three pending projects claims that the ordinance, and the CA, vest
these new proposals to rules, regulations and standards in effect when the ordinance
was adopted. The City should reject that proposition and apply current adopted
standards.'
The applicant seeks to apply certain provisions of the CA to its current land use
applications. Among others, the applicant asks the City to follow certain criteria in
review of its proposals, including the following provisions of the development agreement
that are contrary to codes.
1) The agreement "not to require any dedication or conveyance of the Property or
any portions thereof for public purposes ....
Paragraph 12, page 10.
2) Agreement to consider roads adequate for the addition of 300,000 square feet
of new Corporate Office Park development that might be located anywhere on
the site.
Paragraph 14.2, page 11.
3) Agreement that the property owners "shall be vested for purposes of roadway
capacity requirements and any concurrency requirements and Weyerhaeuser
shall not be required for pay for any new public streets within the Property area
or traffic mitigation fees for these streets in connection with the Additional
Development.
Paragraph 14.2, page 11, Paragraph 15, page 13.
4) Agreement that areas of the Property which are "classified as environmentally
sensitive" shall comply with the critical areas ordinance in effect in 1994, except
for special provisions found at pages C-12 to C-18.
Exhibit C to Ordinance 94-219, Section XII.
Washington law is clear that no city may establish fixed land use and
development regulations that cannot be ever modified or changed.
' As described above the City should consider IRG's three pending proposals together as a single
application following evaluation of the whole proposal under SEPA.
June 4, 2018
Page 7
A) Washington Law Prohibits One Legislative Body from Binding FLlture
Councils.
The effect of the CA as interpreted by the applicant is that no later rules,
regulations, legislation or council action can modify the agreement; it is permanent and
never capable of modification. This concept is not consistent with Washington law for
the following reasons.
Under settled Washington law, a municipality "cannot enter into contracts binding
on future boards of commissioners." See State ex. rel. Schlarb v. Smith, 19 Wn.2d 109,
112,141 P.2d 651 (1943). See also Miller v. City of PortAngeles, 38 Wn.App. 904
(1984) where it is recognized that a local government cannot contract away its police
power. It is recognized that this rule must be construed in the context of whether the
contract involves its legislature function or its administrative/proprietary function. This
issue was considered in some detail in AGO 2012, No. 4, which concluded as follows:
If a contract impairs the "core" legislative discretion, eliminating or substantially
reducing the discretion future bodies might exercise, the courts are likely to find
that the contract has improperly impaired the legislative authority of future
commissioners."
Moreover, the CA permits deviations from the current city standards. For example, at
Paragraphs 14.2 and 15, the CA prohibits the city from collecting impact fees for an
additional 300,000 square feet of corporate office development, an indulgence not
permitted under existing codes. Similarly, Section XII of the CP-1 zoning allowed
deviations from even the then -existing sensitive area ordinances, making it inconsistent
with those codes. Indeed, Paragraph 4.1 of the CA (page 5) specifically provides that
"to the extent Federal Way policies impose development standards conflicting with this
Agreement, this Agreement shall control." Accordingly, the CA, which is claimed to bind
all Federal Way councils forever, is ultra vires.
It is also important to note that the CA in question is different from contract
rezones or other similar legislative actions. These agreements ordinarily set forth what
will, or will not, be done on a property as a part of a rezone; in such cases, the work will
be completed as a part of the contract rezone. The CA here is not related to any project
proposed when it was executed; its sole intention is to limit the authority of the City to
take actions in the future and to allow undefined future development.
B) Washington Law Regulating Annexation Zoning Ordinances Does Not Permit
Ordinances That Last Forever.
As a city formed under the Optional Municipal Code (OMC), RCW Title 35,
Federal Way must comply with the terms of chapter 35.14 when annexing new territory.
June 4, 2018
Page 8
In particular, RCW 35A.14.330 allows an OMC city to prepare a zoning regulation to
become effective in an area to be annexed. Subsections (1) and (2) define the scope of
a potential pre -annexation zoning, while subsection (4) provides as follows:
(4) The time interval following an annexation during which the ordinance or
resolution adopting any such proposed regulation, or any part thereof, must
remain in effect before it may be amended, supplemented or modified by
subsequent ordinance or resolution adopted by the annexing city or town.
As described, this legislation allows an OMC city to establish only a "time interval"
during which the pre -annexation zoning regulation "must remain in effect." Without such
a "time interval," a local legislative authority could amend the interim zoning ordinance
at any time, as described above.
RCW 35A.14.330(4) plainly requires zoning have a "time interval" during which
the pre -annexation zoning will be binding before it may be amended or modified.
Nothing in this statute allows the local government to make permanent pre -annexation
zoning, any more than zoning adopted pursuant to the planning and zoning chapter of
the OMC, chapter 35A.63, could be made permanent.
The statute is supported by Washington caselaw regarding the permanency of
zoning, as discussed in Bishop v. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn.2d 786, 792, 420 P.2d 368
(1966):
We have no quarrel with respondents' basic theme to the effect that while zoning
implies a degree of permanency, it is not static and zoning authorities cannot
blind themselves to changing conditions. Thus, when conditions surrounding or in
relation to a zoned area have so clearly changed as to emphatically call for
revisions in zoning, the appropriate zoning authorities are under a duty to initiate
proceedings and consider the necessity of pertinent modifications of their zoning
ordinances. Otherwise, outmoded zoning regulations can become unreasonable,
and the zoning authorities' failure to suitably amend or modify their ordinances
can become arbitrary, in which event courts can and should grant appropriate
relief. 2 Metzenbaum, Zoning, 1125 (2d ed. 1955).
Land use regulations cannot be frozen in time nor be immune to new priorities,
changed circumstances, scientific study or community needs.
A zoning ordinance that can never be modified is inconsistent with the authority
granted to the City of Federal Way and is thus void.
June 4, 2018
Page 9
C) The GMA Requires Updating of Development Regulations on a Periodic
Basis• The CA Cannot be Immune from the Obligation of Continuing Review.
Federal Way is not only subject to the rules established by the OMC, but also to
the Growth Management Act, RCW chapter 36.70A (GMA). One of the obligations
imposed by the GMA under RCW 36.70A.130 is for continuing review on a periodic
basis. Under this statute each local Comprehensive Plan and the local development
regulations:
shall be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county or city that
adopted them. Except as otherwise provided, a county or city shall take
legislative action to review and, if needed, revise its comprehensive land use
plan and development regulations to ensure the plan and regulations comply with
the requirements of this chapter according to the deadlines in subsections (4)
and (5) of this section.
(Emphasis supplied.)2 Subsection (1)(c) further states: "(c) The review and evaluation
required by this subsection shall include, but is not limited to, consideration of critical
area ordinances...." These sections requiring periodic review were imposed by the
legislature after the adoption of Federal Way's Ordinance 94-219 in 1994. The
provisions are to assure that local government regulations remain current with scientific
advancements and needs of the community. In addition, when considering amendment
of a comprehensive plan or development regulations, the City is obligated to "establish
and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying
procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development
and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations
implementing such plans." RCW 36.70A.140.
As it relates to critical areas, since the adoption of Ordinance 94-219 by the City,
new legislation has modified the content of critical area rules. In 1995, the Legislature
adopted RCW 36.70A.172, which requires as follows:
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and
cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and
development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In
2 Use of the word "shall" by the legislature has a distinct meaning in Washington jurisprudence:
Moreover, "shall" when used in a statute, is presumptively imperative and creates a mandatory
duty unless a contrary legislative intent is shown. Phil. I/ v. Gregoire, 128 Wash.2d 707, 713, 911
P.2d 389 (1996); State v. Krall, 125 Wash.2d 146, 148, 881 P.2d 1040 (1994).
Goldmark v. McKenna, 172 W n.2d 568, 575, 259 P.3d 1095, (2011).
June 4, 2018
Page 10
addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or
protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
This section mandated that local governments take account of best available
information in adopting critical area regulations, including publications such as
"Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing
Wetlands." See https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0506008.htmi.
As noted above, the applicant seeks to opt out of these provisions by reliance on
Ordinance 94-219. However, the City has recently adopted Ordinance 15-797, codified
as Chapter 19.145 of the Federal Way Code, which regulates Environmentally Critical
Areas (ECA) in the City. The purpose of this ordinance is as follows:
The purpose of this chapter is to protect the environment, human life, and
property from harm and degradation. This is to be achieved by precluding or
limiting development in areas where development poses serious or special
hazards; by preserving and protecting the quality of drinking water; and by
preserving important ecological areas such as steep slopes, streams, lakes and
wetlands. The public purposes to be achieved by this chapter include protection
of water quality, groundwater recharge, stream flow maintenance, stability of
slope areas, wildlife and fisheries habitat maintenance, protection of human life
and property and maintenance of natural stormwater storage and filter systems.
FWC 19.145.010. FWC 19.145.015 provides as follows: "Except as otherwise
established in this chapter, if a proposed development activity requires city approval,
this chapter will be implemented and enforced as part of that process." FWC
19.145.020 clarifies its application: "The provisions of this division apply throughout the
city and must be complied with regardless of any other conflicting provisions of this
title." The provisions of this title that do not conflict with the provisions of this division
apply to the subject property. Conflicts with the CP-1 zoning are resolved in favor of the
adopted critical area ordinances.
Accordingly, the property in the CP-1 zone must be consistent with the revised
ECA ordinance; no provision of the current code exempts the CP-1 zone from its
application or allows a completely out of date code to be applied in the city.
D) The Attempt in the CA to Vest to Future Permit Activity is Inconsistent with
Washington Law.
In 1987, the Washington Legislature established the rules for vesting of
development applications in RCW 19.27.095 and 58.17.033. In this legislation, either a
building permit or a plat would vest when a "fully complete application" was made. As
noted in Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 386 P. 3d 1064, 187
June 4, 2018
Page 11
Wash. 2d 346,105 Wash.2d 778, 789, 719 P.2d 531 (2016): "Washington's vested
rights doctrine originated at common law, but is now statutory", citing Town of Woodway
v. Snohomish County, 180 Wn.2d 165,173 (2014) (emphasis supplied).
The applicant here claims that it is vested to 1994 standards by virtue of the CA,
but the terms of Washington law do not allow vesting in advance of the filing of a
complete building permit or plat application. There was no complete building permit or
plat application filed when the CA was agreed to in 1994. Our courts have held that the
statutory vesting doctrine only applies when an applicant files "a completed application
for a building permit." Potala Village Kirkland, LLC v. City of Kirkland, 183 Wn.App. 191,
334 P.3d 1143 (2014). In Potala, the Court rejected the proposition that an application
for a substantial development permit would vest rights against zoning changes.
In the present case, the applicant claims the Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement
and the CP-1 Zoning in the CA vest it to development regulations in effect at the time,
some twenty-four years ago. But, nowhere has the legislature adopted a rule that
allows pre -annexation zoning under RCW 35A.14.330 to vest development rights. The
rules established in 1987 codified the vested rights doctrine and limited its application to
building permits, plats and later (1995) development agreements. Attempts to vest
rights based on this pre -annexation zoning are not effective and any review of the
current applications should be consistent with existing land use regulations and
controls.
3. CONCLUSION.
The applicant's proposals violate basic standards for review.
First, with three complete applications on the CP-1 zoned property, Washington
law and local ordinances require that project review be consolidated. This applies not
only to review for consistency with the city codes, but also SEPA review and analysis.
An environmental checklist should be prepared that identifies and reviews the entirety of
the three pending applications. This does not present a hardship to the applicant
because it has already assembled data for its projects, all that is required is the
consolidation of this information.
Second, the city should apply current zoning, environmental and critical area
ordinances to the three applications. Consideration of the pending applications under
twenty-four year old ordinances is completely inconsistent with Washington law that
prohibits ordinances that would bind local governments forever, especially in light of the
statutory requirement to continually assure that zoning and environmental regulations
are updated to take account of the latest standards and considerations.
June 4, 2018
Page 12
Thank you far consideration of SWC7s views. Please do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
uRu EuSTI , LLP
J. Richard Aramhur
JRA:cc
cc: Save Weyerhaeuser Campus