2010-04-07 HEX# 10-002 DecisionBEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR
THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Bio Park, Hearing Examiner pro tem
RE: WSDOT Triangle Project FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND DECISION'
09-104380-00-UP
INTRODUCTION
The applicant seeks a Process IV approval for various activities associated with the replacement
of the Interstate-5 and SR 18 interchange cloverleaf ramps and new direct connection from
westbound SR 18 to SR 161. Process IV approval is granted subject to conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Federal Way Associate Planner, Matthew Herrera, summarized the staff report and answered
questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant's agents were present at the hearing,
and testified in support of the project. They also requested that condition of approval 45, which
is recommended by staff, not be imposed. No one else testified. The Examiner gave the
applicant and the City an opportunity to supplement the record with additional information by
April 14, 2010 concerning the authority, or lack thereof, for the City to impose condition of
approval 45. The audio of the hearing was recorded and is part of the record. For more details
on oral testimony received, refer to recording.
EXHIBITS
See list of exhibits (Exhibits A through N) at p. 17 of the March 31, 2010, staff report prepared
by Matthew Herrera. Exhibit L was withdrawn prior to the hearing. The printout of slides used
by Mr. Herrera during his staff presentation was entered into the record as Exhibit O.
Furthermore, Mr. Herrera's e-mail dated 4/9/2010 forwarding applicant's e-mail concerning the
City's lack of authority to impose condition of approval #5 is entered into the record as Exhibit
P, and Mr. Herrera's e-mail dated 4/14/2010 in support of condition of approval 95 is entered as
Exhibit Q.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicant is the Washington State Department of Transportation.
r Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision may request a
change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
(BIT784663.DOC;I\13041.1500341 )
WSDOT —Triangle Project P. I Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 2:00 p.m. at
Federal Way City Hall on April 7, 2010.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant is requesting clearing and grading activities,
wetland mitigation, permanent and temporary wetland buffer intrusion, and stream
culverting/relocation associated with the replacement of the 15 and SR 18 cloverleaf interchange
ramps and new direct connection from westbound SR 18 to SR 161 in the vicinity of South 350'
Street. The subject area is within the WSDOT right-of-way for the 15 corridor between South
336"' Street and SR 161, WSDOT right-of-way within SR 18 between Weyerhaeuser Way and
the I5 cloverleaf, two commercially zoned parcels owned by WSDOT, and three private parcels
abutting the WSDOT right-of-way.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The areas surrounding the project site include multi -family,
commercial enterprise, and corporate park zoning designations. Current uses include retail,
offices, church, vacant private land, and vacant parcels owned by the WSDOT.
5. Adverse lm acts. The project has undergone a SEPA review and was issued a DNS, on
May 11, 2007. Staff did not receive any written comments regarding the SEPA determination.
Staff finds that the analysis provided from the 2007 DNS is valid for the current proposal. Due
to the need for filling, stream relocation, intrusion of setbacks, intrusion of buffers, and intrusion
of wetlands, there will be significant impacts to the property. However as detailed in the
environmental impact statement and mitigation plans provided with the application, these
impacts will be sufficiently mitigated to prevent adverse impacts as a result of the project. The
project will also include off -site compensatory mitigation to include wetland creation, wetland
enhancement, wetland buffer enhancement, and the creation and enhancement of stream habitats.
The staff in their analysis of the project identified no significant adverse impacts. In addition, no
comments were received on this application. Finally, approval is conditioned upon compliance
with certain applicable critical areas and development regulations adopted by the City, which
should further ensure that adverse impacts are minimized.
6. Other Findings. Staff's proposed findings of fact set forth in the March 31, 2010, staff
report prepared by Mr. Herrera for this project are adopted herein by this reference to the extent
that they are not inconsistent or in conflict with any finding or conclusion set forth in this
decision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner:
FWCC Chapter 22 Article VII provides the Examiner
with the authority to conduct a hearing and issue a decision on Process IV Reviews, of which
applicant's requested activities for stream relocation, culvert, intrusion into stream setback,
(BFP784663.D0C;1k13041.1500341 )
WSDOT — Triangle Project p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
improvements within regulated wetland, and improvements within regulated wetland buffer are
subject'.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation: The WSDOT right-of-way is zoned Commercial Enterprise, while
the compensatory mitigation site is located within a single-family medium density residential
RS35.0 zoning district.
3. Review Criteria and Application. Applicable criteria for the requested stream relocation,
culvert, intrusion into stream setback, improvements within regulated wetland, and
improvements within regulated wetland buffer applications are found in Title 19 FWRC. Those
criteria are quoted in italics below and applied to the application under corresponding
Conclusions of Law.
Stream Relocation:
Federal Way Revised Code, Stream Relocation Decisional Criteria, 19.165.020(3):
As part of any request under this section, the applicant must submit a stream relocation plan,
prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that shows the, following:
(a) The creation of a natural meander pattern.
(b) The formation of gentle side slopes, at least two feet horizontally to one foot
vertically, and the installation of erosion control features for stream side slopes.
(c) The creation of a narrow subchannel, where feasible, against the south or west
bank.
(d) The utilization of natural materials, wherever possible.
(e) The use of vegetation normally associated with streams, including primarily native
riparian vegetation.
(f) The creation of spawning and nesting areas, wherever appropriate.
(g) The re-establishment of the fish population, wherever feasible,
(h) The restoration of water flow characteristics compatible with fish habitat areas,
wherever feasible.
(i) The filling and revegetation of the prior channel.
(j) A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all project phases.
4. As demonstrated in the analysis contained in the Staff Report for the above criteria,
which is incorporated herein by this reference, the applicant has furnished an appropriate stream
relocation plan that meets the requirements of FWRC 19,165.020, except for submitting a
proposed phasing plan, which will be imposed as a condition of approval.
Federal Way Revised Code, Stream Relocation Decisional Criteria, 19.165.020(4):
2 Pursuant to FWRC 19.70.010, if the development, use or activity that requires approval through process II or III is
part of a proposal that also requires approval through process IV, the entire proposal will be decided upon using
process IV, if it will result in more efficient decision making.
(BrP784663,DOC;1\13041.1500341 )
WSDOT — Triangle Project p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The city will allow a stream to be relocated only if water quality, habitat and stormwater
retention capability of the streams will be significantly improved by the relocation. Convenience
to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design may not be considered.
5. In order to improve water quality, the project includes new vegetation plantings below
the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as well as more restrictive plantings in seasonally and
occasionally inundated areas above the OHWM. These new plantings, as well as imported
stream substrate and coir matting erosion control features will improve water quality of the
tributary. Habitats will be improved by incorporating large woody debris, native plantings, brush
piles, snags, and bat boxes placed within the relocation corridor; which will all provide improved
habitat for existing and new wildlife in the area. Stormwater retention will be improved by
newly planted vegetation within the riparian corridor to improve opportunities for stormwater
containment by capturing and storing rainfall in the canopy and releasing water into the
atmosphere through evaporation.. In addition, tree roots and leaf litter will create soil conditions
that promote the infiltration of rainwater into the soil. In regards to site convenience, several
alternatives were developed and analyzed during the design process, but the proposed plan was
selected for its ability to minimize environmental impacts. As such, the project will significantly
improve the water quality, habitat, and stormwater retention capabilities of the stream due to
relocation.
Federal Way Revised Code, Stream Relocation Decisional Criteria, 19.165.020(5):
Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified professional approved by the city shall
inspect the new channel following its completion and issue a written report to the director of
community development stating that the channel complies with the requirements of this section.
6. This has been made a condition of approval.
Federal Way Revised Code, Stream Relocation Decisional Criteria, 19.165.020(6):
The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not be increased or decreased as the stream
enters or leaves the subject property.
7. There are no sources of runoff entering or leaving Tributary 0016A within the realigned
stream segment resulting in zero increase or decrease in flows or velocity as the stream enters or
leaves the subject property.
Culverts:
Federal Way Revised Code, Culvert Decisional Criteria, 19.165.040(3):
The city will allow a stream to be put in a culvert only if
(a) No significant habitat area will be destroyed; and
(b) It is necessary for some reasonable use of the subject property. Convenience to the
applicant in order to facilitate general site design will not be considered. The applicant must
demonstrate, by submitting alternative site plans showing the stream in an open condition,
that no other reasonable site design exists.
I BF11784663 DOC; I \ 13041.1500341 )
WSDOT — Triangle Project p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
8. As discussed in conjunction above with adverse impacts and habitat improvements, no
significant habitat area will be destroyed. The culverts are within areas that are currently
inhospitable to typical wildlife habitat as it is adjacent to major interstate and commercially
zoned properties. However, the applicant will be providing native plantings in the area, and will
also be providing separate off -site mitigation. Additionally, the applicant analyzed several
alternative plans prior to and during the design process. Staff did not require that these plans be
submitted, as existing roadway sections and the proposed expansions did not make it possible for
the stream to flow in an open condition. As such, the above criteria are met.
Federal Way Revised Code, Culvert Decisional Criteria, 19.165.040(4):
The culvert must be designed and installed to allow passage offish inhabiting or using the
stream. The culvert must be large enough to accommodate a 100 year storm.
9. As detailed in the staff report, and in Exhibit K, although the City currently classifies the
watercourse as a Major Stream (fish -bearing) analysis provided by the applicant concludes that
the portion within the project site would actually constitute a Minor Stream (non -fish bearing)
due to a natural permanent blockage. The City testified during the hearing that it intends to
change the classification based on this new evidence. The blockage is in the form of intermittent
and flashy flows that do not support, or under normal circumstances support, resident or
migratory fish. Additionally, fish are not capable of inhabiting the subject portion of the stream
within the project boundaries due to inadequate flows. As such, there are no fish inhabiting or
using the stream around which to design and install the culvert. In regards to the 100-year storm,
based on channel and culvert grade, the culvert extensions have the capacity to pass a maximum
flow of 120 cfs and 130 cfs, compared to the current 32 cfs necessary for the 100-year plan.
Federal Way Revised Code, Culvert Decisional Criteria, 19.165.040(5):
The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the subject property free of debris and
sediment so as to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city shall require a
bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure maintenance of the culvert approved under this
section.
10. The WSDOT Maintenance and Operation Division "Maintenance Manual" requires
inspection and cleaning of culverts a minimum of two times per year, with allowance for
additional inspections due to heavy precipitation and flooding. As such, the department's
maintenance procedures are adequate to provide guarantees of continuous flow through the
proposed culvert. A bond will not be required because RCW 35.21.470 is directly on point
prohibiting the City from imposing such a requirement as a condition of approval on state
agencies.
.Intrusion into Stream Setback:
Federal Way Revised Code, Stream Buffer Intrusion Decisional Criteria, 19.165.070(1):
Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The director of
community development may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or
(Br11784663.D0C;1113041.1500341 )
WSDOT — Triangle Project p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
other public improvements in a setback from a stream if he or she determines that the line or
improvement must traverse the setback area because no feasible alternative location exists based
on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the
intrusion into the setback area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the
requirements of the public,facility or utility. "Public utility and other public improvements" shall
not include improvements whose primary purpose is to benefit a private development, including
without limitation interior roads or privately owned detention facilities installed within or during
the construction of a residential subdivision, binding site plan, or other commercial
development.
11. As discussed previously, several alternatives were developed and analyzed during the
design process, prior to settling on the current proposal. The plan was selected for its
minimization of environmental impacts. The proposed roadway improvements minimize buffer
impacts to the extent possible due to the nature of this proposal. Additionally, although not
required, the applicant has proposed off -site mitigation that would provide buffer habitat to the
North Fork of West Branch Hylebos Creek.
Improvements within Regulated Wedand:
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(a):
It will not adversely affect water quality.
12. The off -site mitigation site will not adversely affect water quality, as it will create an
additional Category I wetland and enhance the existing wetland buffer. As such, water quality
should not be adversely affected.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(b):
It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat.
13. The proposal includes introduction of large woody debris, snags, native vegetation
planting, and wildlife habitat brush piles in order to improve the existing site conditions as the
site has lost plant diversity due to establishment of invasive species on most of the property. As
such, the proposal will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland, and will actually
improve the quality.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(c):
It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities.
14. The net increase in wetlands, in addition to the enhancement of existing wetlands will
provide a larger and higher functioning area to store and treat stormwater before being naturally
released downstream. As such, the proposal will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater
I BIT784663. DOC; I \ 13041.1500341 }
wSDOT -- Trialtgle ]Project p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
retention capabilities, and will actually improve those aspects.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(d):
It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards.
15. Typical erosion and sedimentation practices will provide adequate erosion control on site.
Additionally, grading activities will take place during the summer months in order to avoid
erosion. As such, the proposal will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion
hazards.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(e):
It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor
to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space.
16. Much of the surrounding area is designated open space and low density residential owned
by either the City or State. Enhancement activities on the site will improve the Hylebos Creek
watershed by increasing habitat and hydrological functions. As such, the project will not be
detrimental to any other property in the area, and is likely to improve the quality of the
surrounding property.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(f):
It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value.
17. Although .23 acres of wetlands will be permanently impacted, .32 acres of wetland will
be created, and 1.37 acres will be enhanced. Additionally, improved functions and values of the
areas include flood flow attenuation, sediment removal, toxicant and nutrient uptake, habitat for
amphibians and other aquatic invertebrates, and general fish habitats. As such, the project will
not result in a net loss of wetland area, function, or value.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(g):
The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or weUbre.
18. The project will improve safety, relieve congestion, and improve mobility for the citizens
of Federal Way. Additionally, the proposed mitigation will result in increased habitat and
hydrological functions that will ultimately improve the Hylebos Creek watershed. As such, the
proposal is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare.
( I3FP784663.DOQ 111304 t .1500341 4
WSDOT — Triangle Project p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(h):
The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry
out the project.
19. The applicant has provided wetland mitigation plans prepared by Berger/ABAM in
consultation with the Army Corp of Engineers. Additionally, the site will be monitored for a
minimum of five years with status updates provided to the City, Washington State Department of
Ecology, and Army Corp of Engineers. As such, the applicant has demonstrated sufficient
scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(4)(i):
The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project
fails to meet projected goals.
20. As discussed previously, the applicant has met the City's required five-year monitoring
plan, and has extended the term to ten years. Contingency plans have been provided for failures
associated with the hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife structures. As such, the applicant has
demonstrated commitment to monitoring the project and making corrections if they become
necessary.
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.030(5):
As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall submit a report, prepared by a
qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the following information:
(a) Mitigation plan. A mitigation plan shall include the following elements:
(i) Environmental goals and objectives.
(H) Performance standards.
(iii) Detailed construction plans.
(iv) Timing.
(v) Monitoring program for a minimum of five years.
(vi) Contingency plan.
(vii) Subject to the applicant's election of timing alternatives provided in subsection (5)(d) of
this section, a performance and maintenance bond in an amount of 120 percent of the costs
of implementing the mitigation plan or the contingency plan, whichever is greater.
(b) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to restoration, creation or
enhancement, within the same basin, of in -kind wetland type which results in no net loss of
wetland area, function or value. Where feasible, mitigation measures shall be designed to
improve the functions and values of the impacted wetland.
(B17P784663.DOC;1113041.1500W �
WSDOT — Triangle Project P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(c) Minimum acreage mitigation ratio. The following are ratios for providing restoration,
creation or enhancement of impacted wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifies the
acreage of wetland requiring restoration, creation or replacement and the second specifies the
acreage of wetlands impacted
Wetland
Category
Creation and
Restoration
Enhancement
Category 1
(all types)
6J
12:1
Category 11:
Forested
3:1
6:1
Scrub/Shrub
2:1
4:1
Emergent
2:1
4:1
Category Ill.,
Forested
2:1
4:1
Scrub/Shrub
1.5:1
3:1
Emergent
1.25:1
2.5:1
The director may permit or require the above replacement ratios to be increased or decreased
based on the following criteria:
(i) Probable success of the proposed mitigation.
(ii) Projected losses injunction or value.
(iii) Findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demonstrate
that no net loss of wetland function or value is attained under an alternative ratio.
(iv) In no case shall the minimum acreage replacement ratio be less than 1.25:1,
(d) Timing. All required wetland mitigation improvements, including monitoring, shall be
completed and accepted by the director of community development prior to beginning activities
that will disturb regulated wetlands, or the applicant shall provide the performance and
maintenance bond specified in subsection (5)(a)(vii) of this section. In either event, the applicant
may not take any action that disturbs a regulated wetland or its buffer until the director has
reviewed and approved the mitigation plan. All wetland- or buffer -disturbing activities, and all
mitigation, shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing plants and animals.
(e) Inspections. The applicant shall pay for services of a qualified prgfessional ,selected and
retained by the city to review the wetland mitigation report and other relevant information,
conduct periodic inspections, issue a written report to the director of community development
stating that the project complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and to conduct and
report to the director on the status of the monitoring program.
21. As discussed in depth and demonstrated in the analysis contained in the Staff Report for
the above criteria, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as conditioned, the applicant
(B1-1)784663.DOC;l113041.1500341)
WSDOT — Triangle Project P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
will meet the requirements of FWRC 19.175.030(5). Because offsite compensatory mitigation at
the proposed Covington site, which includes creation and enhancement of wetlands, will trigger
requirements of FWRC 19.120.020(2), condition of approval #5 set forth in the staff report, as
further clarified in Exhibit Q, will be imposed. In Exhibit P, the applicant cites to general
authority and powers granted to WSDOT concerning state highways for the proposition that it is
exempt from such conditions. (As the party claiming the exemption, it is incumbent upon
WSDOT to demonstrate that it qualifies. RCW 47.01.260 and .031 are not, however, exemptions
that are directly on point to this condition.) To grant an exemption, the Examiner needs authority
directly on point (like RCW 35.21.470, which notwithstanding the City's code requirement for
bonds, prohibits its application on state agencies). None was provided. It may have been the
intent of the state legislature to exempt WSDOT from requirements as those imposed by
condition of approval #5 when it granted the general authority and powers cited by the applicant,
but such intent is not clear on the face of the aforementioned statutes. In an administrative
proceeding, the Examiner lacks jurisdiction to make determinations of state legislative intent
from ambiguous statutes. Again, without an exemption on point, it is the Examiner's role in an
administrative proceeding such as this to consider and impose all applicable codes as they are
adopted by the local jurisdiction. Finally, RCW 36.70A.103 directs state agencies to comply
with local development regulations, and because FWRC 19.120.020(2) is an applicable local
development regulation, WSDOT must comply with it.
Improvements within Re;~ulr ted Wetland Buffer:
Federal Way Revised Code, Structures, improvements and land surface )modification
within regulated wetland buffers Decisional Criteria, 19.175.040(3):
Essential public facilities,' public utilities and other public improvements. The director of
community development may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or
other public improvements in a regulated wetland buffer if he or she determines that the line or
improvement must traverse the buffer because no feasible or alternative location exists based on
an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion
into the buffer must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of
the public facility or utility.
22. As discussed above, the location of the proposed project is vitally necessary and cannot
be relocated. In order to avoid and minimize buffer impacts, the applicant chose the current
design from i 1 total alternatives. The current option was chosen in part due to its minimized
impact to the environment. Total avoidance of wetland buffers was not possible however, due to
the existing roadway segments and constraints associated with safety as well as design
guidelines. As such, the proposal constitutes the minimum necessary buffer encroachment
possible in association with this project.
Federal Way Revised Code, Hearing Examiner Review Process 1V Decisional Criteria,
19.70.150(3)(a):
It is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(BFP784663.DOC;1113041.1500341 }
WSDOT—Triangle Project P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
23. In addition to being generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan elements NEP4,
NEG5, NEP37, NEP39, NEG7, NEP43, NEP44, NEP49, TG2, TG9, and TPI1, the project is
specifically included in the City's highest priority project on 15 on FWCP page III-38. As
conditioned, this project is consistent with these FWCP, and as such this criterion has been met.
Federal Way Revised Code, Hearing Examiner Review Process IV ,Decisional Criteria,
19.70.150(3)(b):
It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other applicable laws.
24. The instant project has been reviewed under SEPA, the FWCP, all applicable provisions
of FWRC Chapter 19, and all other applicable provision, and is consistent with all of these
provisions. The applicant has also submitted a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
form. As such, this criterion has been met.
Federal Way Revised Code, Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria,
19.70.150(3)(c):
It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
25. The project will improve safety, relieve congestion, and improve mobility for the citizens
of Federal Way. Offsite mitigation will provide additional wetlands and improved function and
value to the Hylebos Creek drainage basin. As such, this criterion has been met.
Federal Way Revised Code, Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria,
19.70.150(3)(d):
The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated
demand from the proposal.
26. The project will alleviate congestion and safety problems currently associated with SR
161, SR 18, and the 15 corridor. As such, the streets are not currently adequate to serve demand,
and the project will alleviate that, thus meeting this criteria.
Federal Way Revised Code, Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria,
19.70.150(3)(e):
The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for
access.
27. This element is not applicable, as the project is an improvement to existing State and
interstate roadways.
Federal Way Revised Code, Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria,
19.70.150(3)(0:
Traffic safety impacts , for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately
mitigated.
{ BIT784663. DOC; €113041.1500341 }
WSDOT --Triangle Project P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
28. As discussed previously, the project will reduce traffic congestion, increase vehicle and
freight mobility, and address safety issues resulting from automobile use in the corridor. As
such, this criterion has been satisfied.
1.1] xQ &1117►i
The Examiner grants the requested Process IV approvals, with the conditions set forth on pp. 16-
17 in the March 31, 2010, staff report prepared by Mr. Herrera for the WSDOT Triangle Project
09-104380-00-UP.
Dated this 28th day of April 2010.
Bio Park
Hearing Examiner pro tem
City of Federal Way
(BFP784663.DOC;1113041.1500341)
WSDOT — Triangle Project p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision