94-100506CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT TO THE
FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER
"VISITATION RETREAT CENTER"
(Unofficial Name) �p
�r
PROPOSED CITY PARK
REQUIRED APPLICATI0
USE PROCESS III, SEPA, SITE AN REVIE
Federal Way File Numbers: UPR94-0002, SEP94=0015, SPR94-0003
PUBLIC HEARING:
JANUARY 10, 1995
7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEDERAL WAY CITY HALL
33530 1ST WAY SOUTH
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON
(206-661-4118)
Report Prepared by:
Lori Michaelson Schill, Associate Planner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION .................. ...............................................
I
II.
GENERAL INFORMATION.................................................................................
1
III.
BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................4
IV.
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE ............................
4
V.
AGENCIES CONTACTED BY FEDERAL WAY.................................................5
VI.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Topography.................................................................................................
5
2. Soils.............................................................................................................5
3. Hydrography................................................................................................6
4. Vegetation...................................................................................................6
5. Wildlife/Invertebrates/Fish.........................................................................
7
6. Sensitive Areas........................................................................................
7
VII.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS............................................................8
VIII.
TRANSPORTATION.............................................................................................8
IX.
RECREATION........................................................................................................9
X.
EMERGENCY SERVICES AND UTILITIES.......................................................
9
XI.
CHANGE IN USE ANALYSIS...............................................................................9
XII.
STATUTES, CODES AND POLICIES
1. Federal Way City Code.............................................................................
10
2. Comprehensive Plan..................................................................................10
3. Site Plan Review......................................................................................
12
4. Process III Decisional Criteria.................................................................
12
5. Shoreline Management Act (SMA)...........................................................13
XIII.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................
13
XIV.
RECOMMENDATION.........................................................................................15
LIST OF EXHIBITS..............................................................................................16
II.
II.
EXHIBITS
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
See Exhibits A through G for master site plan, existing site conditions, aerial photo, vicinity map,
building floor plan, Process III application, and amendments to the application. The proposal is to
convert the existing building and grounds to a public park and community recreation facility for
recreational activities, cultural and arts programs and classes; and facility rental for private events
such as meetings, conferences, retreats, weddings and receptions, with associated lodging. Some
city offices are also planned. All uses of the facility and grounds will be managed by the City
Parks Department.
Phased Improvements.
See Exhibits A & F for site plan and narrative descriptions of proposed improvements. Site
improvements are scheduled in two phases. Phase I includes:
■ Addition of 18 parking stalls to the existing 42, for a total of 60 parking stalls,
with associated striping, lighting, and landscaping;
■ Retrofit of drainage facilities to meet water quality standards;
■ Improvements to the building and grounds to meet requirements for handicapped
accessibility; and
■ Minor structural improvements to the existing stairway to beach.
Phase II includes:
■ Addition of approximately 44 parking stalls to the existing 60 (after Phase I), for a
final total of 104 parking stalls; and
■ Drainage facilities associated with new parking area.
Timing for phased im rovements. -
Building permits for Phase I will be submitted following Process III approval. Phase II
improvements are slated for construction within one to three years following Phase I. (Note:
Reference herein to "the proposal" or "the project" means both phases of the project, unless
otherwise indicated.)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location: 3200 Southwest Dash Point Road,
Federal Way, Washington 98023
Legal Description: Government Lot 1, Section 12, T. 21 N., R. 3 E.
(for detailed legal description see Exhibit F)
Owner/Applicant: City of Federal Way
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Acreage: 12.02 acres
GENERAL INFORMATION (cont'd)
Zoning: RS-15 (Single Family Residential, lot size 15,000 SF)
Comp. Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Site Description: The central portion of the site contains the existing building,
parking area, landscaping and pedestrian areas. These areas are
fairly level, with a gradual slope downward to the northwest
toward Dumas Bay, and northeast toward Lakota Creek. Slopes
along the shoreline are the steepest on the site. Undeveloped
areas along property perimeters are heavily wooded with mature
coniferous and deciduous trees and understory vegetation.
Developed portions of the site contain parking, paved pedestrian
pathways with stairway access to the beach, gazebo, formal
gardens, hedges, and mature ornamental landscaping. An
existing rock seawall is located at the bottom of the trail to the
beach. Street access to the site is via a one-way circular drive
with two points of connection at State Route 509 (SW Dash Point
Road). Existing paved parking serves approximately 42 cars.
Overflow parking previously has been provided on grassed areas.
(See Exhibits B, C)
Facility description: The existing building contains a lobby, auditorium, banquet and
conference rooms, full-sized commercial kitchen, offices, guest
rooms and bathrooms.
Floor area (Exhibit E): Basement 5,186 square feet
Main floor 30,482 " "
2nd floor 11,550 " "
Total: 47,218 " "
Proposed space allocation: Retreat Area - 34,628 SF
Overnight accommodations, dining and meeting space on main
and second floor, including bathrooms, closets and hallways.
Daily use and/or overnight accommodations for retreat groups,
business conferences, meetings, etc.
Lobby/0ftce - 1,706 SF
Office space for contracted personnel, e.g., maintenance,
operations, food services; city offices. Estimated 6-10 contracted
personnel and staff on premises at any given time. Estimated 0-4
people will occasionally visit this area.
II. GENERAL INFORMATION (cont'd)
Auditorium - 3,750 SF
Weddings, conferences, art displays, meetings, performances,
receptions, small concerts, rehearsals, seminars, etc.
Kitchen Area - 1,948 SF
Food and catering services in support of other activities occurring
at the facility, e.g., banquets and wedding receptions.
Basement - 5,186 SF
Classrooms, e.g. arts and crafts, dance, language, preschool,
music, aerobics, displays, workshops, lectures, gallery and
museum space.
Proposed use of grounds: Walking, viewing, sitting, outdoor receptions, tent events,
forums/recitals, small scale concerts, environmental education,
garden shows, formal gardens, nature conservatory,
parking/pedestrian circulation.
Land Use:
Direction Zoning Comp. Plan Existing Land Use
North
Puget Sound
N/A
N/A
South
RS-15
Low Density Res.
Lakehaven Utility plant
East
RS-15
Low Density Res.
Single Fam. Residential
West
RS-16
Low Density Res.
Single Fam. Residential
Former Use of Site: "Sisters of the Visitation" religious retreat facility
Current Use of Site: Activities and events determined to be consistent with former
uses of the site, e.g., retreats, conferences, receptions, small-scale
arts events, music recitals, etc.
Shoreline Designation: Rural
Parking requirements: See VIII. Transportation
Sewage Disposal: Lakehaven Utility District
Water Supply: City of Tacoma
Fire District: King County/Federal Way Fire District No. 39
Required permits: Process III, site plan approval
Building permits for each project phase
III. BACKGROUND
The Visitation Retreat Center has been owned and operated as a monastery by the Catholic Church since
1956. In 1993 the site was purchased by the City of Federal Way for a future public park. The proposed
park constitutes a change in land use of the site. Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC), public
parks in residential zones require Process III approval. Therefore, prior to required approval, interim
activities on the site have been consistent with previous uses; specifically, conferences, retreats, meetings,
banquets, arts and cultural events, etc. See Exhibit H for list of interim uses.
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA, RCW 43.21 C), the responsible official of the City
3
of Federal Way issued a Mitigated Environmental Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) for the
proposal- on October 25, 1994 (Exhibit I). The determination was based on review of the application and
supporting documents, site visits, review of the completed environmental checklist (Exhibits F, G) and
supplemental reports including the 'Environmental Analysis of the Visitation Retreat Shoreline on Dumas
Bay, Washington', by Beak Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit J); 'Traffic Impact Analysis for Visitation Retreat
Center', by Transportation Consulting, Inc. (Exhibit K); and the 'Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental
Checklist SEP94-0005' (Exhibit L); resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not result in
probable significant adverse impacts on the environment provided that the applicant complies with the
SEPA conditions. Affected agencies, tribes, and the public were offered the opportunity to comment on or
appeal the determination for 29 days. On the basis of significant new information and comments
submitted prior to the 15-day comment deadline (Exhibit M) a modified MDNS was issued on November
17, 1994, incorporating a condition to limit access to the beach to previous levels of use until completion
of baseline studies of heron. Following issuance of the modified MDNS the SEPA official determined that
further clarification of the shoreline use conditions was required to ensure no major discrepancies between
the numbers of users as projected by the proposal (30 on a daily average) and the number of users as
recommended by the Beak report (30 per day total), noted in a letter from Linda Ellingson (Exhibit N).
Clarification of the issue was obtained in a letter from Beak Consultants dated December 13, 1994 (Exhibit
O), on which basis a final modified MDNS was issued on November 30, 1994 (Exhibit P). No appeal of
the final MDNS was submitted to the City by the appeal deadline of December 14, 1994.
Following is a summary of project mitigation measures:
1) Surface water management: Surface water facilities on site shall be designed in
accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the
Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Drainage Basin Plan.
2) Public safety and security, environmental protection: Prior to project implementation, the
applicant shall establish on -site signage sufficient to (a) establish park policy for passive
recreational use of the site; (b) promote public awareness and stewardship of the sensitive
shoreline environment;
IV. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (cont'd)
2) (cont'd)
(c) establish shoreline use regulations for protection of the shoreline environment and
public safety; and (d) establish a management plan for on -site supervision and security.
3) Shoreline monitoring program: Identified critical shoreline plant and animal species shall
be montitored for a period of not less than two years or more than five years, in order to
establish baseline data and conduct periodic monitoring to determine if (a) any
unanticipated adverse environmental impact occurs and develop corresponding mitigation
measures as necessary; or (b) modifications to shoreline use regulations may be modified
on the basis of the data. Access to the shoreline will be limited to previous use of 15
persons per day during the baseline period of February 1, 1995, to July 1, 1995
approximately; and will be limited to approximately 30 persons per day following the
baseline study period, which limit is subject to modification based on the monitoring
program.
V. AGENCIES CONTACTED BY FEDERAL WAY
4
The proposal was reviewed by the following city departments and agencies, whose requirements were
incorporated into recommendations for approval.
■ Federal Way Department of Community Department Services
■ Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department
■ Federal Way Public Works Department
■ Federal Way Building Division
■ King County Sheriffs Office, Federal Way Precinct
■ King County Fire District #39
■ Lakehaven Utility District (formerly Federal Way Water and Sewer District)
VI. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Toppographv: The majority of the site where the existing building, parking and improvements are
located, is fairly level, with a gradual slope to the northeast toward Lakota Creek. The
northwestern edge of the site slopes down approximately 50 feet to Dumas Bay. The majority of
the slopes along the shoreline range from approximately 50 to 75 percent. The steepest slopes on
the site occur adjacent to Dumas Bay to the northwest of the building and rear grounds. In this
area an eight -foot wide strip along the lower section of the bluff contains slopes up to 250 percent.
On the steeper slopes some erosion has occurred from natural causes, i.e. wind, rain, splash, frost
action, and stream flow. An existing seawall at the base of the bluff serves to moderate tidal action
against the sensitive slopes.
VI. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (cont'd)
2. Soils: Site soils consist primarily of "InC", Indianola loamy fine sad soils, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation maps. The Indianola series is made up of somewhat
excessively drained soils that formed under conifers in sandy, recessional, stratified glacial drift.
Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow to medium and erosion hazard is slight to moderate. Indianola
soils are suitable for development. A small portion of the northeastern edge of the site, adjacent to
Lakota Creek contains "AkF", Alderwood and Kitsap soils, typically found on very steep slopes,
and characterizing rapid runoff and severe erosion. Soils/sands along the Dumas Bay waterfront
are identified as "Cb", Coastal beaches in the SCS map. No indications of unstable soils exist in
the upper, flatter portion of the site.
Earthwork as proposed for Phase I will be minimal, including minor excavation/scraping of the
organic layer, and excavation for construction of the biofiltration swale. Phase I site improvements
as proposed will require approximately 150 to 200 cubic yards of earthwork. Phase II could
require up to approximately 500 additional cubic yards of earthwork for construction of the new
parking area, biofiltration swale, and infiltration pond, if infiltration is feasible given site soil
conditions.
Any erosion -related impacts during clearing and construction activities associated with each phase
of the project will be required to be performed in accordance with a Temporary
Erosion/Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Federal
Way as part of building permit approval. Measures to control erosion could include siltation
fencing, catch basin inlet protection, sediment traps, interceptor ditches with checkdams, stabilized
construction entrances, and other measures as necessary.
H dro�g_� yra �h : The site has approximately 600 feet of frontage on Dumas Bay/Puget Sound, and
lies between two creeks that flow to Puget Sound: Lakota Creek on the northeast portion of the
site, and Joe's Creek to the southwest. Both creeks been identified to contain salmonids (coho
salmon and possibly chum salmon), and to meet the FWCC definition of a major stream. The
northeastern portions of the site naturally drain to Lakota Creek and then to Puget Sound. The
creek channel is fairly deep and upland areas are well-defined from the creek -related riparian
zones. No stream -associated wetlands have been identified. The beach is influenced by fresh
water runoff from Lakota Creek on the north and to a lesser extent from Joe's Creek on the south.
Significant freshwater seepage is evident along the base of the embankment, which extends out in
broad sheets and ribbons across the tideflats.
4. Vegetation: The upper portion of the site is heavily vegetated and landscaped with evergreen and
deciduous trees, native wild shrubs and ground cover, and mature ornamental shrubs and hedges.
Many of the existing trees meet the zoning code definition of "significant." Shoreline plants are
identified by the Beak report (Exhibit I) to include marine grasses, algae and eelgrass. Phase I
improvements will require minor disturbance to vegetation in the vicinity of the existing parking
area for
VI. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (cont'd)
4. Ve etg ation (cont'd) additional parking stalls and biofiltration swale. Phase II parking expansion
and storm drainage improvements will require removal of some significant trees and vegetation.
An approved final landscape plan will be required as part of building permit review. Any
proposed disturbances to identified significant trees will be regulated by zoning code requirements
for retention and/or replacement of significant trees. No disturbance to marine vegetation is
anticipated.
5. Wildlife/Invertebrates/fish: The Beak report (Exhibit J) is a qualitative inventory of wildlife
associated with Dumas Bay. Animals listed in the report include hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds,
shorebirds, waterfowl, gulls, herons, and the California sea lion. The report also identifies a
variety of shoreline fauna including geoduck, clam varieties, coho salmon, sea cucumbers,
mussles, barnacles and sand dollar beds.
6. Sensitive Areas: In accordance with FWCC Article II Environmental Policy, the shoreline meets
the definition of'Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area': "the management of land for
maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated
subpopulations are not created" (FWCC Sec. 18-28); as determined Susan Meyer, Wetland
Ecologist (Exhibit Q). Shoreline plant and animal species of primary concern and their associated
ratings are identified by the Beak report (Exhibit J) as follows:
Specie s Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife MFW) Rating
Eeelgrass beds Priority Habitat
Coho Salmon High Concern
Great Blue Heron State Monitored
Eagle Threatened
6
The Beak report recommendations to control impacts to these species are incorporated in the
MDNS conditions of project approval, and no further mitigations to the shoreline are required.
Steep bluffs along the shoreline containing slopes of 40 percent or greater are defined by the
Federal Way City Code Environmental Policy as Geologically Hazardous Areas, subject to
applicable regulations including FWZC Article XIV Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Geologically Hazardous Areas also include areas which because of their susceptibility to erosion,
land -sliding, seismic or other geological events are not suited to siting commercial, residential or
industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. Some areas of the site
adjacent to Lakota Creek and Dumas Bay are likely to meet this definition (see 'Soils' above).
No intrusion into major streams is anticipated, unless no reasonable design alternative exists but to
discharge Phase I stormwater to Lakota Creek. Such proposed intrusions would be subject to
administrative review under FWCC Sec. 22-1312 as part of design review, and other permits as
applicable.
VI. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (cont'd)
6. Sensitive Areas (cont'd)
Engineering review for stormwater design will determine if intrusions into geologically hazardous
areas adjacent to Dumas Bay are necessary for stormwater piping. Specifically, if on -site soils are
unsuitable for stormwater infiltration, stormwater could be conveyed and discharged to Dumas
Bay. For both phases of the project, the preferred method of stormwater design is infiltration. A
second option is biofiltration, conveyance and discharge to Dumas Bay; and a third option is
biofiltration, conveyance and discharge to Lakota Creek. Final stormwater design will be
regulated by FWCC Article XIV Environmentally Sensitive Areas, King County Surface Water
Design Manual, erosion control measures discussed in 'Soils', above, and state and federal permits
if applicable. ' Proposed intrusions into senstive areas would be permitted only if necessary for
stormwater piping and must be designed to achieve the least possible disturbance to sensitive
areas.
VII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The property is located in the northwestern portion of the City on the Puget Sound/Dumas Bay shoreline,
in a predominantly low density single family neighborhood. Adjacent land uses are outlined in II. General
Information, above.
VIII. TRANSPORTATION:
The traffic impact analysis prepared for the project (Exhibit K) was reviewed by the city's traffic analyst
and determined that no traffic mitigation is required for the project.
Access to the site is from State Route 509 (SW Dash Point Road), classified as a minor arterial by the City
Arterial Street Plan. The existing driveway is a.circular, one-way configuration with two connection points
at SR 509. No change to connection points or driveway configuration is proposed with either phase of the
proposal, as recommended by the City's traffic analyst. For safety purposes the driveway entrance and exit
will be required to be posted "entrance only" and "exit only."
Comments from the State of Washington Department of Transportation are included as Exhibit R. A
memorandum from the city's traffic division in response to these comments is included as Exhibit S.
Phase I does not trigger improvements to SW Dash Point Road, since the value of the proposed
improvements does not exceed 25% of the value of the existing improvements (per FWCC Sec. 22-1473).
Phase II is not expected to exceed the threshold. However, Phase II will be reviewed during building
review for any requirements under this section.
Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-645 and 22-1378 et seq, the Director of Community Development Services
shall determine parking requirements based on actual parking demand on existing uses similar to the
proposed use. A parking ratio of 4:1 was approved by the director based on a review of the following
information:
VIII. TRANSPORTATION (cont'd)
(1) the applicant's parking demand analysis (Exhibit F page 16); (2) ratio of 4:1 for auditoriums, theatres,
public assemblies, established by the Transportation Planning Handbook, Institute of Transporation
Engineers (ITE); (3) FWCC code requirements for parking hotels, lodges, and churches; and (4) existing
similar uses and parking.
To ensure the appropriate parking ratio the applicant will be required to schedule events so' that the number
of attendees will be consistent with the amount of available parking, and including any alternate methods
of transportation as necessary. This requirement is incorporated as a condition of project approval as
recommended.
IX. RECREATION:
The project will establish the 12-acre site as a public park and community facility, with primary activities
being a variety of recreational and community service activities. According to the Federal Way
Comprehensive Park Plan, the Federal Way planning area is deficient in providing recreational and cultural
arts opportunities for community residents. The subject proposal will help meet these needs, and will also
provide public access to a unique shoreline with excellent potential for environmental and outdoor
education. The application states the Parks and Recreation Department's intent to preserve the existing
character of the facility and grounds for open space resource to the community, implemented by
maintaining the immaculate condition of the grounds and conducting passive recreation uses (see Exhibit
H, List of Proposed Uses).
X. EMERGENCY SERVICES AND UTILITIES:
If increased demand is made for police and emergency services as a result of the project, it will be
adequately addressed by existing levels of service, according to comments from Major Robert Evans, Chief
of Police (Exhibit T). A security plan as recommended for the site by Major Evans has been incorporated
as a condition of approval in the SEPA decision. Fire access to the site is determined adequate by the fire
district (Exhibit U) provided fire lanes are designated and hydrants unobstructed.
Water to the facility is provided by the City of Tacoma. Lakehaven Utility District sewers currently exist
through a pump station located on the grounds. As a standard requirement the district will require an
Industrial User Survey to determine any pretreatment requirements associated with expanded cooking
activities.
X1. CHANGE IN USE ANALYSIS:
A complete analysis of the proposed change in land use is contained in the final staff evaluation for the
environmental checklist (Exhibit L pages 7-11.), which concludes that the proposal will create no
significant adverse impacts provided the mitigation measures required in the environmental decision are
met.
XI. CHANGE IN USE ANALYSIS (cont'd)
Public opinion concerning appropriate uses of the site was solicited and incorporated into the final
proposal (see Exhibit F Appendix D. Also, maximum number of users as projected for the project (400
after Phase II) is well below the maximum occupant load (968) for the entire facility. Parking for the
facility will be appropriate provided conditions of project approval are met.
Improvements as required under the Uniform Building and Fire Codes (see Exhibits U,V), WAC 51-20
Chapter 31 Accessibility, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), will ensure consistency of the
project with public safety requirements.
XII. STATUTES, CODES AND POLICIES:
1. Federal Way City Code (FWCC): The proposal represents a change in land use of the site.
Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-1, Definitions, the proposal has a primary land use classification of
Public Park and secondary classification of Government Facility. Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-333,
Nonconforming procedure, paragraphs (3) and (4), and Use Zone Charts FWCC Sec. 22-645 and
646, the proposal is subject to the appropriate review process, i.e. Process III. Review of the
proposal using the applicable zoning charts determined that the land use and physical
improvements associated with the proposal are consistent with the regulations. Consistency of the
project with Process III decisional criteria is addressed in 3., below.
Pursuant to FWCC Article IV, Nonconformance, an analysis of existing and proposed
improvements identified two nonconformances requiring immediate conformance: Sec. 22-333
(3),(4), procedure, was discussed in the previous paragraph. Sec. 22-330(6), water quality
standards in sec. 22-1996 et seq, is addressed in a condition of the MDNS requiring existing and
proposed drainage systems to meet current standards for water quality in accordance with the King
County Surface Water Design Manual and the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan.
Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-495, the applicant must begin construction or submit to the City
complete building permits for both phases of construction within one year after the final process III
decision, except that a one-year extension may be requested per Sec. 22-496, or the decision
becomes void and the application subject to the required approval process under the zoning code.
2. Federal Way Comprehensive Plan: Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-487 and Sec. 22-490(d), the
Hearing Examiner may recommend approval of the Process III application only if the proposal is
consistent with the Low Density Residential land use classification for the site, defined (in part) by
the 1990 Comprehensive Plan as "a residential environment with substantial open space and larger
lots, particularly in moderately sensitive natural areas" (FWCP page 19). The following responses
determine consistency of the project with applicable goals and policies of the comprehensive plan:
WO
XII. STATUTES, CODES AND POLICIES (cont'd)
2. Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (cont'd)
OPEN SPACE:
■ Goal:
"Open spaces should be identified and preserved to maintain the natural beauty of the community
and to provide views, protection of sensitive areas, recreation and other benefits". (FWCP page
17, Open Space Policies)
Response: The site is comprised of large areas of open space, immaculate landscaping, and a
dense perimeter buffer of mature trees and vegetation. The viewing platform at the top of the bluff
overlooks a panoramic view of Puget Sound. A key feature of the proposal is to minimize
disturbance of the grounds to the least amount necessary to accomplish safe and appropriate levels
of public access. Identified sensitive areas associated with the Dumas Bay shoreline will be
protected by the mitigation measures applied to the project in the environmental determination.
■ Policy OS-3:
"Give equal priority to passive or aesthetic open space uses as well as more traditional recreation
uses."
Response:
The project will enhance existing amenities for passive recreation use, such as paved pedestrian
walkways for strolling the upper grounds and enjoying the viewing area. Preservation of passive
recreation activities is consistent with parks department policy for the site and is incorporated into
the environmental decision.
■ Goal:
"Natural systems and natural features recognized for their sensitivity to urban development
should be protected as open space when development occurs. " (FWCP page 17, Open Space
Policies)
Response:
The project incorporates a number of measures to ensure conservation of natural features. SEPA
measures will further protect natural systems and open space. Phase I of the project proposes no
intrusion into identified sensitive areas. Phase II stormwater conveyance design may require
minimal intrusion into slopes or the stream. Any such intrusions will be subject to applicable
regulations.
■ Policy OS-11:
"Reduce impacts on unique and fragile open spaces by limitingpublic access."
Response:
Public access to the upper grounds will be limited only as required by the parks department
management, consistent with conditions of project approval. However, limits are applied to access
to the shoreline in the SEPA mitigation measures, for protection of environmentally sensitive
species and habitats. SEPA measures also include the ability to modify limitations over time based
on monitoring data. Modifications could include an increase or a decrease in access regulations.
XII. STATUTES, CODES AND POLICIES (cont'd)
2. Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (cont'd)
10
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: The following natural environment policies were incorporated into the
MDNS (Exhibit R) as conclusions of law:
■ Establish a surface water management program to manage stormwater runoff and prevent water
pollution (Policy NE-16).
■ Establish regulatory measures to prevent flooding (Policy NE-17).
■ Adopt special regulations limiting or preventing development within the most sensitive areas and
require completion of special studies by qualified professionals when necessary prior to issuance
of permits (Policy NE-2).
■ Limit public access to habitat protection zones and sensitive wetland areas (NE-7).
■ Require environmental impact assesssment and mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive areas
before development is permitted (Policy NE-9).
Site Plan Review: Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-366, site plan approval is granted for the project,
based on administrative findings for Site Plan Approval (Exhibit W).
4. Analysis of Process III Decisional Criteria: Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-487 and Sec. 22-490(d),
the Hearing Examiner may recommend approval of the Process III proposal only if the following
decisional criteria are met.
a. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The project is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, as
demonstrated in XII.1., above.
b. The project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Federal Way City Code,
including those adopted by reference from the comp plan.
Response: The proposal is required to comply with applicable provisions of the Federal
Way City Code, including Chapter 18 Environmental Protection; Article XIV
Environmentally Sensitive Areas; Article V Site Plan Review; Process III decisional
criteria; King County Surface Water Design Manual, all Uniform Building and Fire
Codes, and specified portions of the King County Shoreline Management Progam. The
proposal was evaluated relative to applicable codes and regulations by the City's
Development Review Committee. If the project meets SEPA mitigation measures as
required and conditions of approval as recommended, it will be consistent with all
applicable provisions of the Federal Way City Code.
C. The project is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
Response: The�project as proposed will be consistent with the public health, safety, and
welfare, by meeting regulations of FWCC, FW Comprehensive Plan, SEPA measures, and
other applicable codes and regulations.
XII. STATUTES, CODES AND POLICIES (cont'd)
5. Shoreline Management Act (SMA): Review of the proposed improvements determined that Phase
I is exempt from a substantial development permit under WAC 173-14-040(1)(a),(b), SMA, which
exemption will be issued with the Phase I building permit. At the time of building permitting for
I
Phase II, proposed improvements will be reviewed under the SMA for required permit or
exemption as appropriate based on the storm drainage system and any other physical
improvements associated with the shoreline. Consistency of the proposal with applicable elements
and policies of the King County Shoreline Management Program as adopted by the City of Federal
Way is described in the final staff evaluation for environmental checklist (Exhibit N).
XIII. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
Based on analysis of the proposed action, the environmental record and related decisional criteria, the
Department of Community Development Services finds that:
l . The proposal will change the land use of the 12 acre site and existing 47,000 square foot facility,
with associated parking and landscaping, from previous use as a religious monastery to a
community park and government facility.
2. The site is located in a single family residential zone. Pursuant to Federal Way City Code
(FWCC), public parks and recreation facilities are permitted in these zones subject to FWCC
Article VIII Process III approval and all other applicable codes, statutes and policies.
3. The proposal includes two phases of physical site improvements. Phase I improvements are
scheduled immediately following project approval and include facility and site upgrades to meet
current fire and building codes, security lighting, pedestrian amenities, storm drainage retrofit, 18
additional parking stalls and associated landscaping. Phase II is tentatively scheduled from one to
three years following Phase I approval and will include addition of 44 parking stalls with
associated storm drainage and landscaping. Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-366, site plan approval for
the project is incorporated in the Process III application.
4. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) applies to the project.
a. A final Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued
in for the project on November 30, 1994. No appeal of this decision was submitted to the
City by the deadline of December 24, 1994.
b. Mitigation measures established in the MDNS will apply to the project as conditions of
approval.
C. Findings of fact established in the MDNS are hereby incorporated into these findings as if
set forth in full.
d. The MDNS will be adopted and applied to Phase II at time of application, or the City will
conduct a new environmental review if substantial changes are made to the Phase II
proposal.
5. The Dumas Bay shoreline is identified as a'fish and wildlife habitat conservation area' pursuant to
FWCC Chapter 18 Environmental Protection. Environmentally sensitive species associated with
the shoreline are identified to include herons, eelgrass beds, eagle, and Coho salmon. Mitigation
measures established in the MDNS will preclude potential adverse impacts to these species.
12
6. The site contains steep slopes identified as 'geologically hazardous Areas' pursuant to FWCC
Division 4, and a stream defined as a'major stream' pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-1. Any proposed
disturbance to these sensitive areas or associated setbacks under the proposal will be subject to the
requirements of FWCC Article XIV Environmentally Sensitive Areas and state and federal permits
as applicable.
7. Analysis of the proposed change in land use has determined that the proposal is consistent with the
Federal Way City Code, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, and Process III decisional criteria,
provided the project complies with all conditions of approval as recommended.
8. The project has been reviewed by city staff and other agencies and determined to be consistent
with decisional criteria pursuant to FWCC Article V Site Plan Review, provided all recommended
conditions of approval are met.
9. Building permits associated with the project will be subject to all applicable codes, statutes and
policies. It is the applicant's responsibility to secure any state and federal approvals, e.g, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, or a substantial development permit under the Shoreline
Management Act, that may be required at that time.
10. Water and sewer facilities are established on the site and adequate to meet the proposed
development. It is the applicant's responsibility to complete any required user surveys and/or
utility system requirements by respective providers.
11. Design and construction of surface water facilities for the project will meet the requirements of the
King County Surface Water Design Manual and Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin
Plan.
12. Development of the site in accordance with applicable codes, regulations and conditions of
approval will ensure that the proposal does not endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
XIV. RECOMMENDATION:
Upon review of this application, the environmental decision and pertinent decisional criteria, the
Department of Community Development Services recommends APPROVAL of the Process III
application as proposed, subject to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 17-78(c), mitigation measures incorporated in the Mitigation
Determination of Nonsignificance issued November 30, 1994 are incorporated by reference as
conditions of this approval. Failure to comply with the mitigation measures shall be grounds for
suspension and/or revocation of this approval.
2. The applicant is required to maintain the required parking ratio of four persons to one parking stall
(4:1) in scheduling events, and is responsible to provide alternate methods of transportation as
necessary.
13
EXHIBITS TO STAFF REPORT
A 11" X 17" reduced preliminary master site plan
B 11" x 17" reduced existing conditions map
C 11" x 17" reduced aerial photograph
D Vicinity Map
E Building floor plan
F Process III and site plan review application dated March 16, 1994
G Amended SEPA checklist and addendum to downstream analysis
dated May 5, 1994
H List of Interim and Proposed Uses (from Exhibit G)
I MDNS issued October 25, 1994
J Environmental Analysis of the Visitation Retreat Center Shoreline on Dumas Bay,
Washington, by Beak Consultants, Inc., dated August 18, 1994, finaled October 4, 1994
K Traffic Impact Analysis for Visitation Retreat Center, by T. Miller,
submitted May 20, 1994
L Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP#94-0005
M Public Comments on SEPA
N Letter from Linda Ellingson, adjacent neighbor, dated November 23, 1994
O Letter from Beak Consultants dated December 13, 1994
P Final modified MDNS issued November 30, 1994
Q Letter from Susan Meyer, Wetland Ecologist, W & H Pacific, dated June 6, 1994
R Comments from Washington State Department of Transportation
S Memorandum from city traffic division
T Letter from Major Robert Evans, Chief of Police, dated April 14, 1994
U Comments from Chris A. Ingham, Fire Marshal's Office
V Memorandum from Memorandum from K.C. Ellis, Plans Examiner, dated October 14,
1993
W Findings for Site Plan Approval
L4
FINDINGS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Application No. SPR94-0003
Following are findings for recommending site plan approval of a proposed public park at the site known as the
Visitation Retreat Center, 3200 Southwest Dash Point Road, in the City of Federal Way.
1. The proposal will change the land use of the 12.02 acre site and existing 47,000 square foot facility,
with associated parking and landscaping, from previous use as a religious monastery to a community
park and government facility.
2. The site is currently zoned RS-15 (Single Family Residential, 15,000 SF minimum lot size). Public
parks and government facilities are permitted in this zone subject to Process III approval. Pursuant to
FWCC Sec. 22-366, site plan approval for the project is incorporated into the required Process III
application.
3. The site has a comprehensive plan designation of Low Density Residential.
4. Site improvements will be completed in two phases. Phase I improvements are scheduled upon
project approval. Phase I improvements include facility and site upgrades to meet current fire and
building codes, security lighting, pedestrian amenities, storm drainage retrofit, 18 additional parking
stalls and associated landscaping. Phase II is scheduled from one to three years following project
approval, and will include the addition of 44 parking stalls, associated storm drainage and
landscaping.
5. A Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the project on
November 30, 1994. No appeal of this decision was submitted to the City. Mitigation measures
established in the MDNS become conditions of project approval.
6. The site includes 600 feet of shoreline on Dumas Bay. The shoreline is identified as a'fish and
wildlife habitat conservation area' pursuant to FWCC Chapter 18 Environmental Protection.
Environmentally sensitive species associated with the shoreline are identified in a report by Beak
Consultants, Inc., to include herons, eelgrass beds, eagle, and Coho salmon. Mitigation measures
established in the MDNS will preclude potential adverse impacts to these identified species.
7. Phase I of the project has been determined to be exempt from a substantial development permit under
the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), which exemption will be issued as part of the building permit.
Phase II will be subject to a permit or exemption under the SMA at the time of building permit
application.
8. The site contains steep slopes defined as 'geologically hazardous Areas' pursuant to FWCC Division 4,
and a stream defined as a'major stream' pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-1. No disturbance to these areas is
proposed with Phase I. Phase II may require intrusions into slopes or streams, depending on the
design of the storm drainage system. Any Phase II disturbances to sensitive areas or setbacks will be
subject to the requirements of FWCC Article XIV Environmentally Sensitive Areas and applicable
state and federal permits.
9. Proposed improvements are consistent with the existing structure and site amenities and will not
conflict with adjacent residential uses in the immediate area.
10_ The proposal incorporates existing landscaping to the maximum extent possible, and will be required
to retain or replace significant trees consistent with code requirements.
i5
11. The proposed parking plan is consistent with existing parking and zoning regulations. The parking
analysis contained in the Process III application and the traffic report completed for the project by
Transportation Consulting Group, Inc., has been reviewed and determined appropriate by the Director
of Community Development Services.
12. Design and construction of surface water facilities for the project will meet the requirements of the
adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual and the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound
Basin Plan.
13. Water and sewer facilities are established on the site and adequate to meet the proposed development.
The applicant is responsible to complete any required user surveys and/or utility system requirements
by respective providers.
14. An approved final landscape plan for the project will be required as part of building permit review.
Conclusion: The proposed site plan and application have been reviewed for compliance with the Federal Way
City Code, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 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.
Approved:
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Director, Community Development Services
Prepared by: Lori Michaelson Schill, Associate Planner
Date: December 15, 1994
LG
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
#SEP94-0005: "VISITATION RETREAT CENTER" (Unofficial Name)
(Related File No's. UPR94-0002 AND SPR 94-0003)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................ . ........ 2
II. GENERAL INFORMATION........................................2
III. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................... . ................... 4
IV. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND..........................................4
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS:
1. Earth ..................................
4
2. Air ..................
5
3. Surface and Ground Water .............................
5
4. Plants .........................
7
5. Animals
7
6. Energy and Natural Resources ...........................
7
7. Environmental Health ... . .............................
7
8. Land and Shoreline ........... ......................
. . 7
9. Housing .................. .........
11
10. Aesthestics ..............................
12
11. Light and Glare ....................................
12
12. Recreation ................... .....................
12
13. Historical and Cultural Preservation .....................
12
14. Transportation ...............................
. ..... 12
15. Public Services ........ . ...........................
12
16. Utilities ..........................................
12
C. CONCLUSION ........................
12
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A SEPA Checklist (amended May 9, 1994; includes addendum to Level I
Downstream Analysis
Exhibit B Vicinity Map
Exhibit C Preliminary master site plan (May 20, 1994)
Exhibit D Description of proposed project phasing and related site improvements (from
Process III application, pages 14-17)
L SUMMARY ❑F PROPOSED ACTION
The proposal will convert the existing building and grounds from the former use as a
religious monastery, to a public park/government facility operated by the City of
Federal Way (see Exhibit C). The subject grounds comprise 12 acres, the majority
of which has been undisturbed or improved with pedestrian amenities. The existing
building contains 47,214 square feet of floor area. City of Federal Way zoning and
land use permits required for the project include site plan approval, Process III
approval, and environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
Exhibit D "Description of proposed project phasing and related site improvements"
describes proposed uses and physical improvements associated with the two
phases of the project. Phase I will convert the site to a public park and government
facility, and will include activities such as community -sponsored events, arts and
recreation programs and classes, private facility rental, and some city offices.
Phase II proposes no additional activities beyond the scope of Phase I. However, an
increase in numbers of users is anticipated after Phase II expansion of parking
facilities.
Phase I physical improvements will include minor alterations to the existing facility
in order to meet current requirements under building, fire and zoning codes, federal
requirements for handicapped access, and upgrades for public safety and security,
e.g., increased site lighting and pedestrian amenities. Specific improvements
include repair and/or upgrade of pedestrian and vehicle facilities such as walkways,
stairs, and parking lot, and retrofit of the existing storm drainage facilities for
current water quality standards. Phase I also includes the addition of approximately
18 parking stalls and related landscaping. (see Exhibits C,D).
Phase II timing depends on availability of funding. Phase II is tentatively slated
within 1 to 3 years following Phase I. Phase II proposes the addition of 44 parking
stalls to the south and west of the existing parking facility, with associated drainage
and landscaping (see Exhibits C,D). All site work associated with Phase II
improvements is subject to site plan review and other required permits at that time.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Name
Applicant/Owner:
Contact:
Visitation Retreat Center (Unofficial Name)
City of Federal Way
Parks and Recreation Department
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 9800
Jennifer Schroder
Director, Parks and Recreation
2
Telephone: (206) 661-4041
(206) 661-4040
GENERAL INFORMATION (cont'd.)
Project Manager: Mandi Roberts
OTAK, Inc.
620 Kirkland Way, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033 Telephone: (206) 882-4446
Project Location: 3200 Southwest Dash Point Road
S-T-R: Section 12, Township 21 N, Range 3 East
Parcel Size: 12.02
Type of Action: Change in Land Use to Public Park
SEPA, Process III, Site Plan Review
Zoning: RS-15 (Single Family Res., 15,000 square ft. minimum lot size)
Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Low Density Residential
Shoreline
Designation: Rural
Related technical
documents: The following technical reports and documents have been
submitted as part of the Process III and site plan applications,
and are not attached to all copies of this SEPA decision.
Copies of the application files or any reports, attachments or
supporting documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by
contacting the Department of Community Development
Services, 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, Washington,
98003, phone: (206)661-41 18.
■ Level One Downstream Drainage Analysis (March 15, 1994)
and appendices
USGS Topographic Map - Tacoma North and Poverty Bay (revised 1981)
Portion of King County Soil Survey Map #15 and text discussing soil
type - issued November 1973
Sensitive Area Folio maps - Streams and 100-year Floodplains, Erosion Hazard
Areas and Landslide Areas
■ Narrative response to Seven Core and Special Requirements,
1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual
■ Traffic Impact Analysis, by Transportation Consulting
Northwest, submitted May 20, 1994
■ 'Environmental Analysis of the Visitation Retreat Shoreline on
Dumas Bay', by Beak. Consultants, dated August 18, 1994,
and finaled October 4, 1994.
3
III. BACKGROUND
The Visitation Retreat Center has operated since 1956 as a religious monastery. The
site was purchased in 1993 by the City of Federal Way for purposes of a public
park and government facility. Since the proposal constitutes a change in land use
of the site. it is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as well as
various land use permits required by the Federal Way City Code (FWCC).
Until such time as all applicable permits have been issued, activities are required to
be consistent with the previous uses of the site. Such interim activities have been
identified by the City to include: retreats, conferences, banquets, weddings,
receptions, open houses, and small-scale cultural events such as art shows and
music recitals.
IV. ANALYSIS OF CHECKLIST
Following are staff responses to the elements of the Environmental Checklist
(Exhibit A), indicating: (1) whether or not City staff concurs with the applicant's
response to the checklist item, or (2) Staff comments to amend or clarify the item.
A. Back round: Concur with checklist.
B. Environmental Elements
I . Earth:
a. Concur with checklist.
b. Concur with checklist.
C. Concur with checklist. On -site soils are primarily mapped as Indianola (InC)
by the USDA Soil Conservation Services 1973 Survey. This type of soil is
classified as somewhat excessively well drained, runoff is slow, and erosion
hazard is slight to moderate.
d. Concur with checklist.
e. Concur with checklist. Any imported fill material will be regulated by the
City's Land Surface Modification policies (FWCC Division 7). Material must
be capable of adequate compaction. High silt or clay content will be
prohibited. Phase II earthwork will be subject to site plan review and
regulated by the City's Land Surface Modification policies (FWCC Division 7).
No further mitigation is required.
f. The steep slopes adjacent to Dumas Bay are mapped as geologically
hazardous areas. The existing rockery wall along the beachfront serves to
moderate tidal action against and erosion of the steep slopes. No intrusion
into these areas is proposed as part of Phase I or Phase II. However, any
land surface modification within twenty-five feet of such areas will be
regulated by Federal Way Zoning Code Article XIV, Environmentally Sensitive
Areas; Division 7, Land Modifications; and the King County Surface Water
Design Manual '(KCSWDM).
g. Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-796, no maximum lot coverage is established;
rather, buildable area is to be determined by other site development
4
B.1 . g. (cont'd.) requirements to which the proposal must conform, i.e., required
buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. Proposed
ultimate lot coverage is about 24%.
B.1. h. An erosion control plan is required to be approved and implemented in
accordance with the City's engineering standards in conjunction with filling
and grading activities.
i. Phase I and II land surface modifications are regulated by FWZC Division 7,
Land Modifications, and the King County Surface Water Design Manual
(KCSWDM).
B.2. Air.
a. Short term impacts to air quality will occur during construction and paving
operations. Longer term impacts due to vehicle emissions will vary in level,
based on the amount of traffic generated by the proposal. Construction
activity, especially site preparation work, will contribute to short term
increases in local suspended particulate levels, and will also contribute to
carbon monoxide levels through the operation of construction machinery, the
use of trucks to deliver equipment and materials, and worker access to the
site by automobile. These activities also involve emissions of hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen, potentially elevating the level of photochemical
oxidants, such as ozone, in the ambient air. Use of existing wood -burning
fireplaces inside the facility will be infrequent, will not exceed previous use,
and will comply with any Puget Sound Air Pollution Control air quality alerts.
b. Concur with checklist. The site is bordered by Southwest Dash Point Road
(SR 509), the major source of off -site emissions.
C. Compliance with local, state and federal air quality standards will adequately
mitigate the potential on -site impacts of construction activities. Existing
substantial landscaping and proposed landscaping enhancements will provide
filtering of suspended particulates on both a short-term and long-term basis.
B.3. Surface and ground water:
As with all paved, developed areas, the site will contribute some pollutants to
ground and surface waters, as these will be washed off by storm drainage across
the site. Pollutants which accumulate on paved surfaces may include heavy metals,
petrochemicals and other substances. Some of these pollutants could be separated
out of the storm water runoff to a certain extent, by installing oil/water separators
in the on -site catch basins and/or grass lined biofiltration swales for pretreatment
and conveyance of runoff off -site or into on -site detention/retention ponds or tanks.
A Level 1 Downstream Analysis dated March 15, 1994, and amendments dated
May 5, 1994, were prepared for the site by OTAK, Inc., and reviewed by the Public
Works Department. Storm drainage facilities are required to be designed in
accordance with all applicable Core and Special Requirements outlined in the 1992
King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), as well as the
recommendations of the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan.
Infiltration is the preferred method of handling stormwater drainage in any area.
This method most closely duplicates existing conditions relative to recharge of the
5
B.3. (cont'd.) groundwater aquifer and minimizing off -site impacts. During design review
of the drainage system improvements, the existing drainage system should be
evaluated for capacity, assuming that the system is currently constructed as an
infiltration system. The system should be subjected to a flow analysis from the
nearest source of water (a fire hydrant). Based on the maximum sustainable flow
into the catchment system as tested, the associated storm event for that flow must
be determined. If this storm event matches or exceeds the design parameters for
infiltration systems in the KCSWDM for the proposed Phase I improvements, no
further construction will be needed. However, if parameters are not met,
modifications to the system will need to be made to provide the required infiltration
capacity. Design of such modifications will be based on a geotechnical analysis to
determine infiltration rates in any new area of construction.
Phase II of the development will be designed based on a soils analysis in the area of
the proposed parking lot for feasibility of infiltration as a means of handling the
runoff from the lot. If soils are suitable, a KCSWDM-designed infiltration system
will be required. If soils are unsuitable for installation of infiltration systems, runoff
may be conveyed and discharged off site. Prior to off -site discharge, the runoff
must be treated through a biofiltration swale designed in accordance with the
KCSWDM. If runoff is directed to Dumas Bay, no detention is required since Dumas
Bay is designated a "receiving water" by the KCSWDM.
Lakota Creek is a salmon -bearing stream with a fish ladder located along the east
side of the site. Therefore, it is not recommended to discharge runoff into the
stream if other alternatives are available, i.e., infiltration or discharge to Dumas Bay.
If runoff from the existing parking area is proposed to be discharged off the site, it
is recommended that runoff be directed to the west and north, to the location of the
Phase II discharge point, thereby combining the site runoff and creating only one
biofiltration swale to maintain.
The site is located in the West Branch Hylebos Creek Sub -Basin, as identified in the
Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan. The plan recommends storm
drainage enhancements to mitigate the effects of development on water quality,
flooding, and downstream erosion. Specifically, Basin -Wide Recommendation #BW-
2 calls for the use of the 2-year and 10-year, 7-day storm events for sizing the
required detention facilities, instead of the standard 2-year and 10-year 24-hour
events. The standard 30% factor of safety is not required. No further mitigation of
on -site surface water detention facilties is required.
Policies adopted by the City of Federal Way as a basis for the exercise of
substantive SEPA authority to approve, condition or deny proposed actions which
are applicable to potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from this project
include the following:
1) Establish a surface water management program to manage stormwater runoff and
prevent water pollution (NE-16, FWCP).
2) Establish regulatory measures to prevent flooding (Policy NE-17, FWCP).
3) Prepare maintenance standards to protect stormwater systems, prevent erosion and
protect natural vegetation (Policy H-30, FWCP).
M.
B.3. (cont'd.) Based on the above policies, plans, and recommendations, the stormwater
mitigation measure listed at IV.C. Conclusion, should be required to minimize
identified potential adverse impacts relative to stormwater management.
B.4. Plants: Concur with checklist, except water plants also include eel grass beds
identified in the lower portion of the Dumas Bay shoreline by the environmental
report prepared by Beak Consultants. The report identifies the eelgrass beds as a
"priority habitat" according to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). Mitigation measures listed in this analysis at IV.C. Conclusion, are
deemed appropriate to control any significant adverse impacts to this sensitive
habitat. (See policy discussion under Land and Shoreline: Shoreline Analysis).
Clearing and grading activities for expansion of the existing parking facility on the
upper grounds will be regulated by FWZC Article XVII, Landscaping, relative to
removal and replacement of significant trees and vegetation.
B.S. Animals: Concur with checklist. According to the Beak report, Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) rates Great Blue Heron as a "State
Monitored" species, and Eagle as "Threatened." Mitigation measures listed in this
analysis at IV.C. Conclusion, are deemed appropriate to control any significant
adverse impacts to these species. (See policy discussion under Land and Shoreline:
Shoreline Analysis, below).
B.6. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist. Energy provisions for the
development will conform to applicable local, state and federal regulations.
B.7. Environmental Health:
a. Concur with checklist. The project will be required to make several
corrections to existing structures, as required under building and fire codes
Other improvements as recommended by the fire marshal will be completed
as funding becomes available.
b. Concur with checklist. Noise levels will increase on a short term basis during
construction activity. Control measures include required conformance with
local noise ordinances regulating hours of construction. On a long term
basis, some increase in noise levels is expected due to additional traffic
generated by the development. Existing substantial landscaping along site
perimeters and proposed additional parking lot landscaping will buffer these
noise levels. No further mitigation is required.
B.B. Land and Shoreline:
1) CHANGE IN USE ANALYSIS:
Historical data are sketchy concerning former numbers of users of the site.
The Beak report indicates that from 18-25 residents formerly occupied the
site full time, with weekend retreatants numbering to 50. Of those, the
report estimates that a maximum of 15 persons per day walked down to the
beach, which lies below an approximate 50-foot bluff.
7
B.8. 1) CHANGE IN USE ANALYSIS: (cont'd.)
The proposed change from private to public use of the site will generate one
new category of visitors, i.e., general users of the site as a public park
facility. The conversion will also generate an increase in the number of
existing visitors, i.e., participants in scheduled events, or "destination"
visitors, who come to the site in order to attend pre-arrariged functions such
as weddings, banquets, retreats, cultural events, etc.
According to Parks Department use data since purchase of the facility,
events attended by destination visitors are often formal, are held during
evening hours, and primarily in the building or on the upper grounds.
Typically, participants in these events do not use the beach due to dress
and/or hour.
The applicant also anticipates only a percentage of -general users of the park
will choose to utilize the beach itself, due to several factors, e.g., (1) the
upper level viewing platform is an excellent and easily accessible viewing
alternative; (2) beach access requires use of a stairwell with switchbacks; (3)
limitations to beach use as established in the proposal; (4) deterring
characteristics of the shoreline itself, which consists primarily of muddy
gravel and cobbles out to muddy sand, with considerable fresh water
seepage extending in broad sheets across the tidefats; and (5) tidal
conditions.
The applicant estimates a maximum of 200 destination visitors will be
present in the building or on the upper grounds at a given time, with a small
percentage of these actually going to the beach. Relative to general users,
the applicant estimates an average total of 30 daily visitors may use the
upper grounds, viewing platform, and/or the beach. Following the Phase II
parking expansion, the applicant expects up to 400 destination visitors at a
given time. However, no significant increase in the number of eneral users
is anticipated with Phase II.
In summary, the applicant's projections indicate that pre -scheduled events,
using the building and upper grounds, will constitute the primary use of site.
These destination activities are seen as consistent with historic land use.
Further, the proposed use and associated site improvements have been
shown to be consistent with applicable codes, regulations and policies as
discussed in this analysis. Therefore, the proposed change in land use is
deemed appropriate, provided the mitigation measures as proposed by the
application, and conditions of approval as recommended in this staff analysis
at IV.C. Conclusion, are properly implemented.
Shoreline Use Analysis.
The site has approximately 600 feet of shoreline on Dumas Bay, including
adjacent tidelands down to extreme low tide. The shoreline is identified as a
sensitive area per the Federal Way City Code Environmental Policy (Chapter
N.
B.8. 1) CHANGE IN USE: Shoreline Use Anal si (cont'd.)
0 8) definition of "fish and wildlife habitat conservation area." Therefore, a
shoreline analysis was conducted by Beak Consultants, Inc. (see
'Environmental Analysis of the Visitation Retreat Center Shoreline on Dumas
Bay, Washington;' draft report 8/18/94, final report 10/4/94), to assess the
existing marine plants and animals in relation to the proposal. The scope of
the study included the project shoreline and adjacent shorelines extending
approximately one hundred feet in both directions.
The Beak report identified four critical plant and animal species on or near
the site, rated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) as follows:
Species WDFW Rating
Eelgrass beds Priority Habitat
Coho Salmon High Concern
Great Blue Heron State Monitored
Eagle Threatened (state and federal rating)
The Beak report concludes: "For most of the resources identified
above"..."the limited number of people projected to use the site and the
proposed restrictions should be sufficient to minimize the potential for
adverse impacts to the marine biological resources at the VRC site.
However, usage of the site at higher numbers than those projected could
produce significant adverse impacts on these resources." (Beak rept. pg. 1 1)
The Dumas Bay shoreline is seen as a vital link in the bay -wide habitat for
these identified critical species. Therefore, a package of mitigation measures
will be applied to the project in order to control any adverse shoreline
impacts. Measures proposed by the applicant include limiting use of the
beach to low tide and daylight hours, prohibiting non -passive uses,
controlling the maximum number of users of the beach at one time,
developing a docent or other volunteer program to provide guided tours,
establishing interpretative signs to promote stewardship of the park, posting
and enforcement of park rules and adequate site supervision. It is
anticipated that these measures, combined with established SEPA conditions
listed in this analysis at IV.C. Conclusion, will appropriately mitigate any
adverse impacts to the identified critical plant and animal species associated
with the shoreline. However, as a contingency measure, a monitoring
program is recommended to assure that any unanticipated adverse impact
that may occur will be identified, measured, evaluated, and mitigated, over a
monitoring period of 2 to 5 years.
Elements of this monitoring program will include: (1) compilation of baseline
data on the shoreline plant and animal species; (2) periodic monitoring of
shoreline conditions and evaluation against the baseline data; (3)
identification of adverse impacts and recommendation of mitigation measures
B.8. 1) CHANGE IN USE: Shoreline Use Analysis (cont'd).
and (4) implementation of mitigation measures as deemed necessary and
appropriate.
Information from Beak Consultants indicates that the identified great blue
heron colony has a nesting, breeding and fledgling period known to occur
approximately from February first and extending through June; which
timeframe represents the peak foraging use of the shoreline by the herons.
Therefore, this time period will be established as the baseline study
component of the shoreline monitoring program as it relates to the blue
heron; the July 1 date being subject to minor adjustment as determined by
the consultant based on exact observations in the field. During this data
collection period existing conditions will be maintained by requiring the
applicant to limit shoreline use to the previous level, identified in the
application as a maximum fifteen (15) persons per day. Beak Consultants
also indicates that any date(s) prior to July 1 is appropriate and sufficient for
collection of baseline data relative to eelgrass beds, coho salmon and eagle.
As part of the monitoring program, the parks department will also compile
statistics on use of the shoreline, which can be used in the context of
evaluating any adverse impacts. If adverse impacts are identified, the
Director of Community Development Services may require additional analysis
to determine appropriate mitigation measures. Such measures may include
modifications to the public use regulations for the shoreline.
2) KING COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The proposal is consistent with the policies of the King County Shoreline
Management Program (SMP) as adopted by the City of Federal Way, as
follows:
■ Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Phase I improvements within 200 feet of the shoreline constitute minor
improvements for purposes of public safety, i.e., installation of a guardrail above the
existing rockery and upgrade to the existing stairway to the beach. These activities
have been determined exempt from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
since (1) the proposal meets the definition of minor repairs to existing
improvements, and (2) the cost of improvements does not exceed the exemption
threshold of $2,500. On this basis a shoreline exemption will be issued for Process
III approval of Phase I. However, Phase II improvements will be subject to review
and permit requirements under the Act.
■ Shoreline Use Element.
Goal: Preserve or develop shorelines, adjacent uplands and adjacent water areas in
a manner that assures a balance of shoreline uses with minimal adverse effect on
the quality of life, water and the environment.
Response: The project as proposed will promote public viewing and passive
recreation along the bluff above Dumas Bay and the shoreline below. However, the
project also proposes limiting public access in order to mitigate any potential adverse
impacts to the shoreline environment associated with the change of land use.
10
■ Public Access Element.
Goal: Increase public access to shoreline areas provided that private rights, public
safety, and the natural shoreline character are not adversely affected.
Response: Conversion of the site to a public park is consistent with this goal. The
project promotes preservation of the natural shoreline character by controlling
access and allowing passive recreation only.
a Rural Environment.
Policy: Recreational access to the shorelines should be encouraged. Recreational
facilities should be located and designed to minimize conflicts with agricultural
activities.
Response: The proposed passive recreational use of the shorelines is consistent with
this policy. No formal recreational structures are proposed. No conflict with any
agricultural activities is anticipated.
Policy: New developments should reflect the character of the surrounding area by
limiting residential density, providing permanent open space and maintaining
adequate building setbacks from the water.
Response: No new development is proposed with Phase I. Additional parking
facilities proposed with Phase II will maintain a substantial setback, of approximately
300 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The proposed conversion of
the site to a public park will establish 12 acres in permanent open space.
3) WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE WDFW MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
The following addresses the consistency of the proposal with applicable elements of
the management recommendations for the protection of great blue herons
established by the WDFW, as cited and recommended in the Beak report (pg. 12):
Element
Maintain habitat within a 250 to 350 meter (820 to 1 148 feet) buffer zone around
the colony.
Response
The proposal will create no intrusions into this established buffer zone.
Element
Protect wetlands and other feeding areas within four km (2.48 miles or 13,120 feet)
of the heron colony.
Response
Mitigation measures as proposed and as properly implemented should provide
adequate protection of this foraging area.
B.B. Land and Shoreline Mitigation Measures: Policies adopted by the City of Federal
Way as a basis for the exercise of substantive SEPA authority to approve, condition
or deny proposed actions which are applicable to potential adverse environmental
impacts resulting from this project include the following:
11
B.8. (cont'd). 1) Adopt special regulations limiting or preventing development within the most
sensitive areas and require completion of special studies by qualified
professionals when necessary prior to issuance of permits (Policy NE-2,
FWCP).
2) Limit public access to habitat protection zones and the most sensitive
wetland areas (Policy NE-7, FWCP).
3) Require environmental impact assessment and mitigation of potential impacts
to sensitive areas before development is permitted (Policy NE-9, FWCP).
Based on the above policies, plans and recommendations, mitigation measures listed
at IV.C. Conclusion, should be required to minimize potential adverse impacts
relative to protection of the identified environmentally sensitive shoreline area.
9. Housing: Concur with checklist.
10. Aesthestics: Concur with checklist.
11. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist.
12. Recreation: Concur with checklist.
13. Historical and Cultural Preservation: Concur with checklist.
14. Transportation: A traffic analysis was prepared for by Transportation Consulting
Northwest, reviewed and determined by the City's traffic analyst that no traffic
mitigation is required for the project. The proposed parking plan incorporates the
site design recommendations of the traffic report and the City's analysis. The
parking plan relies on an acceptable ratio of 4:1. The Parks Department will be
responsible to ensure that use of the site is consistent with the amount of available
parking, or to arrange alternative transporation such as shuttle service, as stated in
the application.
15. Public Services: Concur with checklist. Major Robert C. Evans, Federal Way Chief
of Police, anticipates that adequate police services can be provided as required (see
letter dated April 14, 1994). Mitigation measures as listed in this analysis at IV.C.
Conclusion, require a security plan for the site be established and implemented in
coordination with the Police Department. The security plan will include such
measures as staff training, physical security checks, police presence by Park Patrol
visits, district officer patrols, and the Parks Department informing the police
department of major events or off -hour functions on the site, to arrange periodic
patrol checks.
16. Utilities: Concur with checklist. Water to this facility is provided by the City of
Tacoma. Lakehaven Utility District sewers currently exist through a pump station
located on the grounds. This system may require upgrade or replacement based on
design analysis of system capacity and proposed peak flow. The district also
requires an Industrial User Survey during design review to determine any
pretreatment requirements associated with expanded cooking activities.
12
N.C. Conclusion:
Based on staff analysis of the application, the completed SEPA checklist,
consultants' reports, applicable city and county codes and policies, and the WDFW
management recommendations, the proposal can be found to not have a probable
signficant adverse impact on the environment, provided that the following
conditions are properly implemented pursuant to a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS).
(1) If stormwater will be discharged off -site to any location other than a
designated "receiving water", per the King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM), then surface water detention facilities shall be designed
on site in accordance with the KCSWDM as part of design review for the
project, except that a 7-day storm event shall be used for analysis instead of
the 24-hour storm event specified in the KCSWDM; subject to approval by
the Public Works Director.
(2) Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall promote public awareness
and park stewardship by establishing on site informational signage sufficient
to inform entering visitors of the site's unique characteristics, Le, sensitive
geographic and environmental features, rare plant and animal species
associated with Dumas Bay; historic use of the site as a physical and
spiritual retreat; and to convey the parks department policy that the site be
enjoyed for passive recreation uses only, consistent with historic use; and to
instruct visitors to read and follow all park rules as posted; subject to
approval by the Director of Community Development Services.
(3) Prior to project implementation, that applicant shall promote public
awareness and stewardship of the critical plant and animal species
associated with Dumas Bay by establishing interpretative signage,
appropriately located, describing the Great Blue heron, Eagle, Coho Salmon,
Eeelgrass, potential presence of California Sea Lion; and including
information such as nesting and feeding characteristics and vulnerability of
the species to human intrusion; subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development Services.
(4) Prior to project implementation, the applicant will promote protection of the
shoreline and the public safety, by posting regulations at the trailhead to the
beach, including the following elements at a minimum; subject to approval by
the Director of Community Development Services:
a. Prohibit use of beach during high tide conditions or after dusk (warn
of fluctuating tides and dangers of accessing beach at or near high
tide);
b. Prohibit swimming, warn no lifeguard on duty;
C. Prohibit walking beyond signs posted "private property/no
trespassing" at park boundaries, which signs shall be posted at park
property boundaries;
d. Prohibit camping, picnics, fires;
13
N.C. (4) e. Prohibit music amplifiers or other noise -producing objects;
f. Prohibit pets, bicycles and motorized vehicles;
g. Prohibit removal from the beach of any shells or live animals;
h. Prohibit any disturbances of birds or animals that may be present on
the shoreline or adjacent tidelands;
i. Require groups to pre -register with the parks department;
j. Prohibit use of watercraft, snorkeling and scuba diving; except when
such activities are for educational or scientific purposes and are pre -
approved by the parks department.
(5) Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall establish park supervision
and security measures sufficient to maintain site security, including the
following elements at a minimum; subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development Services:
a. Implementation of a security plan coordinated with the Police
Department;
b. On -site availability at all times during open park hours, of Parks
Department staff or volunteers, trained to explain park rules or
procedures and respond to questions or concerns;
C. Periodic monitoring of grounds by personnel who will be trained in
security and response measures in accordance with the security plan
as established;
d. Closure and locking of entrance gates and gate at trailhead to the
beach at appropriate times as established by the Parks Department.
(6) The shoreline area shall be monitored for a period of not less than two (2)
years or more than five (5) years as required by the Director of Community
Development Services. The applicant shall pay for the services of a qualified
professional, selected and retained by the Department of Community
Development Services to conduct periodic inspections and issue written
reports on the status of the monitoring program. The scope of work will
include establishing baseline data on critical marine plant and animal species
identified in the report titled 'Environmental Analysis of the Visitation Retreat
Center Shoreline on Dumas Bay, Washington' (prepared by Beak
Consultants, Inc., dated October 4, 1994); conducting periodic monitoring of
those species to identify possible adverse impacts that may be associated
with public use; and developing any recommended measures as necessary
and appropriate to mitigate identified shoreline impacts, as required by the
Director of Community Development Services. Baseline studies of great blue
heron shall be conducted from February 1, 1994 to July 1, 1994,
approximately, on specific dates to be determined by the selected
consultant. Baseline studies of eelgrass beds, eagle, and coho salmon shall .
be conducted prior to July 1, 1994, on specific dates to be determined by
the selected consultant. Until completion of the required baseline studies the
parks department shall limit access to the shoreline to no more than fifteen
(15) persons per day; which limitation shall be implemented by requiring all
individuals and/or groups to pre -register with the parks department and be
accompanied to the shoreline by a parks department designee.
14
(6) (cont'd). After completion of the baseline period the parks department shall
limit access to the shoreline to approximately thirty (30) persons per day,
which may. be modified by the Director of Community Development Services
based on data obtained and consultant recommendations issued during the
monitoring program.
Conditions of the MDNS are based upon impacts identified within the environmental
checklist, attachments, exhibits and supplemental reports as listed, and the above
'Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Application #SEP 94-0005', and
are supported by plans, policies and regulations formally adopted by the City for the
exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny
proposed actions.
The City reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site or
the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non -significance
of the project at that point in time.
Prepared by: Lori Michaelson Schill, Associate Planner (206) 661-4019
Date: October 15, 1994
Revised: November 15, 1994 (to add findings # 7 1 and # 12�
November 301994 to add last sentence to condition #S
is\VRCSEPA
is\VRC—REV
15
FP-Or-jvrn BY
VISITATION RETREAT CENTER .
City of Federal Way Parks -'and ,Recreation Department
AM ENDED ,SEPA CHECKLIST
ADDENDUM TO DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS,
Process III / Site Plan Review Application
May 5, 1994
VISITATION RETREAT CENTER - PROCESS III APPLICATION
AMENDED SEPA CHECKLIST
May 5, 1994
NOTE: REVISED/ADDED INFORMATION IS UNDERLINED.
rvyw14
Date Received
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A BACKGROUND
Name of Proposed project, if applicable:
City of Federal Way Visitation Retreat Center (Unofficial Name)
2. Name of applicant:
City of Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant: Joe Stevens / Cheri McCabe
Superintendent of Recreation
Department of Parks and Recreation
City of Federal Way
661-4043
Applicant's
Representative: Mandi Roberts
OTAK, Inc.
620 Kirkland Way, #100
Kirkland, WA 98033
206-822-4446
4. Date checklist prepared: Revised: May 5,1994
Checklist was prepared in February/March of 1994 and submitted to the City of
Federal as part of the Site Plan Review Process III application on March 16, 1994
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way Community Development Department
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Visitation Retreat Center site is expected to be open for general public access
beginning in the summer of this year (1994). Funding for construction of Phase I
building and site improvements to baring the facility up to current ADA standards
has been programmed into the 1994-1995 budget. Identification of funding sources
for construction of Phase lI site parking lot and drainage improvements is being
programmed into the six -year Capital Improvement Plan. Construction of Phase I I
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
im ravements is ex ected to occur within the next one to three years. Funding
sources for these improvements could include, but would not be limited ito,
additional grants, donations, or other outside resources as authorized by the City
Council.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes explain.
No plans for future additions, expansions or further activities other than those
described in the Site Plan Review application and SEPA checklist are proposed at
this time.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared or will be
prepared directly related to this proposal.
A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by Tim Miller, Transportation
Consulting Northwest, and is being submitted separately for review concurrently
with the Site Plan Review application and SEPA checklist.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
None known of, other than the Site Plan Review/Process III application being
submitted concurrently with this checklist.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Site Plan R.eview/Process III approval from the City of Federal Way for zoning
approval for a Public Park/Government Facility use, which is a change from the
existing/past use of the property. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review,
and Building and Grading Permits from the Ci of Federal Way will also be
required. Hydraulic Permit Approval from, the Washin n State Department of
Fisheries may also be re uired if stormwater is disebar ed into Lakota Creek.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site. There area several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page.
The Visitation Retreat Center site is 12.02 acres in size, located at 3200 S.W. Dash
Point Road. The site contains an existing building (47,214 square -foot floor area)
formerly inhabited as a monastery by the Sisters of the Visitation and existing
parking, landscaping and other related site improvements throughout the grounds.
The City of Federal Way Department of Parks and Recreation will be managing and
operating the Visitation Retreat Center for various recreational and community
service activities. Some activities proposed by the Parks and Recreation
Department are consistent with uses formerly occurring at the site under the
ownership of the Sisters of the Visitation, and are therefore, allowed outright.
Other proposed activities, including use of the building and grounds by the general
public, represent a "change in use". The change in use requires the proposal to be
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
reviewed through a City of Federal Way Process III Site Plan Review application,
which includes State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review initiated through
submittal of an environmental checklist. The change in use will require the facility
to comply with current applicable City Code requirements, including barrier free
accessibility in accordance with the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). A
zoning change, to "Public Park/Governmental Facility" will result from the Site Plan
Review/Process III approval.
Note: The following excerpt from the Process III application has been added, but is
not underlined for purposes of clarity. However, information previously not
included in the Process III application has been underlined.
General Description of Proposed Uses:
INTERIM USES
A number of interim activities have been administratively approved and are
currently allowed at the facility because they represent no change in use from
former uses occurring on the site. These uses will be continued under Phase I
approval for the project. The following is a list of former uses on the site and the
current activities as approved by the City Department of Community Development
Services (as stated in a memorandum addressed to Joe Stevens from Gregory Moore,
dated March 2, 1994):
Former Uses:
Overnight retreats
Seminars, lectures
Church services
Grounds maintenance
Staff offices
Storage
funerals
Luncheons
Food service (for residents and
retreatants)
Auctions, holiday programs
Music classes (by retreatants)
Crafts classes (by retreatants)
Walking of grounds(beachfront (by
retreatants)
Nature programs (by retreatants)
Recitals(plays
Approved Current Uses:
Overnight retreats
Seminars, lectures
Meeting rentals
Grounds maintenance
Staff offices (to manage facility)
Storage
Weddings/Funerals
Receptions
Food service (for approved events)
Auctions, bazaars, special programs
and open houses
Music classes (by retreatants)
Crafts classes (by retreatants)
Walking of grounds/beachfront (by
retreatants)
Nature programs (by retreatants)
Recitals/plays
The above list includes only those activities that are analogous to a previous use and
are therefore, allowed on the site at this time. Any proposed use of the site that
represents a change in use, e.g., general public access, would be permitted pending
approval of this Process III application and SEPA review.
PROPOSED USES
The following uses are proposed as part of this Process III application. These uses
will be initiated as Phase I of the ro'ect and will be continued after Phase H site
improvements are completed. However, during Phase 1 the quantity of people
scheduled at events will be limited to only that amount which., can adequately be
served by parking facility improvements under Phase 1. Using an estimated ratio
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
of four people to_ one parkin1l space, the Parks and Recreation Department has
determined that events for up to 200 people can be scheduled during Phase I of the
project, unless people arrive at the site by other means than automobile (i.e. buses,
groups in vans, etc.). With the completion of Phase II site improvements, the Parks
and Recreation Department estimates that events for up to 400 people can be
scheduled.
Proposed uses for Phase I and Phase II include:
General public access to the grounds and the Dumas Bay Shorelinel Viewin Station"
area - above the rock wall
Limited public access to the,beachfrgnt/tideiands area below the rock wall adjacent
to the property -
General public access to the building, including the provision of a lobby/sitting room
open to the public
Non -facility related City offices
Nature programs offered to the public (Although programs requiring access to the
shoreline would not be held because the existing route is not ADA accessible, and
there is no feasible accessible route to the shoreline on the property.)
Public classes and programs (i.e. music, crafts, dance, etc.)
Art displays/gallery space
Rehearsals for performances
City -sponsored special events
For additional information about the proposal, refer to the 'Statement of Design
Intent" section of the Site Plan Review application package and the Preliminary
Master Site Plan inserted with this submittal.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you
are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
The Visitation Retreat Center is located at 3200 S.W. Dash Point Road (Highway 509),
adjacent to Dumas Bay on Puget Sound. Access to the site is obtained from exiting
Interstate 5 at 320th Street and heading west until 320th terminates at 47th Avenue.
Turn right onto 47th and head north to Dash Point Road. Turn right onto Dash
Point Road and travel one mile. The Visitation Retreat Center is on the left side of
the street.
The site is located on Government Lot No.1, Section 12, Township 21 North, Range
3 East. A vicinity map, legal description and site plans are provided as part of the
Site Plan Review application package accompanying this checklist.
To Be Completed by Applicant Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
combination of above. Describe locations and areas on the site that have different
topography.
The majority of the site, where the existing building, parking and improvements are
located, is fairly level with a gradual slope to the northeast toward Lakota Creek.
The northwestern edge of the site slopes down approximately 50 feet to Dumas Bay.
Slopes along the water's edge range from approximately 50 to 75 percent.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Describe locations and
areas on the site that have different topography.
The steepest slopes on the site occur adjacent to Dumas Bay to the northwest of the
building and rear grounds. The majority of these slopes range from approximately
50 to 75 percent; however, an eight -foot wide strip along the lower section of the
bluff in this area contains slopes up to 250 percent.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)?
If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service maps, the
site consists primarily of "InC", Indianola loamy fine sand soils. The Indianola series
is made up of somewhat excessively drained soils that formed under conifers in
sandy, recessional, stratified glacial drift. Permeability is rapid. Runoff is slow to
medium and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. Indianola soils are suitable
for development. A small portion of the northeastern edge of the site, adjacent to
Lakota Creek contains "AkF', Alderwood and Kitsap soils, which are typically found
on very steep slopes and exhibit characteristics of rapid runoff and severe erosion.
Soils/sands along the Dumas Bay waterfront are identified as "Cb", Coastal beaches
in the SCS map.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
Some erosion from natural causes has occurred on the steeper slopes adjacent to
Dumas Bay. A rockery wall has been constructed along the beachfront to moderate
tide action against the sensitive slopes. No indications of unstable soils exist in the
upper, flatter portion of the site.
e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
Since the site is fairly level in the area of proposed improvements, earthwork will
be minimal (minor excavation/scraping of organic layer and excavation for
construction of the biofiltration swale. Proposed Phase I site improvements will
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
require approximately 150 to 200 cubic yards of earthwork. Earthwork could be
balanced on site with export of only brush and debris and import of only structural
fills and base materials required for construction purposes. Phase 11 could require
up to approximately 500 additional cubic yards of earthwork for construction of the
new parking area drainage biofiltration Swale and the potential infiltration pond,
if infiltration is feasible given existing site soil conditions.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
A minimal amount of erosion could occur as a result of normal construction
practices. However, appropriate erosion control measures will be implemented
during construction in accordance with local applicable standards.
g. About ' what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Less than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area would be added as a result
of Phase I parking improvements. Phase II parking improvements would add an
additional 22,W square feet of impervious surface area to the site; however, this
could be offset by removal of some of the existing asphalt surface areas in the rear
area of the site.
The new parking lot area will be built over the existing parking lot pavement, and
a new overall storm drainage and infiltration system will be constructed in
compliance with current City Code standards.
After Phase I construction, the total impervious surface area on site would equal
approximately 2.4 acres or 20 percent of the total site area. (Less than one percent
of this area would be the result of constructing the new parking improvements).
After Phase II construction total site impervious surface area could equal
approximately 2.9 acres or 24 percent of the total site area if no removal of existing
asphalt at the rear of the building occurs.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Please refer to'T, above. Appropriate erosion control measures, including sediment
traps, siltation fences, nd stabilized construction entrances, will be implemented
during construction in accordance_; with City standards.
Does the landfill or excavation involve over 100 cubic yards throughout the lifetime of the
project.
An estimated 150 to 200 cubic yards of earthwork will be required to construct the
Phase I parking and storm drainage improvements on the relatively flat portions of
the site. All earthwork could be balanced on site with export of only debris and
brush/organic matter and import of only structural fills or base materials required
for construction. Phase 11 could require up to approximately 500 additional cubic
y_a_rds of earthwork for construction of the new parking area, drainage biofiltration
swale and the potential infiltration pond, if infiltration is feasible 16ven existin site
soil conditions.
To Be Completed by Applicant
2. AIR
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if know.
Emissions from automobile traffic generated by the project would occur, but would
be insignificant in comparison to the background level in the region. Refer to the
Traffic Impact Analysis for anticipated trip generation.
The building contains three existing fireplaces, which have traditionally been used
very infrequently, would continue to be used infrequently. _ The amount of
woodsmoke emitted by this infrequent use would not be expected to be significant
and would not represent an increase over that previously emitted under use by the
Sisters of the Visitation. In addition, burning in the fireplaces would not occur
durinLr times of PSAPCA (Puget Sound Air Pollution ControlAgency) air quality
alerts.
Some dust and vehicle emissions would ' occur on a temporary basis during
construction.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
The Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant is located across Dash Point Road to the
south. A representative from the Federal Way Water and Sewer District has
indicated that from time -to -time, odors may be emitted from the treatment plant
which may affect the project site. During several site visits over the past two
months, no odors from the treatment plant were noticed.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
In the future, the existinIZ woodburninjZ fireplaces_ could be converted to gas, if
funding becomes available and is approved by the City Council for such use
The existing dense vegetation and mature trees along the site frontage likely provide
a natural buffer for traffic emissions from Dash Point Road and odor emissions from
the Lakota Treatment Plant across the street. The proposed parking lot
improvements will have minimal impact on this natural existing buffer and new
trees and shrubs will be added where necessary in areas adjacent to the parking lot
in compliance with City landscape requirements.
K�i.IM
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type, location, and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows
into.
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
The site has approximately 600 feet of frontage on Dumas Bay/Puget Sound.
Lakota Creek is located directly to the northeast of the site and drains into
the Sound. Lakota Creek meets the City of Federal Way Code definition of
a major stream and as such, is regulated by the applicable City sensitive
areas requirements. The northeastern portions of the site naturally drain
into Lakota Creek. According to Phil Schneider at the State Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Lakota Creek contains salmonids.
From site visits it does not appear that any wetlands exist on the site other
than the marine tidelands adjacent to Dumas Ba as no wetland vegetation
was observed. The Lakota Creek stream channel is fairly deep and upland
areas are well-defined from the creek -related riparian zone.
A Level One Analysis has been completed as part of the Process III / Site Plan
Review application. A summary of the Level One Analysis is as follows: The
project site is Iocated near the confluence of Lakota Creek on the northeast
boundary) and DumasBa (Puget Sound on the northwest boundary). Lakota
Creek is well -contained in a ravine that is about 45 feet below the bluff that
the existing building sets on. There is minimal surface flow to the site
because Dash Point Road intercepts all flow that would contribute from the
east. There is no downstream area below the site. No erosion problems were
observed.
Based on the )din County Stormwater Design Manual requirements, as
adopted by the City of Federal- Way, two otential o tions for stormwater
control will be explored as Rart of the final site design: The first option will
include geotechnical analysis of the existinjZ subsurface soil conditions to
determine the feasibility of infiltration. If the sails are suitable drainage
from Phase I and Phase II Parkino area improvements will be collected in an
under and conveyance s stem treated through a biofiltration swale and
directed to infiltration ponds. If soils are unsuitable for infiltration drainage
will be directed to a detention system, if required, or an outfall s stem to
either Puget Sound or Lakota Creek after being treated through an oil/water
separator catch basin and a biofiltration swale. Please refer to the
Preliminary Site Plan submitted with this application package.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Note
approximate distance between surface waters and any construction, fill, etc.
The City has previously determined that the level of improvements proposed
for Phase I of the project within the Shorelines jurisdiction will not trigger
a requirement for a permit under the Shoreline Management Act. (See
correspondence and pre -application review information provided in
Appendix C.) Some minor improvements (less than $2500.00) are proposed to
the existing trail/steps to the shoreline, the beach viewpoint and beach
access, including installation of a guardrail above the existing rockery and
reworking the steps and railing to improve safety. The City Parks and
Recreation Department intends for these improvements to be completed
through volunteer labor.
It is possible that storm drainage improvements could trigger a Shoreline
Substantial Permit re uirement if outfaii systems to either Lakota Creek or
Dumas Bay/Puget Sound are proposed. This would be determined during
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
final site design, and the Shorelines Permit would be applied for at that time
if required.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
None.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not at this time. Stormwater runoff is proposed to be collected, treated and
outlet through a tightline system to either Lakota Creek or Dumas Bay. A
second option would be to direct treated runoff into an infiltration pond on -
site, pending geotechnical analysis and review by Public Works. The most
suitable means of stormwater control will be determined during the final
design process. (The site is located within the City's designated aquifer
recharge zone on the Sensitive Areas maps.)
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No, from review of Flood Insurance Rate Maps Prepared by FELI& it does not
appear that the u PRer portions of the site where improvements are proposed,
lie within any flood zone.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Some minor amounts of oil ease fuels heavy metals etc. may be
discharged by vehicles using the site parking areas_ All stormwater drainage
runoff from p2arking areas will be collected into an underground conveyance
system and treated through an oil water separator and biofiltration Swale
prior to discharge into either an infiltration pond, detention pond or direct
outfall to Lakota Creek or Puget Sound.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
The site is currently served by Tacoma Public Utilities watersystem, and will
continue to use water supply from this source. It is not anticipated that the
proposed change in use at the facility will require additional water usage
above what has been previously used at the facility.
Based on the King County Stormwater Desi Manual reuirements as
adopted by the Ci of Federal Way, two otential options for stormwater
control will be explored as part of the final site design: The first option will
include geotechnical analysis of the existing subsurface soil conditions to
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
determine the feasibility of infiltration. If the soils are suitable drainage
from Phase I and Phase II y arking area improve me nts will be collected in an
underground conveyance system, treated through a biofiltration swale, and
directed to infiltration ponds. If soils are unsuitable for infiltration drainage
will be directed to a detention s;}!stem, if required, or an outfall system to
either Puget Sound or Lakota Creek after bein treated through an oil/water
separator catch basin and a biofiltration swale. Please refer to the
Preliminary Site Plan submitted with this g2plication package.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...: agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
None.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? if so, describe.
A portion of the existing parking drains e appears to be infiltrating through
the two catch basins in the parking lot. The remainder of the parking lot
apurently sheet flows onto the lawn and infiltrates. During heavy storms
some surface runoff from the_parking lot probably flows over the bluffs
northward to Lakota Creek. The roof drainage apparently also infiltrates
but no systems were found during field visits.
Less than 5,000 square feet of additional impervious surface area is proposed
as part of Phase I. However, improvements proposed to the existing
stormwater drainage system as part of Phase I include replacement of two
non-functioning catch basins, the addition of an oil -water separator and
biofiltration swale and either infiltration, or ti„ghtlined systems toward
Lakota Creek controlled discharge) or Dumas Bay, depending on
topographic conditions to be determined through site survey and
geeotechnical _analysis. In Phase II development of parking facilities,
stormwater runoff will be generated by the impervious surface areas on the
project site. However, a portion or all of this impervious surface area could
be offset by removal of existing impervious surfaces in the rear of the
building. Any roof conveyance systems that are located during survey for
final design will be connected to the new dischar a system. Please refer to
discussion under a., above, and to the Level One Analysis and stormwater
drainage information included in the Site Plan Review application package.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
All runoff will be treated in compliance with City standards. Refer to a.,
above, and to the stormwater drainage information in the Site Plan Review
application package.
To Be Completed by Applicant Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
No significant impacts to surface, ground and runoff water are anticipated. All
stormwater runoff will be treated on site and released in compliance with City
requirements.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
In
C.
d.
X deciduous tree: alder._ maple, aspen, other: ornamentals
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: ornamentals
X shrubs - native wild shrubs and ground cover, mature ornamental shrubs and hedges
X grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other:
X water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
Marine grasses/vegetation adjacent to the shoreline.
other types of vegetation
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
For Phase I improvements, very little of the existing coniferous and deciduous trees
and understory vegetation will be removed for construction of parking, access and
stormwater drainage improvements. Every effort will be made during final design
of the parking lot to preserve as many of the existing significant trees as possible.
A topographic survey showing existing significant trees and a tree retention plan
will be prepared as part of the final design efforts for the project and will be
submitted to the City for review during the grading permit process.
Phase lI parking and drainage improvements will require removal of trees and
vegetation, but again, every effort in final design will be made to minimize tree
removal in keeping with the City's policy to preserve the existing unique natural
characteristics of the site.
List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None.
Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed landscaping will be fully comprised of drought tolerant and/or native
trees, shrubs and groundcover. Existing vegetation on -site will be preserved to the
greatest extent possible.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds other: shorebirds, waterfowl, gulls, great blue
heron.
The adjacent marine habitat and mature trees and vegetation on the site
attract several species of birds. No bird -of -prey nesting sites were found to
exist on the site during recent site visits; however, nearby residents have
stated that eagles have nested in trees near the site in the past. According to
Phil Schneider from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, a bird
sanctuary exists on Dumas Bay near the site and the Dumas Bay area is
designated as an important Eagle breeding territory. The existing large trees
along the shoreline and in the transitional uplands provide important habitat
for perching and potentially for nesting. In addition, Mr. Schneider notes
there is an existing Heron colony in the southern portion of Dumas -Bay. The
bay provides important habitat due to its fragile, unique inter -tidal character.
Many types of waterfowl are attracted to the area, and these are important
sources of prey for the eagles.
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small mammals, including coyotes,
skunks, raccoons, and others would be anticipated to frequent the area.
According to Mr. Schneider, Dumas Bay is a designated California sealion
resting area during low tide.
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: the site is adjacent to the Puget
Sound and there are important marine habitats and sealife in the area (i.e.
clams, sand dollars, starfish, crustaceans, etc.) Lakota Creek, east of the site,
is defined by the City Code as a major stream with salmonids.
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Eagles and herons frequent the Dumas Bay area.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
The site is located adjacent to Lakota Creek which, as a linear open space, provides
a natural migration route for animals. Also, as with other sites in the Puget Sound
region, the project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a natural
migration route for bird species. The existing vegetation and trees on the site
provide important wildlife habitat, foraging and migration opportunities.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed landscaping will consist primarily of native species and will enhance the
existing wildlife habitat value of the site. Existing vegetation and mature trees will
be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Some tree removal will occur in areas
directly adjacent to the building for the proposed parking lot improvements.
Limited public beach use is proposed adjacent to the site. Beach use will be allowed
only during low tide and daylight hours and will be subject to the following
restrictions:
No dayeamping, fires or picnicking will be allowed (picnicking will be
allowed in the "viewing station" area above the rock wall adjacent to the
beachfront
All Pets must be kept on leashes on the beach and elsewhere on the site
No bicycles or other types of non -motorized vehicles will be allowed on the
beach. Of course no motorized vehicles will be allowed and there is no
access through the site which could be used by vehicles to get to the
beachfront}
No radios music amplifiers or other objects which could create noise
disturbances will be allowed on the beach
Signs shalI notify the public about the fluctuating tidal conditions and the
Potential associated dangers of swimming in the area. Signs shall also not!
the public that no lifeguard is on duty.
The Parks and Recreation Department intends to control beach access and use
through si s posted at the entry to the beachfront, as well as at the trailhead at the
top of the bluff. In addition a gate will be added to the guard rail proposed to be
constructed along the to of the rock wall adjacent to the beach. The ate will be
locked during hours that the beachfront is closed to the public
In addition the Parks and Recreation Department will explore the possibilityof
developing an environmental education prqgram for the site. Such a promm could
include creation and distribution of brochures am hlets or videos and/or
installation of interpretive signs and facilities describing the sensitive
environmental conditions and important wildlife habitats of Dumas Bay. The
program could emphasize the uniqueness of the Dumas Bay inter -tidal habitat as
well as the open sace_ conservation planning associated with the development of the
Visitation Retreat Center site.
In order to minimize potential impacts to wildlife caused b • human and animal
intrusion elsewhere on the site the Parks and Recreation Department will nost signs
requiring that all pets are to be kept on leashes; and that people are to stay on
established trails and pathways on the site.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,
etc.
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
The existing building is heated by a gas furnace with oil as a backup, and the
kitchen stoves use natural gas. The building also contains three existing fireplaces
which would continue to be used. No changes are planned to the existing
heating/energy use system.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
None proposed at this time.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so
describe.
The building contains asbestos furnace insulation in the boiler room, which will
remain in place in compliance with current environmental recommendations. The
King County Fire Protection District No. 39 Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposal
and made recommendations for minor improvements (see Appendix C, Pre -
Application Review Comments and Information).
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
The project will meet all applicable Code requirements for emergency access.
Emergency medical, fire and police services might be required for
accidents/incidents on an irregular and infrequent basis.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Compliance with Code requirements for emergency access. Completion of
building improvements per Fire Marshal's recommendations as funding
sources become available.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)?
At certain times, noise and vibrations from the Lakota Wastewater Treatment
Plant directly south of the site may affect the project site, according to a
representative from the Federal Way Water and Sewer District. During
several site visits over the past two months, no significant noises from the
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
plant were noted. The existing dense trees and vegetation along the property
perimeter act to buffer noises from the plant, as well as any existing traffic
noise from Dash Point Road.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on
a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Minimal levels of noises and sounds associated with proposed uses (i.e.
parking lot noise, small-scale musical events, voices, etc.) on the property
would not be expected to affect surrounding property owners, due to the
existence of the dense trees and vegetation along the perimeter of the
property. Some concern has been expressed by adjacent neighbors that
sounds will travel outward toward the bay and become amplified. The types
of passive recreation uses and activities proposed on the grounds would not
be expected to create undesirable noises at nuisance levels to the
neighborhood and most likely, would be buffered by the existing dense
vegetation on the site perimeter.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
In managing the Visitation Retreat Center, the Parks and Recreation
Department has expressed that they would be willing to limit outdoor music
events to small-scale events appropriate to the site setting, such as acoustical
or classical concerts, jazz ensembles or music related to special receptions.
Traffic noises generated by the project would not be expected to occur in a
concentrated volume, but rather on an irregular and dispersed basis
throughout the day depending on the activities scheduled at the site. Refer
to the Traffic Impact Analysis for a description of anticipated traffic volumes
associated with the project.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Currently, certain uses that do not represent a change from previous uses have been
administratively approved for the site under its ownership by the City. Some of
these uses include: meeting rentals, overnight retreats, receptions, classes by retreat
attenders, recitals, plays, grounds maintenance, seminars and lectures. For a
complete description of current approved uses for the Visitation Retreat Center,
refer to the "Statement of Design Intent" section of the Site Plan Review application
package.
Currently, no general public access is permitted. General public access represents
a change in use from that previously established by the Sisters of the Visitation
Monastery and will be reviewed as part this Site Plan Review/Process III
application.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
The existing building and site improvements have occupied the site since 1956. The
previous use of the site before 1956 is unknown, however, it was likely undeveloped
open space and not agricultural land.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
The existing building contains 47,214 square feet of floor area and is concrete slab
on grade, wood -framed interior and exterior bearing walls, brick masonry cavity
walls, and wood frame floor and roof. The building and the grounds have been well
maintained and are in excellent condition.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
RS 15.0 - Single Family Residential
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Low Density Single Family Residential
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
'Rural Environment". The City has previously determined that the level of proposed
development at this time will not require a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit. Only minor improvements to the existing trail down to the shoreline are
proposed within the 2W shoreline jurisdiction. The Rural Environment designation
allows developmentlimprovement of trails for public access if the trails are an
existing condition which has historically provided access. In addition, recreational
development may be permitted in the Rural Environment designation subject to
some special conditions.
It is possible that storm drainage improvements could trigger a Shoreline
Substantial Permit requirement, if outfall systems to either Lakota Creek or Dumas
Bay/Puget Sound are proposed. This would be determined during -final site desi n
and the Shorelines Permit would be applied for at that time, if required
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? if so, specify_
In review of the City of Federal Way Sensitive Areas maps the upper portions of the
site are located within the aquifer recharge zone. The steep slopes on the site are
identified in the plans as potential geologic hazard areas. Areas within 100 feet from
the top of the major stream called Lakota Creek bank are define_ d as
environmentallv sensitive and are subject to sensitive areas requirements.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
To Be Completed by Applicant
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Approximately ten people (City contracted employees and/or staff) would work on -
site on a regular basis Monday through Friday. Of these, four would be support staff
to the Visitation Retreat Center (i.e. maintenance workers, caterers, etc.) and six
would be other City contracted personnel or staff with offices at the site.
j. Approximately how may people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses
and plans, if any:
The proposed use for passive recreation on the grounds -and recreation and
community service activities in the building will not be a significant change from
historic uses of the property. However, the change of use from private to public
does create a situation where potential environmental impacts could occur. In order
to minimize these potential impacts, the Parks and Recreation Department intends
to restrict use of the site as described under A. 11 and R.5.d.. Additionally, the
grou will continue to be regularly and thoroughly maintained and monitored b
the Parks and Recreation Department, and will only be o en to the public during
daylight hours
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or
low-income housing.
No housing units are proposed as part of the project.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing.
The building was previously used as a private facility owned and operated by the
Sisters of the Visitation Monastery before being purchased by the City to be
managed by the Parks and Recreation Department for recreational and community
service functions.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
To Be Completed by Applicant
10. AESTHETICS
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas: what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No additional structures or changes to the existing exterior building materials or
aesthetics are proposed in conjunction with this application.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
The site provides panoramic views of Puget Sound, the Olympic Mountains. These
views will not be altered by the proposed action.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Additional landscaping will be installed adjacent to the proposed parking lot
expansion areas in compliance with City Code requirements for screening and
buffering of parking areas.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Small-scale lighting fixtures will be installed on the grounds inappropriate locations
to improve public safety and security. No light or glare from these new lighting
improvements will impact adjacent properties due the proposed subtle
characteristics of the lighting fixtures and to the existence of dense trees and
understory vegetation at the perimeter of the site.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
Lighting will be carefully designed and focused appropriately so as not to produce
unwanted glare.
C. What existing off --site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
The Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant east of the site emits light sources;
however, these are not visible from the project site due to the dense screen of trees
and understory at the perimeter of the property. Some trees will be removed on the
southern portion of the property for expansion of the parking lot; however, existing
trees will be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Careful design and selection of lighting elements will eliminate glare problems.
Existing mature trees and landscaping at the site perimeter will be retained and will
To Be Completed by Applicant Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
continue to screen light and glare.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Besides those recreational opportunities offered on -site, Dash Point State Park is
located approximately 1.8 miles west of the site. Dumas Bay Park and Palisades
Neighborhood Park are located less than 1 mile west of the site. Lakota Beach
County Park is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the site. Dash Point State
Park and Dumas Bay Park provide public waterfront access opportunities.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No. The proposed project will enhance and expand community recreation and arts
opportunities. See the "Statement of Design Intent" section of the Site Plan Review
application package.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Not applicable.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
None.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
The site itself holds cultural and geographic significance due to its location adjacent
to Dumas Bay, the immaculate condition of the grounds, and the value it provides
to the community as a recreational and open space resource. There may have been
some Native American relationship to the site historically, according to the Parks
and Recreation Department. Cultural opportunities will be expanded by the types
of activities and uses proposed for the project.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
To Be Completed by Applicant
14. TRANSPORTATION
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The site receives direct access from S.W. Dash Point Road which is State Route 509.
Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis which has been prepared by Transportation
Consulting Northwest for review concurrently with this Site Plan Review
application and SEPA checklist.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
The site does not appear to be served by public transit currently. The nearest metro
bus route is #176 on S.W. 320th Street, approximately two miles from the site. Public
shuttles could potentially provide service to and from the site as coordinated by the
Parks and Recreation Department for special events.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
Approximately 232 cars currently can be parked on the site on an informal and
unstructured basis according to a preliminary count prepared for the Parks and
Recreation Department; however, the existing informal parking areas do not meet
applicable Code requirements. Of the 232 total existing spaces, approximately 42 are
located in front of the building.
Parking in front of the building will be formalized and improved as part of Phase
I in order for the project to comply with City Code requirements. Upon completion,
approximately 60 spaces will be available for Phase I uses. Further parking
improvements to add approximately 50 more spaces are proposed as a future phase.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
It is not anticipated that the project will require any improvements to the adjacent
road system (see Traffic Impact Analysis).
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, generally describe.
No direct use of water, rail or air transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity
would be expected to occur in conjunction with the project.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project.
To Be Completed by Applicant Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends improving the two site entrances for two-
way traffic and designing parking improvements to accommodate bus turning radii.
However, the City traffic en 'veer has determined that creating two-way access at
these entrance points will not be safe. Therefore improvements to create two-wa
access are not proposed.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Because the project will be open to the public, public services, such as police and
fire patrol and protection, emergency medical services, etc. will be necessary from
time -to -time. However, the increased demand on these services would not be
anticipated to be significant.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Parking lot areas will be lighted to Rrovide maximum security for evening use and
late afternoon use of the facility during winter). Phase II improvements could
RotentialIX include unobtrusive low lighting of the grounds for evening use b
retreatants. The grounds and beachfront will not be open to the general public
during non -daylight hours. It is not likely that any event would be scheduled on site
that would require traffic control or security officers. The events will be scheduled
according to the adequacy of support facilities i.e. parking. food service etc.
16. UTILITIES
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural ga.s, water, refuse service,
telephone sanitary sewer, septic sstem (abandoned?), other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
No additional utility hook-ups or increases in existing utility services would be
anticipated to result from the project, except for electricity use due to the proposed
site lighting improvements. This additional level of electricity use would be
insignificant in comparison to the background level of use. Some on -site utility
boxes and facilities may need to be relocated for construction of the parking lot
improvements.
To Be Completed by Applicant
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the
lead agency is relying on theme, to m e
r J
Signature:
Date
ist' Submitted:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
of my knowledge. I understand that the
ADDENDUM TO LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
Prepared by Jerry Paddock, PE, OTAK, Inc. / May 3, 1994
Core Reuuirements
Core Requirement #3 - Runoff Control: An infiltration system will be the preferred method of runoff
control for the site. Geotechnical analysis will be performed to determine if infiltration is feasible.
Infiltration will only be used if the geotechnical analysis indicates that no impacts will occur to the
existing bluffs on site. If infiltration is not feasible, then the drainage will be tightlined to Lakota
Creek (controlled discharge) or Dumas Bay after treatment through oil/water separators and
biofiltration swales.
Special Requirements:
#3. Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan. Not required.
a. The proposed project is not a Master Planned Development.
b. The proposed project is not a subdivision or planned unit development.
C. The proposed project is not a commercial development or planned unit development
that will eventually construct more than 50 acres of impervious surface area.
d. The proposed project will not clear an area of more than 500 acres.
#4. Adopted Basin or Community Plan. Not required.
In addition to the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan, the site is also in the South
Lower Puget Sound Sub -Basin. Basin -Wide Recommendation Number 2 (BW-2) of the Hylebos Creek
and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan will apply to the site.
#6. Coalescing Plate Oi/Water Separators. Not required.
This requirement does not apply because the proposed project is not proposing to construct more than
5 acres of impervious surface area. Oil/water separator catch basins are proposed, however.
#7. Closed Depression. Not required.
This requirement does not apply to the project because the site will not discharge to a closed
depression.
#8. Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control. Not
required.
The proposed project does not propose to use a lake, wetland or closed depression for peak rate runoff
control or for direct discharge. The proposed project does not propose to increase the volume of runoff
to an off -site closed depression.
#9. Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain. Should not be a requirement on this project.
At this time it is not known if Lakota Creek is included in an approved flood study. From review of
the Flood Rate Insurance Maps by FEMA, it does not appear so. However, further research will be
done during final design to confirm if a flood study is available. Any information found will be
included on the construction plans. The existing building is about 45 feet above the bottom of Lakota
Creek, so it is believed that the building is well above the 100-year floodplain.
#10. Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and Type 2 Streams. Not required.
This requirement does not apply to this project because the site does not have a flood protection
facility and does not propose to construct a new facility or modify an existing facility.
kXb,yF G�dpr�- �d15fV 11-3v-oG �9�,l0o5��-S�� �,T OVA ,
[DATE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT#
DETERMINATION
12/27/93
Chrzanoski Retaining Wall
SEP93-0023
MDNS
1/25/94
Pavilion's Centre, Phases I & II
SEP93-0025
MDNS
1/31/94
Sleister/Chevron 99
SEP94-0001
MDNS
2/12/94
Cucina! Cucina!
SEP93-0021
MDNS
2/15/94
West Campus Retention
SEP91-0001
DNS
2/22/94
Blackberry Hill
SEP92-0012
MDNS
2/24/94
Executel Motel Expansion
SEP93-0022
MDNS
3/1/94
Executel
SEP93-0022
MDNS
4/12/94
Lay/Wilson Short Plat
SEP94-0003
MDNS
5/3/94
Weyerhaeuser/World Vision Annexation
SEP94-0007
DNS
5/10/94
Waverly Apartments
SEP94-0008
MDNS
5/19/94
Good Guys
SEP94-0009
MDNS
6/11/94
Special Needs Housing
SEP94-0016
DNS
6/17/94
Seawall Construction Bulkhead Repair
SEP94-0013
DNS
7/14/94
Pacific Suites
SEP94-0004
MDNS
8/9/94
South 348th Street Improvement Project
SEP94-0014
MDNS
8/13/94
World Vision
SEP94-0019
MDNS
9/13/94
St. Vincent de Paul Parish
SEP93-0028
MDNS
9/22/94
McDonald's Restaurant
SEP94-0021
MDNS
10/14/94
Sign Code
SEP94-0031
DNS
10/25/94
Retreat Center
SEP94-0005
MDNS
10/27/94
SWM & Parks CFP
SEP94-0032
DNS
11/17/94
Retreat Center Modified MDNS (#1)
SEP94-0005
MDNS
11/18/94
Steel Lake Park Building Demo
SEP94-0035
Exempt
11/26/94
Les Schwab Tire Center
SEP94-0015
MDNS
11/30/94
Retreat Center Modified MDNS (#2)
SEP94-0005
MDNS
12/1/94
Crisp Stairway
SEP94-0026
MDNS
12/13/94
Accessory Dwelling Units
SEP94-0034
DNS
12/20/94
Wolf Retaining Wall
SEP94-0012
MDNS
1/28/95
Clerget/Keuker LSM
SEP93-0030
MDNS
2/4/95
Coffee Europa
SEP94-0038
DNS
2/17/95
Northwest Church Parking Lot Expansion
SEP94-0037
MDNS
2/25/95
YMCA of Greater Seattle
SEP94-0033
MDNS
3/2/95
Holiday Inn
SEP94-0023
MDNS
3/3/95
Steel Lake Park Improvements
SEP95-0005
DNS
4/11/95
West Hylebos Regional Storage Facility
SEP94-0036
DNS
Federal Way SEPA Determinations Page 4 of 8
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 6, 1995
TO: Federal Way City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee
FROM: Greg Moore, Director of Community Development Services
Lori Michaelson Schill, Associate Planner, Community Development Services
SUBJECT: Visitation Retreat Center: Process III Land Use Application
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
The City of Federal Way proposes to establish the 12 acre site and existing facility as a public park
and community recreation facility, for purposes of recreational activities, cultural and arts events
and classes; along with private rental for meetings, conferences, retreats, weddings and receptions,
with associated lodging. Some city offices are also planned. All uses of the facility and grounds
will be managed by the City Parks Department. See attached Staff Report to the Federal Way
Hearing Examiner, January 10, 1995.
II. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Conversion of the site to a public park represents a change in land use from its previous use as a
private monastery. The application is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Article VIII., Process III review (attached).
(1) Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2)(f), a Mitigated Environmental Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued on November 30, 1994, by Gregory D. Moore, responsible
SEPA official (see staff report, Exhibit P). No appeal of this decision was filed by the
appeal deadline of December 14, 1994 and the decision was finaled.
(2) Pursuant to FWCC Article VIII., the Process III public hearing was conducted on January
10, 1995 by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. On January 25, 1995 the hearing
examiner issued a recommendation for project approval, subject to conditions as
recommended in the staff report. To date, no requests for reconsideration or challenges to
the hearing examiner's recommendation have been filed. Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-490,
any such challenges would be heard by the Federal Way City Council.
(3) At their meeting on February 6, 1995 the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the
Federal Way City Council will consider the land use application. Committee
recommendations will be forwarded to the full council, who will render the Process III
decision.
Land Use and Transportation Committee
February 6, 1995
Page 2 of 2
III. PROCESS III CITY COUNCIL ACTION
FWCC Article VIII., Process III Review (attached) requires the city council to decide the Process
III application after consideration of the entire matter on the record before the hearing examiner.
The City Council shall, by action approved by a majority of the total membership, take one of the
actions as prescribed in the article. Pursuant to this article, the city council may approve the
application only if:
(1) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(2) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by
reference from the comprehensive plan; and
(3) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
The project has been found to be consistent with the above decision criteria, as demonstrated in the
staff analysis (staff report, page 12) and hearing examiner's findings (hearing examiner's
recommendation, pages 12-13).
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Federal Way Hearing Examiner has found the project to be consistent with all applicable
decision criteria, statutes, codes and policies, and has issued a recommendation for project
approval subject to stated conditions of approval. Project approval is recommended in accordance
with the findings and recommendations as issued by the hearing examiner.
V. ATTACHMENTS
■ Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, January 10, 1995
■ FWCC Article VIII., Process III Review
■ Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, January 25, 1995
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21, 1995
TO: Mayor Gates and City Councilmembers
FROM: Greg Moore, Director, Community Development Services
Lori M. Schill, Senior Planner, Community Outreach and Policy Planning
SUBJECT: Visitation Retreat Center: Process III Land Use Application
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
The City of Federal Way proposes to establish the 12 acre site and existing facility as a public park
and community recreation facility, for purposes of recreational activities, cultural and arts events
and classes; along with private rental for meetings, conferences, retreats, weddings and receptions,
with associated lodging. Some city offices are also planned. All uses of the facility and grounds
will be managed by the City Parks Department. See attached Staff Report to the Federal Way
Hearing Examiner, January 10, 1995.
II. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Conversion of the site to a public park represents a change in land use from its previous use as a
private monastery. The application is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Article VIII., Process III review (attached).
(1) Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2)(f), a Mitigated Environmental Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued on November 30, 1994, by Gregory D. Moore, responsible
SEPA official (see staff report, Exhibit P). No appeal of this decision was filed by the
appeal deadline of December 14, 1994 and the decision was finaled.
(2) Pursuant to FWCC Article VIII., the Process III public hearing was conducted on January
10, 1995 by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner. On January 25, 1995 the hearing
examiner issued a recommendation for project approval, subject to conditions as
recommended in the staff report. No requests for reconsideration or challenges to the
hearing examiner's recommendation were filed pursuant to the hearing examiner's
recommendation.
(3) At their meeting on February 6, 1995 the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the
Federal Way City Council moved to recommend approval of the Process III application
consistent with the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner, subject to provision to
Council of staff responses to questions raised by committee members.
Memo to Federal Way City Council
February 21, 1995
Page 2 of 3
III. STAFF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED AT COMMITTEE MEETING
Following are staff responses to questions raised at the Land Use and Transportation Committee
meeting:
(1) Do provisions of the open space bond prohibit development of existing open space
such as the parking expansion proposed for Phase II of the project?
No. Please see memorandum from Londi Lindell, dated February 9, 1995 (attached).
(2) What budget amounts are allocated for the contracts required for the project?
Two contracts are required as part of mitigation measures established by the
environmental decision, as listed below:
Contract Type Contract Term Budizet
Shoreline Monitoring 2 years minimum I st Year: $7, 000
Program 5 years maximum Subsequent Year(s): $5, 0001yr.
Site Signage per contract one time only: $8,000-10,000
(interpretative/park rules)
(3) What would it cost to upgrade beach access to meet ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act) requirements?
ADA accessibility to the beach is not required for the project as proposed. However, a
future decision to hold public programs and classes on the beach could trigger ADA
requirements. Preliminary cost estimates were provided to the City by OTAK, Inc. (the
contractor who prepared the Process III application for the Parks Department). Below is
a summary of total costs associated with two design alternatives. Estimates include
design work, project administration, permitting, environmental analysis, and construction
costs. A line -item breakdown of the estimated totals is available from the Parks
Department.
Alternative]: ADA ramp improvement $335, 000
Alternative 2: Tram option
Memo to Federal Way City Council
February 21, 1995
$275, 000
Page 3 of 3
IV. PROCESS III CITY COUNCIL ACTION
FWCC Article VIII., Process III Review (attached) requires the City Council to decide the Process
III application after consideration of the entire matter on the record before the hearing examiner.
The City Council shall, by action approved by a majority of the total membership, take one of the
actions as prescribed in the article. Pursuant to this article, the City Council may approve the
application only if:
(1) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(2) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by
reference from the comprehensive plan; and
(3) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
The project has been found to be consistent with the above decision criteria, as demonstrated in the
staff analysis (staff report, page 12) and hearing examiner's findings (hearing examiner's
recommendation, pages 12-13).
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The Federal Way Hearing Examiner has found the project to be consistent with all applicable
decision criteria, statutes, codes and policies, and has issued a recommendation for project
approval subject to stated conditions of approval. The Land Use and Transportation Committee
has issued a recommendation for project approval in accordance with the findings and
recommendations as issued by the hearing examiner, subject to Council review of staff responses
provided at III., above.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
■ Memorandum to City Council from Londi Lindell, dated February 9, 1995
■ Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated February 6, 1995
■ Staff Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, January 10, 1995
■ FWCC Article VIII., Process III Review
■ Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, dated January 25, 1995, is
attached to the City Council Resolution in this packet
1/,-7111)
CITY OF
rr�
Fr
33530 1ST WAY SOUTH
(206) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210
MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NO.: SEP94-0005
Description of Proposal:
Convert the existing site and
improvements from the previous land
use as a religious monastery known
as the Visitation Retreat Center,
to a city park and government
facility, including parking lot
expansion and minorbuilding and
site improvements to meet code
requirements.
Proponent: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Location: 3200 SW DASH POINT RD
Lead Agency: City of Federal Way
The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes
the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in
the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for
Environmental Checklist; Application No. SEP94-000519, and
Conclusions of Law based upon the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
and other -municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations
designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under
the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to
R.C.W 43.21C.060.
Findings of Fact:
1. The proposed action will convert the existing 12-acre site
and 14,214 square foot building, with associated parking and
landscaping, from private.use to public use as a city park and
government facility.
2. The proposed action includes site improvements in.two phases:
Phase I includes minor upgrades to -existing improvements, with no
material expansion; Phase II includes expansion of parking
facilities from approximately fifty (50) existing parking stalls
to approximately one hundred (100).
r _
3. Steep slopes on the site adjacent to the Dumas Bay shoreline
are identified as geologically hazardous areas by Federal Way
City Code Article XIV, Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Any land
surface modification proposed within twenty-five (25) feet of the
top or toe of the slope will be regulated by Federal Way City
Code (FWCC) Article XIV; Division 7, Land Modifications; and the
King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). No further
mitigation is required.
4. The site lies between two streams identified as major streams
by Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Article XIV, Environmentally
Sensitive Areas. Any land surface modification proposed within
one hundred (100) feet of the edge of a major stream will be
regulated by FWCC Article XIV, Division 7, Land Modifications;
and the KCSWDM. No further mitigation is required.
5. The 1992 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)
will apply to design and construction of on site drainage
facilities.
6. The site is located,in the West Branch Hylebos Creek Sub -
Basin, as identified in the Hylebos Creek and lower Puget Sound
Drainage Plan. The Basin -wide recommendation for enhancements to
stormwater facilities for adequate mitigation of development
impacts will apply to the design of storm drainage facilities.
7. The Dumas Bay shoreline is identified as.a. Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area by Federal Way City Code Chapter 18,
Environmental Protection.
S. The number of people anticipated to use the shoreline as a
result of the change in use is estimated by the applicant at a
daily average of approximately thirty (30) persons, as compared
to a previous daily average of approximately fifteen (15)
persons.
9. Certain marine plant and animal species associated with Dumas
Bay are identified as environmentally sensitive by the
'Environmental Analysis of the Visitation Retreat Shoreline on
Dumas Bay;' by Beak Consultants, dated August 5, 1994-and finaled
October 4, 1994. The report recommends measures to mitigate.
identified or anticipated adverse impacts to this sensitive area.
10. No traffic impacts requiring mitigation were identified by
the-city's review of the 'Traffic Impact Analysis for Visitation
Retreat Center:, prepared for the project by Transportation
Consulting Northwest, submitted on May 20, 1994.
11. Identification of Potential adverse impacts and an
associated mitigation measures to the function of the shoreline
as a primary foraging area for the Dumas Bay reat blue heron
colony identified in the 'Beak' report, reauires collection of
baseline data during the colon 's nesting, breeding and fledgling
.period, identified blr Beak Consultants as February 1st to july 1
994 a roximatel • and also re uires restriction of additional
use of the shoreline beyond previous levels beforeand until
etion ofthis baseline study period relative to the blue
heron.
1.2. Baseline studies relative to eelgrass beds, eagle{ and coho
salmon, may appropriately be conducted at any time prior to the
July 1 1994 target date for completion of blue_ heron baseline
studies according to Beak Consultanta
Conclusions of Law:
1. Establish a surface water management program to manage
stormwater runoff and prevent water pollution (Policy NE-1611
FWCP) .
2. Establish regulatory. -measures to prevent flooding (Policy NE-
17, FWCP).
3. Prepare maintenance standards to protect stormwater systems,
prevent erosion and protect natural vegetation (Policy H-30,
FWCP) .
4. Adopt special regulatidns limiting or preventing development
within the most sensitive areas and require completion of special
studies by qualified professionals when necessary prior to
issuance of permits (Policy NE-2, FWCP).
5. Limit public access to habitat protection zones and the most
sensitive wetland areas (Policy NE-7, FWCP).
6. Require environmental impact assessment and mitigation of
potential impacts to sensitive areas before development is
permitted (Policy NE-9, FWCP).
The lead agency -for this proposal has. determined that the
proposed action does not have probable sigPnificant adverse im act
on the environment, and
is not required under
following conditions are
review of a completed
information on file with
available to the public of
Conditions:
in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
R. C.W. 43.21C. 032 (2) (c) , - only if the
met. This - deciszon was made after
environmental checklist and other
the lead agency. This information is
i request.
1. If stormwater will be discharged off site to any location
other than a designated "receiving water", per the King -
County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), then surface
water detention facilities shall be designed in -accordance
with the KCSWDM as part of design review for the project,
except that a 7-day storm event shall be used for analysis
instead of the 24-hour storm event specified in the KCSWDM;
subject to approval by the Public Works Director.
2. Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall promote
public awareness and park stewardship by establishing on
site informational signage sufficient to inform entering
visitors of the site's unique characteristics, i.e.,
sensitive geographic and environmental features, rare plant
and animal species associated with Dumas Bay; historic use
of the site as a physical and spiritual retreat; _and to
convey the parks department policy that the site be enjoyed
for passive.recreation uses only, consistent with historic
use; and to instruct visitors to read and follow all park
rules as posted; subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development Services.
3. Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall.promote
public awareness and stewardship of the critical plant and
animal species associated with Dumas Bay by establishing
interpretive signage, appropriately located, describing the
Great Blue Heron, Eagle, Coho Salmon, Eelgrass, potential
presence of California sea Lion; and including information
such as nesting and feeding characteristics and
vulnerability.of the species to human intrusion; subject to
approval by the Director.of Community Development services.
4. Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall promote
protection of the shoreline and the public safety, by
Posting regulations at the trailhead to the beach, including
the following elements at a minimum; subject to approval by
the Director of Community Development Services:
a. Prohibit use of beach during_high tide conditions or
after dusk (warn of fluctuating tides and dangers of
accessing beach at or near high tide);
b. Prohibit swimming; warn no lifeguard on duty;
C. Prohibit walking beyond signs posted "private
property/no trespassing", hich si ns shall be acted at
ark ra art boundaries•
d. Prohibit camping, picnics and fires;
e. Prohibit music amplifiers or other noise -producing
objects;
f. Prohibit pets, bicycles and motorized vehicles;
g. .Prohibit removal from the beach of any shells or live
animals;.
h. Prohibit any disturbances of birds or animals that may
be present on the shoreline or adjacent tidelands;
i. Require groups to pre -register with the.parks
department.
j_ Prohibit use of watercraft snorkelin and scuba diving:
exce t wh'en such activities are for educational or
scientific Ourvoses, and are re -a roved b the arks
de artment.
5. Prior to project implementation, the applicant shall
establish park supervision and security measures sufficient
to maintain site security, including the following elements
at a minimum; subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development Services:
a. Implementation of a security plan coordinated with the
Police Department;
b. On site availability at all times during open park
hours, of Parks Department staff or volunteers, trained to
explain park rules or procedures and respond to questions or
concerns;
c. Periodic monitoring of grounds by personnel who will be
trained in security and response measures in accordance with
the security plan as established;
d. Closure and locking_of entrance gate and gate at the
trailhead to the beach at appropriate times as established
by the Parks Department.
6. The shoreline area shall be monitored for -.a period of not
less than two (2) years or more than five (5) years as
required by the Director of Communit_; Development Services.
The applicant shall pay for the services of a qualified
` professional, selected and retained by the Department of
Community Development Services to conduct periodic
inspections and issue written reports on the status of the
monitoring program. The scope of work will include
establishing baseline data on critical marine plant and
animal species identified in the report titled
'Environmental Analysis -of the Visitation Retreat Center
Shoreline on Dumas Bay, Washington' (prepared by Beak
Consultants, Inc., final date October 4, 1994); conducting
periodic monitoring of those species to identify possible
adverse impacts that may be associated with public use; and
developing any recommended measures as necessary and
appropriate to mitigate identified shoreline impacts, as
required by the Director of Community Development Services.
studies of.great blue heron shall be conducted from
February 1 1994 to July 1 1994r apuraximately. on �na�ifir
UnLCt, uv ve uex�ermineq.__-py une selected consultant. Baseline
studies of eelgrass beds eagle, and coho salmon shall be
conducted prior to July 1 1994 an specific dates to be
determined bV the selected consultant. Until completion of
the required baseline studies the parks department shall
limit access to the shoreline to no more than fifteen l5
persons per da • which limitation shall be implemented b
rec(uirincr all individuals and or groups to pre -register. with
the Parks de artment and be accompanied to the shoreline b
a parks de artm nt
The initial MDNS was issued October 25, 1994 under WAC 197-11-
340(2); ozi the basis of review of comments received by the
comment deadline of November 9, 1994, the responsible official
hereby issues a modified MDNS under WAC 197-11-340(2)(f). Any
person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an
appeal with the City by 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 1994.
Contact Person: Lori Michaelson Schill Phone: 661-4118
Associate Planner
Responsible Official: Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services
Address: 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003
Date issued: 11/17/94 Signature:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
(206) 661-4118
MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
Application No.: Sep 94-0005
Description of Proposal: Convert the land use of the existing site and improvements from a previous
relgious monastery, known as the Visitation Retreat Center, to a city park and government facility.
Applicant/Owner: City of Federal Way
Parks and Recreation Department
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Project Location: 3200 Southwest Dash Point Road
Federal Way, WA 98023
Lead Agency: City of Federal Way
The responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based
upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and Conclusions of Law based upon the Federal
Way Comprehensive Plan and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis
for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060.
Findings of Fact:
The proposed action will convert the existing site (12 acres), building (47,214 square feet), and
associated parking and landscaping, from private to public use as city park/goverment facility.
2. Site improvements are proposed in two phases. Phase I proposes minor upgrades to existing
improvements and constitute no material exansion. Phase II proposes to expand the parking
facilities from approximately fifty to one hundred stalls.
The 1992 King County Surface Water Design Manual will apply to design and construction of on
site drainage facilities.
4. The site is located in the West Branch Hylebos Creek Sub -Basin, as identified in the Hylebos
Creek and Lower Puget Sound Drainage Plan. The basin -wide recommendation for
enhancements to stormwater facilities for adequate mitigation of development impacts, will apply
to the design of drainage facilities.
5. The 'Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Application No. SPR 94-0005' is hereby
incorporated by reference as though set forth in full.
Conclusions of Law:
1. Establish a surface water management program to manage stormwater runoff and prevent water
pollution (Policy NE-16, FWCP).
2. Establish regulatory measures to prevent flooding (Policy NE-17, FWCP).
3. Prepare maintenance standards to protect stormwater systems, prevent erosion and protect natural
vegetation (Policy H-30, FWCP).
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), only if the following condition is met. This decision was made
after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
This information is available to the public on request.
Condition(s):
(1) If stormwater runoff will be discharged off -site to any location, other than a designated
"receiving water'; per the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), then
surface water detention facilities shall be designed on site in accordance with the KCSWDM as
part of design review for the project, except that a 7-day storm event shall be used for analysis
instead of the 24-hour storm event specified in the KCSWDM; subject to approval by the Public
Works Director.
(2) Prior to project implementation, promote historic and environmental awareness of the site and
park objectives for passive recreation and open space conservation, by establishing signage near
the entry gate sufficient to inform visitors of the park Is unique characteristics, i.e., geographic
features, sensitive environmental conditions, and important wildlife habitats of Dumas Bay; as
well as historic use as a physical and spiritual sanctuary and the City's policy that visitors enjoy
the grounds only for purposes consistent with that historic theme, and that all park rules be
observed as posted; subject to approval by the Director of Community Development Services.
(3) Prior to project implementation, preserve the use of park grounds for passive recreation only by
establishing signage sufficient to require the following general -use regulations; subject to
approval by the Director of Community Development Services:
a. Observe park hours. Park grounds will be closed to the general public daily at dusk.
b. No camping or fires allowed. Picnics allowed in designated areas only.
C. No bicycles, skates, skateboards, or motorized vehicles.
d. Stay on established trails and paths.
e. No pets, including horses.
f. No radios, music amplifiers or other noise producing objects.
g. Observe shoreline rules posted at trailhead to beach.
(4) Prior to project implementation, promote awareness and stewardship of the park's complex
ecosystems by establishing informational and interpretative signage at key locations and
sufficient to inform entering visitors of the unique Dumas Bay environment and of the
presence, approximate location, characteristics, vulnerability to human intrusion, etc., for
protection of sensitive shoreline plants and animals, specifically including eelgrass beds, Coho
Salmon, Eagle, and Great Blue Heron, and potential presence of California Sea Lions; subject
to approval by the Director of Community Development Services.
N
(5) Prior to project implementation, promote public safety, security, and protection of the shoreline
environment by posting rules and a gate at the trailhead to the beach, sufficient to establish the
following regulations; subject to approval by the Director of Community Development Services:
a. Prohibit use of beach during high tide conditions or after dusk (warn of fluctuating
tides and dangers of accessing beach at or near high tide);
b. Prohibit swimming (warn no lifeguard on duty), boating, and walking beyond signs
posted "private property/no trespassing" at park boundaries.
C. Prohibit camping, picnics, fires, pets, music amplifiers or other noise producing
objects.
d. Prohibit pets, bicycles and motorized vehicles.
e. Prohibit shellfish harvest or removal from beach of any shells or live animals.
f. Prohibit disturbances of birds or animals that may be present along the shoreline or
adjacent tidelands.
g. Require groups of more than 30 to register with the park office and be accompanied to
the beach by an adult.
(6) Prior to project implementation, establish park supervision and security measures sufficient to
maintain site security, including the following elements; subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development Services:
a. Implementation of a security plan coordinated with the Police Department;
b. On -site availability of Parks Department staff or volunteers at all times during open
park hours, to answer questions or concerns, explain park rules or procedures, and to
register any large group visits to the beach.
C. Periodic supervision of the grounds by personnel who are trained in security and
response measures specific to the operational plan of this park;
d. Closure of entrance gates and the gate to the beach at the appropriate times.
Conditions of the MDNS are based upon impacts identified within the environmental checklist,
attachments, exhibits and supplemental reports as listed, and the above 'Final Staff Evaluation for
Environmental Checklist Application #SEP 94-0005', and are supported by plans, policies and
regulations formally adopted by the City for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to
approve, condition, or deny proposed actions.
The City reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to. the site or the proposal
in order to determine the environmental significance or non -significance of the project at that
point in time.
Prepared by: Lori Michaelson Schill, Associate Planner (206) 661-4019
Date: October 15, 1994
a:\vrcmdn
This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15
days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by November 9, 1994.
Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the
above comment deadline.
Staff Contact Person: Lori Michaelson Schill, Associate Planner, 661-4019
Responsible Official: Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services
Address: 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, Washington 98003
Date issued: October 25, 1994
Doc. I.D.
Signature:
Gregory D. Moore, AICP
Responsible Official