The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 02-17-2015 Special 4kCITY OF Federal Way CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Council Chambers - City Hall February 17, 2015 - 5:30 p.m. www.cityoffederalway.corn 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. MIRROR ESTATES FINAL PLAT ...page 2 4. STUDY SESSION: MARIJUANA MORATORIUM ...page 41 Staff Presentation Citizen Comment (3 minute limit) - Council Discussion 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION Property Acquisition pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) 6. ADJOURNMENT The Council may add items and take action on items not listed on the agenda. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 17,2015 ITEM#: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT:MIRROR ESTATES FINAL PLAT APPROVAL POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Mirror Estates Final Plat? COMMITTEE: N/A MEETING DATE:N/A CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ® Other STAFF REPORT BY: Matthew Herrera,AICP—Senior Planner DEPT: Community Development Attachments: 1. Resolution approving the Mirror Estates Final Plat. 2. Staff Report with exhibits. Action on this agenda item will occur at the February 17,2015, City Council Regular Meeting Options Considered: 1. Approve the Final Plat and resolution as presented. 2. Modify the Final Plat and/or resolution and approve as modified. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: N/A MAYOR APPROVAL: N/A 2 1 IRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee / v' Coun. Initial Initial/Date Initial/Date / ate S CHIEF OF STAFF: N/A ,(3/;Gv,t Aar 1/ Committee Coun Initial/Date Initial •.te COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:N/A Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:N/A (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL# ❑ DENIED 1ST reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING(ordinances only) ORDINANCE# REVISED-1/2015 RESOLUTION# RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the Mirror Estates Final Plat, Federal Way, Washington, File No. 14-103140-00-SU WHEREAS, on January 30, 2007, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat application resulting in the recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, dated February 9, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat, City of Federal Way File No. 05- 100590-00-SU, was approved subject to conditions on March 6, 2007, by Federal Way City Council Resolution No. 07-493, which adopted the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the final plat application for Mirror Estates within the required 10-year completion time pursuant to RCW 58.17.140(3)(b); and WHEREAS, the applicant has satisfied or guaranteed all of the conditions set forth in Resolution 07-493; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way's Community Development Department and Public Works Department staff have reviewed the proposed final plat for its conformance to the conditions of preliminary plat approval and final plat decisional criteria, and their analysis and conclusions are set forth in the Community Development Department Staff Report, February 10, 2015, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the application and staff report for the Mirror Estates Final Plat during the City Council's Special Meeting on February 17, 2015. Resolution No. 15- Page 1 of 4 Rev 1/15 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. 1. The Mirror Estates Final Plat, City of Federal Way File No. 14-103140-00-SU, is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat and is in conformance with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls in effect at the time the preliminary plat application was deemed complete. 2. Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the staff report, dated February 10, 2015, which are adopted herein by reference, and on the City Council's review of the application for final plat, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, and schools and school grounds as are required by City Code, or which are necessary and appropriate, and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. 3. The public use and interest will be served by the final plat approval granted herein. 4. All conditions listed in Federal Way Resolution No. 07-493, dated March 6, 2007, have been satisfied, and/or satisfaction of the conditions have been sufficiently guaranteed by the applicant as allowed by the application's vested provision of Federal Way City Code 20-135. Resolution No. 15- Page 2 of 4 Rev 1/15 5. All required improvements for final plat approval have been made and/or sufficient bond, cash deposit, or assignment of funds have been accepted as guarantee for completion and maintenance of all required plat improvements as identified in the Staff Report. 6. All taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid or will be paid, prior to recording the final plat. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the Findings and Conclusions contained in Section 1 above, the Mirror Estates Final Plat, City of Federal Way File No. 14-103140-00-SU, is approved. Section 3. Recording. The approved and signed final plat, together with all legal instruments pertaining thereto, as required pursuant to all applicable codes, shall be recorded with the King County Department Recorder's Office. The applicant shall pay all recording fees. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution. Section 5. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Resolution No. 15- Page 3 of 4 Rev 1/15 Section 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of , 20 . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JIM FERRELL ATTEST: CITY CLERK, STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, AMY JO PEARSALL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: Resolution No. 15- Page 4 of 4 Rev 1/15 Aki llk CITY OF Federal Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MIRROR ESTATES FINAL PLAT Federal Way File No. 14-103140-00-SU Report prepared by Matt Herrera,AICP—Senior Planner,February 10,2015 I RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Mirror Estates Final Plat(Exhibit A). City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the final plat application and finds it complies with the preliminary plat conditions and all other applicable codes and policies. II POINT SUMMARY Meeting Date: City Council Special Meeting-Tuesday, February 17,2015 —5:30pm. Plat Location: King County Parcel 072104-9081. ■ra n/pi'r• R � aiwA�" Parcel is located approximately U Elr i 'a =-� om` .25 miles north of SW 320`h St. near the intersection of 11t Pl SW :in£ AIM � � m�# ° and SW 316 PI(Exhibit B). C3 Project Site IfA /////// _ Description: Mirror Estates is a proposed 27-lot single-family residential /Q ��© ©�� , 1 1 subdivision on approximately 9.2 l■ 1 ,"" , , �� L , i acres. The Mirror Estates la L�11 ■LT �a�� . [■ : �'". 1 ■ preliminary plat application was r le„At� �L�.{- z'Et E�� granted approval by the Federal 1a�� — � � QI Way City Council on March 6, Q ,"t! C t3 s rim Y h' 2007 per City Council Resolution '� 07-493 (Exhibit C). I a4artr;;;,,,,,rifiii r Access to Mirror Estates is via 11th P1 SW, 8th PI SW, and 8th Ave ■ SW. All required roads, sidewalks, pedestrian pathways,wetland 111 f mitigation, storm drainage I facilities, sewer lines,water lines, �°-- and related improvements for the Vicinity Map project have been constructed or are financially guaranteed. Owner: Mirror Estates LLC Michael Chaffeur 15215 SE 272nd St., Suite 201 Kent, WA 98042 206-406-3076 Engineer: Barghausen Consulting Engineers Terry Wilson 18215 72nd Ave S Kent, WA 98032 Water/Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Fire District: South King Fire and Rescue School District: Federal Way Public Schools III HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the subject property is Single Family High Density Residential and RS7.2, respectively. The Mirror Estates plat is a standard subdivision with a minimum permitted lot size of 7,200 square feet. The lot sizes on the final plat range from 7,201 square feet to 12,139 square feet. The 27-lot Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat was granted approval by the Federal Way City Council on March 6,2007,per Resolution 07-493. The 9.37-acre subdivision includes an Open Space/Public Pedestrian Access Tract(Tract A)and Stormwater Detention/Water Quality/Public Pedestrian Access Tract(Tract B). Tract A includes wetland mitigation in the form of wetland creation and buffer enhancement. These compensatory requirements are intended to mitigate the onsite wetland impacts associated with the development.The City's Hearing Examiner approved the wetland impact and mitigation plans on February 9, 2007. The city approved engineering plans for the plat infrastructure on June 18,2012. Engineering approval was granted on June 7, 2013, and site work commenced shortly thereafter. It should be noted the mid- block traffic circle on 11`h P1 SW as shown on the preliminary plat(Exhibit D)was replaced with two speed humps.Following further analysis by the Traffic Division during engineering review, it was determined the speed humps were preferred for mid-block traffic calming instead of a traffic circle. The applicant applied for final plat approval on June 27,2014,while the site was still under construction. Improvements are now substantially complete. Pursuant to RCW 58.17.110 and Federal Way City Code' (FWCC)20-136,the City Council is charged with determining whether: 1)the proposed final plat conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval and subsequent approved modifications; 2)the subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval; 3)all taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid; and 4)all required improvements have been made or sufficient security has been accepted by the city. 'The proposal is vested to the Federal Way City Code as the application was determined complete prior to the code reorganization which is now known as the Federal Way Revised Code. Staff Report to City Council Page 2 Mirror Estates Final Plat File No. 14-103140-00-SU/Doc.I.D.67366 City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the Mirror Estates Final Plat for compliance with preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies. All applicable codes, policies,and plat conditions have been met or financially secured as allowed by FWCC 20-135. A proposed resolution to approve the Mirror Estates Final Plat is enclosed(Exhibit E). IV COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS The following lists conditions of preliminary plat approval (Resolution 07-493). Required improvements have been completed or financially secured as allowed by FWCC 20-135 and identified by staff responses following each condition. 1. Prior to the City's approval of engineering plans,the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, addressing tree preservation within the plat,all landscaping within plat boundaries,wetland mitigation planting approved by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner,restoration of the areas disturbed by installation of the storm drainage easement and pedestrian trail outside of Tract A,visual screening of the Tract B storm drainage tract,and street trees for review and approval by the Directors of Community Development,Public Works,and Parks, Recreational, and Cultural Services(PARCS).Prior to submittal to the City,the landscape plan shall be reviewed and signed by a qualified wetland biologist and shall reflect all applicable recommendations contained in the applicant's Wetland Determination and Mitigation Plan. Pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-1286(d)(2), 22-1243, 22-1313(3),and 22-1358(e)(1),the City may require the applicant to pay for the services of a wetland biologist to review plans, provide recommendations, and conduct inspections and/or monitoring on behalf of the City, as determined by the Community Development Director. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Tree preservation for the plat is within the Tract A open space and wetland mitigation area. New landscaping in the form of street trees and planting in the stormwater tract augment the preserved vegetation. The City has retained the needed performance bond for wetland mitigation installation. The applicant has funded a pass through account to retain the services of the City's wetland biologist to monitor the wetland mitigation area for a five-year period 2. All on-site fencing associated with plat construction is subject to the City's final review and approval of design, location,and any screening. Fencing shall allow for the migration of small wildlife animals,where appropriate.Any chain link fencing, if approved by the City, shall be vinyl coated black or green and shall be screened with vegetation. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Fencing on the site consists of a four-foot-tall wooden three-rail post and rail fence that surrounds the open space/wetland mitigation Tract A. Small wildlife is able to migrate in and out of the tract via 13-inch gaps between the rails. Six-foot high black vinyl coated chain link fencing surrounds the stormwater tract. The tract's interior landscaping and low topography provide adequate screening. 3. Prior to final plat approval,open rail fencing, appropriate vegetation,and appropriate signage shall be installed to separate the pedestrian trail and residential lots from wetland B setback. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Open rail fencing surrounds the Tract A. Appropriate vegetation was installed within the wetland buffer enhancement area as specified in the wetland mitigation plan and inspected by the city's consulting wetland biologist. Signage has been installed Staff Report to City Council Page 3 Mirror Estates Final Plat File No. 14-103140-00-SU/Doc.I.D.67366 on the split rail fence noting parties that a wetland and upland buffer are within the boundaries of the split rail fence. 4. Rockeries and retaining walls associated with plat construction must reflect residential scale, design, and sensitivity of materials or treatment, including use of vegetation and/or terracing,where they are visible from adjacent residences or usable open space. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Rockeries, six feet in height and less, have been utilized within stormwater Tract B. A rockery that is three feet in height and less is located adjacent to the pedestrian trail on the east portion of the plat. Vegetation is planted in front of the rockeries. 5. The final plat drawing shall dedicate all usable open space in an open space tract to be owned in common and maintained by property owners of the proposed subdivision,and shall prohibit removal or disturbance of vegetation and landscaping within the tract,except as necessary for maintenance or replacement of existing plantings and as approved by the City. Additional vegetation may be located in open space tracts to meet conditions as approved by the City. A note shall be included on the final plat map that the open space tract shall not be further subdivided, may not be developed with any buildings or other structures except as may be approved by the City for recreational purposes only for the benefit of the homeowners,and may not be used for financial gain. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Plat note #2 indicates the ownership responsibilities of the open space Tract A as reflected in the condition. V STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA) The city issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(MDNS)for the proposal on October 7, 2006. Based on goals and policies of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan,the following conditions were incorporated into the MDNS document to minimize potential significant adverse impacts from the development. Conditions were satisfied per the staff responses following each condition. 1. Any development within Tract A including the pedestrian trail and the wetland creation and wetland buffer mitigation shall be designed and constructed as required by the Director of Community Development Services to protect and enhance wildlife habitat to the maximum extent feasible.This effort may include,but is not limited to vegetation removal and/or enhancement by the developer, future homeowners association, or the parties responsible for ownership of the tract.A note to this effect shall be included on the final plat map. Staff Response—This condition has been met. The applicant designed a wetland mitigation plan that was reviewed and approved by the City's consulting wetland biologist. The City's wetland biologist inspected and approved the installation of the wetland mitigation. Plat note#2 indicates that vegetation within Tract A is not to be removed or altered without approval of the Community Development Department. 2. Prior to final plat approval,the developer shall prepare and implement a plan for the creation of supplemental snags within permanent open space areas. The plan shall be based on an evaluation of trees remaining following the clearing and grading phase of plat infrastructure construction.The plan shall be developed by a qualified professional, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City at the a pp licant's expense prior to implementation by the developer. Staff Report to City Council Page 4 Mirror Estates Final Plat File No. 14-103140-00-SU/Doc.I.D.67366 Staff Response—This condition has been met. It was determined by the applicant's wetland biologist that one supplemental snag was needed. This determination was confirmed by the city's consulting wetland biologist. The snag was installed during the mitigation construction. 3. Prior to final plat approval,the final plat shall contain language that encourages informational and educational programs and activities dealing with the protection of wildlife.An example of such a program is the Backyard Wildlife Sanctuary program established by the State's Department of Fish and Wildlife. This language shall be added to the Homeowner Association Controls, Covenants and Conditions recorded in conjunction with this plat. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Plat note #11 provides language reflecting this condition. The language is also added to the homeowner association condition, covenants, and restrictions document. 4. As required by the Public Works Director, in order to mitigate potential adverse transportation impacts to the surrounding road network,the applicant must construct the identified TIP improvements listed below. In lieu of constructing these TIP projects and prior to final plat approval,the applicant may voluntarily pay a pro-rata share contribution of $76,347.00 towards impacted TIP projects based on the calculation below. Pro-rata Share Contribution to Transportation Improvement Projects The project's fair share contribution was calculated based on the formula below: Project generated PM peak hour trips Fair share = x TIP project cost 2006 total PM peak hour traffic The applicant's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Analysis dated March 25, 2005,was reviewed and accepted by the City. As proposed by the applicant's traffic engineer,the TIA used for this project was the 2005 to 2010 TIP. The following table shows TIP impacted projects,and the project's fair share contributions: Map ID TIP Project New 2006 Fair Project Cost* Trips Trips Share 5 S 320'"St @ 1s`Ave S 4,200 17 4812 $14,780.00 7 S 320th St:8'"Ave S SR 99 671-9-1 16 3691 $26,72-1700 12 S 320t St @ 201°Ave S 1,356 13 3796 $4,628.00 23 S 320t St: 1s` ve S 8'"Aver 6494 3262 $3 000 Total $76,347.00 * Project cost in thousands of dollars. Staff Response—This condition has been met. Since the time of initial traffic analysis, two of the identified projects in the SEPA review (items 7 and 23)are no longer on the City's Transportation Improvement Project list and therefore the applicant is responsible for items 5 and 12 totaling $19,408.00. This revised fee has been paid to the City by the applicant. Staff Report to City Council Page 5 Mirror Estates Final Plat File No. 14-103140-00-SU/Doc.I.D.67366 VI DECISIONAL CRITERIA Pursuant to FWCC 20-136, if the City Council finds that the following criteria have been met,the City Council may approve the final plat for recording: 1. The final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. Staff Response: This criterion has been met, as the conditions of preliminary plat and SEPA determination have been met or financially guaranteed, and the final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat. 2. The final plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. The plat meets the RS 7.2 zoning standards in effect at the time the application was determined to be complete. The lot sizes exceed the underlying minimum lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet for single family lots in the RS 7.2 zone. Construction of the plat infrastructure is substantially complete and as provided in FWCC 20-135,performance and maintenance bonds are in place for the entire plat and off-site improvements. 3. That all conditions of the Hearing Examiner and/or City Council have been satisfied. Staff Response: This criterion has been met as noted in the staff comments above. All plat conditions have been met and/or financially guaranteed. 4. That the public use and interest shall be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication by determining if appropriate provisions are made for,but not limited to,the public health, safety, general welfare, open space, drainage ways, streets and roads,alleys, other public ways,transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation,playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. The final plat is consistent with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and ensures the public health, safety, and welfare is protected. The plat infrastructure has been installed and/or adequately financially guaranteed as discussed above, including:safe walking routes to school bus stops;provisions for open space; drainage system installation; water system installation;sewer system installation; and street improvements. The applicant has provided usable open space in the amount of 2.34 percent. The remaining 7.66 percent of usable open space has been provided via fee-in-lieu payment of$22,137.40. The applicant has paid the city a total of$19,408.00 for the revised pro-rata share contribution towards impacted Transportation Improvement Projects. 5. That all required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds or other security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted. Staff Response: This criterion has been met. All road and storm drainage improvements for Mirror Estates have been constructed and a maintenance bond is in effect. In addition, sewer and water lines have been installed and approved by Lakehaven Utility District. Staff Report to City Council Page 6 Mirror Estates Final Plat File No. 14-103140-00-SU/Doc.I.D.67366 6. That all taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid. Staff Response: Prior to being recorded, the plat is reviewed by the King County Department of Assessments to ensure that all taxes and assessments have been paid VII CONCLUSION Based on site visits, review of the final plat maps, construction drawings, and the project file, staff has determined that the application for final plat approval for Mirror Estates meets all platting requirements of RCW 58.17.110 and FWCC 20-136. Plat infrastructure improvements have been substantially completed and/or financially secured to guarantee that all plat conditions and code requirements will be completed as allowed by FWCC 20-135.The project has been developed in conformance with Resolution 07-493, approving the Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat.A recommendation of final plat approval is therefore being forwarded to the City Council for approval. VIII EXHIBITS Exhibit A Reduced Copy(8'h x 11)Mirror Estates Final Plat Exhibit B Vicinity Map Exhibit C Resolution 04-432 Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat Approval Exhibit D Reduced Copy(8'V2 x 11)Approved Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat Exhibit E Proposed Resolution Approving the Mirror Estates Final Plat Staff Report to City Council Page 7 Mirror Estates Final Plat File No. 14-103140-00-SU/Doc.I.D.67366 SOLUME/PAGE ) TE MIRROR ESTATES A BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION: APPROVALS THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7.TOWNSHIP DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 21 NORTH.RANGE 4 EAST.WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON: EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF ,2015. EXCEPT THE EAST 180 FEET OF THE NORTH 133.40 FEET THEREOF; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERM WAY.COUNTY OF KING,STATE OF WASHINGTON. • PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DEDICATION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF INTEREST N THE 1Af10 HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, HEREBY DECLARE THIS PLAT TO BE THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBONISION MADE HEREBY.AND DO HEREBY DAMNED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2015. DEDICATE TO 711E USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER ALL STREETS AD AVENUES NOT SHOWN AS PRIVATE HEREON AND DEDICATE THE USE THEREOF FOR ALL PUBLIC PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WOO THE USE THEREOF FOR PUBLIC HOMY PURPOSES. AND ALSO THE RENT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS UPON THE LOTS MID TRACTS SHOWN THEREON IN TIE ORICAWL REASONABLE GRADING OF SAID STREETS ANO AVENUES.AND FURRIER DEDMAIE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ALL THE EASEMENTS AND TRACTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT FOR ALL PUBLIC PURPOSES AS INDICATED THEREON.INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PARKS. OPEN SPACE,OT1UOES AND DRAINAGE UNLESS SUCH EASEMENTS OR TRACTS ARE SPECIFICALLY FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL CENTRED ON THIS PLAT AS BEING DEDICATED OR CONVEYED TO A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THIN THE PUBLIC,N WHICH CASE WE DO HEREBY DEDICATE AND CONVEY SUCH STREETS.EASEMENTS,OR TRACTS TO THE PERSON OR EMRIY IDENTIFIED EXAMINED AND APPROVES THIS DAY OF __,2015. AND FOR THE PURPOSE STATED. FURTHER,IRE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED.WAVE AND RFT PAS,FOR THEMSELVES.THEIR HEIRS MD ASSIGNS AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DERIVING TITLE FROM THE UNDERSIGNED.ANY MAD AU.CLAMS FOR DAMAGES MAYOR AGAINST THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS WHICH MAY BE OCCASIONED BY THE DESIGN, ESTABLISHMENT,CONSTRUCTION.OPERATION.FAILURE TO OPERATE.OR MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, ALTERATONS OF THE GROUND SURFACE,VEGETATION,DRAINAGE OR SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE WATER FLOWS W INN THE ATTEST: SUBDMSIONS OR WITHIN ANY ORAINAGE OR DETENTION FACTURES DESIGNED TO RECEIVE OR ACTUALLY RECEWING DRAINAGE ,CLERK FROM THE SUBDNISIONS AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PUNS AND PERMITS FOR SAME OTHER THAN CRAMS RESULTING FROM INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE BY THE CRY OF FEDERAL WAY. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FURTHER.THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF TE 1AND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED.AGREE FOR THEMSELVES.THEIR HESS AND ASSIGNS DETAINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2015. TO INDEMNIFY,HOLD HARMLESS.AND DEFEND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY.115 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.FROM AND AGAINST ANY DAMAGE,INCLUDING ANY COSTS OF DEFENSE CLAWED BY PERSONS MOON OR WITHOUT THE SUBDMSIONS TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE DESIGN. ESTWUSHMENT. CONSTRUCTION.OPERATION. FAILURE TO OPERATE.OR MAINTENANCE OF ROADS ANO/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM,ALTERATIONS OF THE GROUND SURFACE.VEGETATION,DRAINAGE.OR SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE - ENG COUNTY ASSESSOR DEPUTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR WATER FLOWS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISIONS OR MINN ANY DRAINAGE OR DETENTION FACTURES DESIGNED TO RECEIVE OR ACTUALLY RECEIVING DRAINAGE FROM THE SUBOMSONS AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAYS REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS ACCOUNT NUMBER 072104-9081 AND FERRO'S FOR SAME.PROVIDED.THIS WATER AND 1NDEMNFICATON SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS RELEASNG THE CRY OF ' FEDERAL WAY,RS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS.FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.INCLUDING THE COST OF DEFENSE.RESULTING FROM AND TO THE EXTENT OF THE SOLE NEGLXENCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY.RS SUCCESSORS.OR ASSIGNS. FINANCE DIVISION CERTIFICATE THIS S BDNISON DEDICATION,RELEASE,INDEMNIFICATION OF CLAIMS.AND AGREEMENT TO HOLD HARMLESS IS MADE WITH THE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL PROPERTY TAXES ARE PAID,THAT THERE ARE NO DETNOUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFIED FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF SAD OWNERS. TO THIS OFFICE FOR COLIECIION AND THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERMED TO THIS OFFICE FOR COLLECTION ON ANY OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN CONTAINED.DEDICATED AS STREETS.ALLEYS OR FOR ANY OTHER PUBLIC USE.ARE PAID N FIAT.. N WITNESS WHEREOF WE SET OUR HANCE AND SEALS: �Z./ �Y'' THIS DAY OF .TOTS. MIRROR•p ESTATETES+•`CC�-�-- •.10 IE_L.n.-...F'..ER BANKING OFFICE FINANCE DMSWN A WASHINGTON UNITED ILIBIIMa COMPANY BY: F�EOlt1 WW-14 at t"%A NZ. ChAREaa`y RS �P ITS It4�5w,t (' AEU& MANAGER,FINANCE DIVISION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LOT ADDRESSING: STATE OF WASHINGTON 55. i: NOTE ANY ADDRESSES SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY COUNTY OF KING .i ,}��.p � ONLY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT V"�tVK43- G F'4 4F, A-4210 THE PERSON LOT 1 803 SW 315TH PLACE T WINO APPEARED BEFORE ME.AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT(S)HE SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT.ON OATH STATED(S)HE LOT 2 31426-8TH PLACE SDURFMEST WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THE f'1 105 A}4 00N N a5 act.. OF LOT 4 91525-8TH PUCE SOUTHWEST LOT 4 906 SW 315TH PALE MIRROR ESTATES ILE TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED N LOT 5 912 SW 315111 PLACE • THE INSTRUMENT LOT 6 916 SW 315T11 PACE { N LOT 7 920 SW 315TH RACE PLACE OARED THIS 2l -DAY OF J A U W?� 2015. ' • L0 s 924 SSW 315 N LOT 10 917 SW 315T1 PLACE PLACE ' R Wjiz- LOT 11 913 SW 315TH PACE r, •.•Q ATO LOT 12 905 SW 315TH PLACE - �--� ',j:V AR Z TOT 13 88225 SSW 315TH PAAC NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON - •-'''',..--.,) LOT 15 821 SW 315TH PACE I' ZZ LAT 16 31530-11TH LACE SOUDNE'ST RESIDING AT tC61,17 PI/8V• 'A..,6 LOT Ti 31526-11TH PLACE SOUTHWEST 4l;••.S pj-..�aV C LOT 18 31524-11TH LACE SOOTIWEST PRINTED NAME 140'°UZM.1 t W4K„ev..o --rF`•••• SV'-1IA LOT 20 31514-11TH PLACE SOUTHWEST OF WA LOT 20 31510-11TH LACE SOUTHWEST • �.•, LOT 21 31510-11TH LACE SOUTHWEST COMMISSION EXPIR�J—%8 • LOT 22 31506-11TH DALE SOUTWEST LOT 23 31502-11TH LACE SOUTHWEST LOT 24 31505-11TH LACE SOUTHWEST LOT 25 31513-11TH LACE SOUR/NEST STATE OF WASHNGTON • LOT 28 31523-11TH PLACE SOUTHWEST SS. LOT 27 31531-11TH LACE SOUTMfST ' COUNTY OF KING 1/ I CERTIFY TEAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT MV:er CM1• i/F S THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME.AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT(S)HE SIGNED IS INSTALMENT,ON OATH STATED(S)HE ' WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TT AS THE . V F' OF COLUMBIA STATE BANK-BUILDER BANKING OFFICE 177 BE TIE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES ME TONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. - r ACTED THIS DAY OF•1-.MUA eweeD 2015. / ••-/1 ..•KANNL CCA • ( / MT AR PUbUC � t OF.. . NOTARY PUBLIC N AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON �,wA,RIL 9.U'WES PAGE, • X19 C` RESIDING AT 49-4...i....//....e� �V PRIMO NAME.-1 Q Q .A 1- CO 1( . COMMISSION EXPIRES '1- 19-I/ CITY FILE NO. 14-103140-00-SO •08 NO.16516 . RECORDING CERTIFICATE: 4 LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: 0.G/ 4Barghausen A^� • Recording No. I hereby certify that this plot of MIRROR ESTATES is based upon an P�..WAS-4TH Filed for record at the request of the City of Federal Way this actual survey and subdivision of Section,7.Township 21 North. Q,AW�pyn y/ a Consulting Engineers, Inc. —day of ,20_.at minutes Range 4 East.W.M.•that the courses acid distances are shown \ F .4'l DRAT Eng"meeling,Land Pkroing,SuTVeying.E04onmental$pNfces past _.m.and recorded m Volume of Plats at correctly thereon;that the monuments will be set and the lot 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 pages through .records of King County.Washington. and block comers will be staked correctly on the ground as f y o Telephone: (425)251-6222 Fax: (425)251-8782 DIVISION OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS construction is completed and that I have fully complied with �, --5 /,,, a the provisions of the pia ng regulations. �9jN CISTEA4'se. NE1/4 OF SW1/4, SEC. 7,.T21I-R4E, W.M. - 2 l0V/S' At Lot r Monger Superintendent of Records Brian D.Gillooly,PLS 6315 Date =. � SHEET 1 OF e....—I / A VOLUME/PAGE \ MIRROR ESTATES • \J BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 • SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SECTION SUBDIVISION SCALE: 1"=300' FND 2-3/4"BRASSY • FND 2-3/4"SURFACE ON 0.15'MARKED 1.126 IN R2E BRASSY W/PNCH. R4 1966 KING COUNTY HELD FOR CENTER SEC. SURVEY MONUMENT (MARCH 2012) (MARCH 2012) _ _ S8856'561 256255' 12/ '7 1245.89' l 1316.66• - I 1 1 -- I THEORETICAL E.LINE GOVERNMENT LOT 3 I I s GOVERNMENT N8700'12"W 1315.97 I 1= LOT — — — Ig m • Ps' -I •• F S89'01'50'E 1315.55' t N • 1 HELD E.LINE GOVERNMENT LOT 3 PER MTED PLAT OF NO.2 V LAKOTA WOODS NO.2 OL.70,P0.40 Ell Inn 8 (SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE 1, BELOW) m� TRACT A ,7�aD ill© o 8m Num Ala 5 AA it �© ,`x �OHa UB W - - 1250.24' - - �L'�� .,J,5.16'omm211m 1- er .111./ = 1 S8803'28'E 12665.4,•- W p,,C; y E 8 I H A v1 S 1 ,ot GOVERN 5 v LOT 4 _ SCALE: 1 • 300' 1 1 1 1 12,..4 � — 1_254.5.9' - (� 7 JCONCFOASEDNEE65 _ 1313'71 ' • 13 18 N8710'001/256829' MARKED KING COUNTY SURVEY FND MIC 1/8"NAIL IN 18 MONUMENT 7-18 T21N R4E CONIC DN 0.85'IN C/L 1967(MARCH 2012) SW 320TH STREET (MARCH 2012) I SURVEY INFORMATION: RASE OF BENWIG 144063/91(PEW OTT OF FEDERAL WAY), THE BEARING OF THE LINE BETWEEN THE FOUND FEDERAL WAY MONUMENTS FW102 TO FW114,BEARING TAKEN AS NORTH 66'ON'06'EAST. PROCEDURE/NARRATIVE MSRIEOR fl 1'�3 BETWEEN THE HENTS.PROPERTY ONES AND IMPROVEMENTS.THE RESULTING DATA MEETS OR MEOWED. THE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY ; SURVEYS AS SET FORTH IN WAC 332-130-090. NI OL• OATS OF SURVEYS BY• Rao SURVEYS BY BARCIAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC.CONDUCTED IN MARCH,2012.ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND WERE VISITED AT THAT TIME. TRACT B 31 SURVEYORS NUUES: 3Q 1.THE WEST UNE OF THIS SITE(E.ONE GOVERNMENT LOT 3)WAS HELD PER Tiff MONUMENTED PUT OF LAKOTA NO.2 AS RECORDED UNDER 15L70,PG.40.TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SURVEYS.THE REST OF THE SITE WAS HELD PER THE SECRON BREAKDOWN SHOWN ON THIS SHEET PER FOUND SECTION MONUMENTATION. 2.PUT CORNERS WILL BE STAKED VAIN 1/2"MBAR AND PIASTE CAP.24'N LENGTH. FROM AND REAR LOT CORNERS WILL WE ST WITH 1/2'RE1AR MTH - PLAS11C CAP MMKED'BCE 46315'. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARD STREET MONUMENTS WILL BE SET AT ROAD IDUbECTIONS,PC'S.PYS. 5 ONCE CONSTRUCTION SB9'01'SOY INAB' ) R COMPETED. EXHIBIT ,,,G sr21'uw REFERENCE S 'T,i` _ _- -M 513 AS 22S 1.PUT OF MIRROR WOOD,VDL127,PG.11 +;A.'`-C_ -N,E tY 1A�T 2.PUT OF W(OTA WOODS ND.2,VOL70.PG.40 `10.72' "E 5.RUT D F MIRROR GLEN,VOL113.06.35 PA E� F 4.PLAT OF MIRROR GLEN DN.2..PG.3,MOB 1672• 5.RECORD MI SURVEY. DI NO 9306159009 7 JOB NO.16518 TRACT A "'''''°o,",';..-- 'Barghausen �� P7o1 A%cb Consulting Engineers, Inc. �,�tt Cin1 Engin eeri ng.Land Punning,Surveying,Environmental Services B m�"4 '•' 1 ( 18215 72nd Avenue Soh Kent,WA 98032 8 , '/ o Telephone: (425)251-6222 For (425)251-8782 �y DETAIL •A• - SCALE: 1• • 30' !/%,4i F T Ha/S°e,� NE1/4 OF SW1/4, SEC. 7, T21N-R4E, W.M. , SHEET 2 OF 5 `CITY FILE NO. 14-103140-00-W 4 „a,",",,,",-,,,,,-,-,,"," • I Nrol 4 VOLUME/PAGE MIRROR ESTATES BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PLAT NOTES: RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS: 1. THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION FOR THE MWROR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARE ON OLE WITH THE STATE OF (PER CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE NO 0028464-06.DATED NOVEMBER ID.2014 AT 8:00AM, WASHINGTON IN OLYMPIA. MID SUPPLEMENTAL NO.1 DATED DECEMBER 10,2014) 2. TRACT A'IS AN OPEN SPACE/NGPE/PUBUC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TRACT,AND IS HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE MIRROR I.INTENTIONALLY DELETED. ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE PURPOSES. REMOVAL OR DISTURBANCE Of VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING WRMN THE TRACT S PROHIBITED,EXCEPT AS NECESSARY FOR MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT L EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: OF EXISTING PLANTINGS MID AS APPROVED BY THE CRY. ADDRRNAL VEGETATION MAY BE LOCATED IN THE TRACT TO MEET GRANTEE: PUCET SOUND POWER&CGHT COMPANY CONDITIONS AS APPROVED BY THE CITY. TRACT'A'SHALL NOT BE FURTHER SUBOMDFD,MAY NOT BE DEVELOPED WITH MY PURPOSE: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION UNE BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES EXCEPT AS MAY BE APPROffD BY THE CITY FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY FOR THE AREA MYLLIEIP. A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES BENEFIT OF THE HOMEOWNERS MID MAY NOT RE USED FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. THE MIRROR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 25,1953 ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR M SP MAINTENANCE OF THE OT RAIL FENCE AND NGPE SKIMAGE WITHIN TRACT le. RECORDING NO.: 4787089 (PLOTTED HEREON) TRACT'A'IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATH EASEMENT,SEE PUT NOTE TA,BELOW. 3.EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE PUCET SOUND ENERGY.INC.,A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 3. TRACT'B'IS A DETENTION/WATER QUALITY/PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TRACT AND S HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF PURPOSE: ONE OR MORE UTILITY SYSTEMS FOR TRANSMISSION,DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF GAS AND FEDERAL WAY FOR OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE PURPOSES. TRACT IF IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATH ELECTRICITY EASEMENT,SEE PUT NOTE 14.BELOW. AREA AFFECTED. PORTIONS OF SAID PREMISES AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT RECORDING DATE OCTOBER 31,2013 4. ALL WATERLINE EASEMENTS(NEC)ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO UKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING RECORDING NO.: 20131031000249 (PLOTTED NIKON) THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH WATER SERVICE. (SEE 'PUT DEDICATION FOR NON-EDCLUSNE EASEMENT', FAIMFNT NO 1: ALL STREETS AND ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY(BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC)AS NOW OR HEREAFTER DESIGNED. BELOW) PUTTED,MD/OR CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY. (WHEN SAID STREETS AND ROADS ARE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC.THIS CLAUSE SHALL BECOME NULL MID V01) 5. ALL STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENTS(SDE) NOTED HEREON ARE PUBLIC AND ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE CLAY OF EASEMENT NO.7' A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET N WIDTH ACROSS ALL LOTS,TRACTS AND OPEN SPACES LOCATED WITHIN THE FEDERAL WAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF STORM DRAINAGE FADLIOES. HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY BENG PARALLEL TO ANO COINCIDENT WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID PUBLIC STREETS AND ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 6. ALL PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENTS(PSDE)NOTED HEREON ARE PRNATE AND ARE HEREBY CONVEYED TO THE LOT EASEMENT NO 31 A STRIP OF LAND 5 FEET IN WIDTH ACROSS ALL LOTS.TRACTS AND OPEN SPACES LOCATED LOCATED OWNER WHO WOULD.BENEFIT FROM THE EASEMENT. THE OWNERS OF SAD LOTS HAVING BENEFIT SHALL BE EQUALLY WITHIN THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY BETG PARALLEL TO AND COINCIDENT WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF ALL ALLEYWAYS AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MONIFIWNCE AND REPAIR OF THE DRAINAGE FACTURES W11164 THE EASEMENT. PRIVATE ORNES. A.THE 5'PRIVATE STORM DPMNWE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOT 3 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 2. EASENET'NO 4. AN EASEMENT OVER THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY FOR VAULTS.PEDESTALS AND RELATED FACTURES B.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRANAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOTS 5 THRO 8 IS FOR ONE BENEFIT OF LOTS 4 THRU 7. (VAULT EASEMENTS')ADJACENT TO EASEMENT AREA NO.3. THE VAULT EASEMENT MAY OCCUPY OP TO AN ADDOIONAL 5 FEET C.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)80081 THE FRONT OF LOT 9 IS FOR INC BEREFT OF LOT 9 THRU IN WIDTH(FOR A TOTAL WIDTH OF 10 FE()WITH THE LENGTH OF EACH VAULT EASEMENT EXTENDING 5 FEET FROM EACH ENO 15 OF THE AS-BTLT VAULT(S). O.THE TO PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(POSE)WITHIN THE FRONT OF LOT 13 S FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 12. 4.EASEMENT(S)FOR THE PURPOSE(S) EL S)SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS NCIDEMAL THERETO,AS GRAINED IN A DOCUMENT: E.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN THE FRONT OF LOT 15 S FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 14. GRANTED TO: PUGEI SOUND ENERGY.INC. F.THE 5'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITH THE REAR OF LOTS 9 THRU 14 S FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 9 THRU 15. PURPOSE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR OISIRSUTION SYSTEM WITH NECESSARY OR G.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOT 17 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 16. CONVENIENT RIGHTS AND APPURTENANCES 27.2014 4ELATED THERETO H.THE 16'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOT 18 IS FOR THE BENEFIT CF LOT 19. RECORDING DATE: JUNE 62,2014 L THE 1O PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOT 19 S FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 18. RECORDING NO.: 20140627000985 (RDiTFTI Palm) J.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PDX)WITHIN THE REAR OF LOT 20 5 FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 21. 5.AGREEMENT ANO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: K.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN THE FRONT OF LOTS 20 AND 21 S FOR DO BENEFIT OF RECORDED: JULY 18,2007 LOTS 21 AND 22. RECORDING NO.: 20070718001792 • L THE TO PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOTS 24 AND 25 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 13 AND 24. REGARDING: DOMESTIC WATER MID SEWER SERVICE(NOT PLOWABLE) M THE 10'PRNATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOTS 27 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 26. (DEWRIBE51 LS PORTIONS REFERRING TO LOTS THAT DONT YET EXIST.BLANKET N NATURE) N.THE 10'PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(PSDE)WITHIN LOT 10 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 9 THRU 15. AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPER EXTENSOR AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF RECORDING DATE: APRIL 18,2012 • 7.TIE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT WREKN TRACT'A'S HEREBY GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO THE OWNERS OF LOT 31,MIRROR RECORDING NO, 20120418000734 WOOD.RECORDED IN VOLUME 127,PAGES 11-13,N KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON,THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 6.INTENTIONALLY DELETED. B. THE ROW AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLAN AND PROFILE. 7-13.NOT APPLICABLE TO BE SHOWN ON SURVEY. PERMIT NO.07-102761-00-EN ON FILE 11181 THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. ANY DEVNTON FROM THE APPROVED PUNS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPER AGENCY. 9. THE STREET TREES,PLANTED AS A CONDION OF PAT APPROVAL,SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED ENGINEERING PLANS.PERMIT NO.07-102761-00-EN.ON FILE WITH THE CRY OF FEDERAL WAY.THE STREET TREES PLANTED WITHIN AND/OR ABUTTING NOMOWL LOTS AND PLANTER STRIPS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS MID THE STREET TREES NOT PLANTED WITHIN AND/OR ABUTTING INOMDUAL LOTS AND PLANTER STRIPS WITHIN THIS PUT SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAPED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 10. THE BUILDING SETBACK LINES ON COMER LOTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN WITH A TYPICAL FRONT TARO SETBACK:HOWEVER. PER FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE SECTOR 19.05.160(DEFINITIONS'PROPERTY UNE')THE FRONT PROPERTY UNE ON CORNER LOTS MAY BE ON EITHER STREET.WT H THE BUILDING SETBACK LINES REVISED ACCORDINGLY. . 11. LOT OWNERS WITRNN THIS PUT ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTMTES,SUCH AS RAE BACIONRD MLDUFE SANCTUARY PROGRAM ESTABUSHED BY THE STATES DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND LN(ENAVEN 11TILifY DISTRICT PLAT DEDICATION FOR NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT MLDLIFE,DEALING WITH THE PROTECTOR OF WWDUFE AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY IREVOABLT RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO EAKEHAVEN SINN DISTRICT,AND ITS AGENTS, 12. A RECIPROCAL 30-FOOT ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT S HEREBY GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 18 AND 19. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,FOR SO LONG AS R SHAD.OWN AND MAINTAIN THE MUTES REFERENCED HEREIN UNDER AND . THE MIRROR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE Of THE DRN940 SURFACE AND UPON THE AREA SHOWN ON THE PUT AND DESCRIBED HEREIN AS"WATERLINE EASEMENT'(WILE)AND'SANITARY SEWER ANY UTILITIES WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA. EASEMENT'(SSE)TO INSTALL.MAINTAIN REPLACE.REPAIR AM OPERATE WATER AND SEWER MAINS AND APPURTENANCES FOR MS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON SAID EASEMENTS AT ALL TIMES FOR TIC 13. A 30-FOOT PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT D HEREBY GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 18,17,18,IN,20, PURPOSES INCIDENT THERETO. NO BUILDING,WALL ROCKERY.FENCE.TREES OR STRUCTURE OF ANY KIND SHALL RE ERECTED . AND 21. THE MIRROR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OR THE STORM OR PLANTED.NOR SHALL ANY FRL MATERIAL BE PLACED WTWN THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID EASEMENT AREA. NO EXCAVATOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN THE EASEMENT AREA. SHALL BE MADE WITHIN THREE(3)FEET OF SAID WATER OR SEWER SERVICE FACILITIES AND THE SURFACE LEVEL OF THE ' 14. A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATH EASEMENT S HEREBY GRANTED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY PURPOSES WITHIN GROUND 5111MN THE EASEMENT AREA SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE ELEVATION AS CURRENTLY 00511NG. GRANTOR HEREBY LOT 18 AND TRACTS'A AND'B'AS GRAPHICALLY LLOOTRATED ON SHEETS 4 AND 5 OF THIS PUT.THE MIRROR ESTATES AGREES THAT 110 WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM FACIA).OR APPURTENANCE OF ANY HOD, NCWONG UTILITY SERVICE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MNNTENANCE OF THE EASEMENT AREA MINN LOT 18 AND TRACT CONNECTIONS. SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OR LOCATED BY GRANTOR,OR MN THIRD PARTY ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF 'A',AND THE MY OF FEDERAL WAY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EASEMENT AREA WITHIN TRACT GRANTOR.BMW OR PROXIMATE TO SAID EASEMENT.UNLESS SUCH RISTALLATON S APPROVED BY GRANTEE AND S IN 'B'. CONFORMANCE WITH THE THEN-CURRENT EDITION OF DE 'CRITERSA FOR SEWAGE WORKS DESIGN'PUBLISHED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. GRANTOR HEREBY FURTHER AGREES THAT NO OTHER UTILITY FAIUTY OR APPURTENANCE OF ANY KRD,INCLUDING UTILITY SERVICE CONNECTIONS.SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OR LOCATED BY GRANTOR. OR MIT THIRD PATTY ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF GRANTOR,WITHIN THREE FEET (3'). MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FOR PARALLEL ALIGNMENTS,OR W11HN SIX INCHES(61,MEASURED VERTICALLY FOR CROSSING OR PERPENDICULAR NJGNMENIS.OF EASEMENTS AND RESERVATIONS ANY PORTION OF TIE GRANTEE'S FACTURES. GRANTOR ADDITIONALLY GRANTS TO TIE LAIEIWHEN MIRY DISTRICT AND RS AN EASEMENT S HEREBY RESEFNED FOR AND GRANTED TO PUCET SOUND ENERGY,CENTURTUNK,COMCAST, UKEINVEN AGENTS,SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS THE USE OF SUCH MOTIONAL AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SAID EASEMENT AREA AS UTILITY'DISTRICT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR TEN (10) FEET SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.RECONSTRUCTOR,NPNTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID WATER OR SEWER PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING 114E STREET FRONTAGE OF AL LOTS AND TRACTS IN WHICH TO INSTAL CONSTRUCT,RENEW. FACILITIES.THE USE OF SUCH ADDITIONAL AREA SHALL BE HELD TO A REASONAALE MINMUM AND BE RETURNED TO THE OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS. MANS. CABLES AND WIRES WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER CONDITION EXISTING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS ENTERED UPON BY THE IAEEINVEN UTILITY DISTRICT. RS EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBONSION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC.TELEPHONE,TV.WATER' AGENTS.SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS HEREIN,GRANTOR SHALL NOT CONVEY TO A SOWER MO GAS SERVICE TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSE HERON THIRD PARTY,LINT EASEMENT OR OTHER INTEREST OR RIGHT OF USE OF TIE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS THAT . STATED. WOULD IMPAIR OR ANT THE USE OF THE EASEMENT RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. THESE EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR THESE PURPOSES SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO MDR ORIGINAL CONDITION BY THE UTILITY. NO UNES OR WINES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT,TELEPHONE OR CABLE TV- -- SHALL BE PLACED OR BE PERMITTED TO BE RACED UPON ANT LOT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN. AREAS • CONDUUT ATTACHED TO A BUILDING. TOTAL AREA Of PUT: 407.317 SO.P. AREA OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION: 72.788 5Q.FT. NET AREA OF PAT: 334,529 SO.FT. ' AREA OF TRACTS: 118.116 SO.P. ® e� AREA OF WETLAND/BUFFERS: 92.758 SO.FT. E ■A! AREA OF PIGRE55/EGRESS/UTILITES: 5.172 SO.FT. • PAGE 3 OF JOB N0.16516 o, �,4 rghau n P RIB W rH, Consulting Engineers, Inc. FI OW1 Engineerig.Land PlanniGg.Sunreyilg,Environmental Services 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent,WA. 98032 I ' Telephone: (425)251-6222 FM: (425)251-8782-:; G NE1/4 of SW1/4, SEC. 7, T21N-R4E, W.M. 4"41 L AND \Im FILE No. 14-103140-00-SU SHEET 3 OF 5 j, AStE So � / t8 VOLUME/PAGE MIRROR ESTATES A \1 BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - - - - -- - - - - _ 1$9001611 503.97 1-1/2•BRASSY _ SW 314TH PLACE a m CASE n.°0,m L'�1s' '20 BM AYE SW R`,10-600• .,,,,1 \ I / 32 33 I I 1 41402.4&, ,Po. _ 11870155611204' 38 i 37 - fa L-ae.w' - - I .2/ MO I-1/7 BRASSY r -• II 4 0070 NCASE - - 1R WOOD Jt3 / ( h a SW O!SY 231 Pt ' 1 L - W ?.01'•:P''' - - --( -- - H� - , MO 1-3/4'40 W v 0(„12 I J _ A, I 0.757 N RIIU SE • T I 4 24• -I I AYE SW a SW 314131 PL 37 I 30' Y 3J I 34 I 35 I 1 o 39 i 41 I 42 I I 38 1 A Tr • I MD 1/7 R6BAR/ I MD 5/8'REBAR/ I P�' Ff51 1-1/2•WYAY EDGE OF W TON/9637- CAP'PCE 114169' n R/PNCR W C0.5E 089125 50•E 113t.83�w+oscaPwc I 0.17E S R LIE 0.17 M.OF UO9�.. J < a+ BRI PL SW •`\ '6. : 090.00':•:•.. _:.:.564"- 85.00- 26.00 28.00' „ -124.00•:'.-:..... - - WASRPE FAWFM Y7°'':.g 1 .`.`.�\SEE PATNOIE 7 RI SHEET 3 Y 1j. - yE tpg N 'SEE pE l�'A'R SN E 2 i 26' 26 �� 4�E IBD' • - 14ai•-r w Jr \J�,,o 22 o' 3 I R 352" t.^1 SO. AO ft 6 ' $ w �t •_.,`_•_•�% a .>b n N I( I' w 5&507501 113&6 ={ UNPLATTED ,,1�� a I 50 Fr. 6 2 I,i�•V.`• J / 4� �y\`� '�--� I a I s e I 10E07 PY EASE1107 • •�/ S T-..< Ct. 116/7, `� REC.NO.20140627003965 30. (WOW LOCAD311 W•. .- // �/° 7.87 \/\ �o C'• - 0004 PSE iq „ 17 815 IKE S. PER OL4°1 PIAIS)- e uF PSf • _ •, / p` SO Fr. 9 12.13 o o9 98.77 4 R 157.47 589 0150•E 180.00' / I 0. `/ ----!M3byT Tr I3' 8 SW 318TH PLACE - $- •. W' 04456'213 %: 7.13 P K'- a '� 589'01.502 no34• .,(. 0690757E 183.99• 5�0,5oT 14567 'W'/ 1781• , 17 PPUGETETSSOIMID -!-6 N v, ENERGY EASEMENT \- ��1000' 10.18' '§' fi 3 4205' 45/.00' 544' 54.00' le 41.95' n l 3986' N4z17831�T 4;4/ TRACT B A �s. FI/c'n� �i�" '�-It r--141 PmE ' � la PsOE 1® 10 I[a P5E 0 I • /PIIBUC PEDFSi��4NACCEA 10•EsnE 2'7 %I/ I ---( I I - i--07 - t , ' -20'BSet(rm) • p Z PIN 5o R T $ -r W ELI 'fr n :. I � I AR'„ I RI bI I 4e �_' $ QI yg Y , Y Y L E,S 1'3'0 .[�o.(Y• a I 8 E"';I to a▪ I_ 11 12 19 14 I 16 t F. pK g .,F'�„'j ��%, =1 .m.f7 �;:1 sn a m 0 7490 �I79 i I �� m I =1 I' 127X oI F. E° P 3 sa FE• % _ I l i I sin 37 • `-10'P50E M' ^26 30'PRkR EASEMONf J a' ' I PECIq./J8.U8B QW ‘-412717401 28.66' 155.76• I LT SEarr^'[4•*1•81.0011M11-.. 54.0°1 A I...5.0011- .�54 D0`..( 5� 5,A0'-1 I 67 07-I 26.00•,(2647 I----89.65 $TREETH S8403.28•E 1314.5411 1r /J\\ • I SHED 074359 I I / \ 1 I ( 110 IM OIII•CASE JD 1,4'ON AT NO EN I / \ J 2 I J i I I AYE SW eMARCH 2012) 25 I 31 I 30 I 29 / 28 \• 44 ' 1 a' 25' .. / W 81889 1 3 r -, _ 1RRDR Pte' - 1-- 9 • RC YS 1 -- 'NI 0-' 1 A, - --1 w I.p I 1 81 W/904 N 4.11•CRS "/ I O F: 1 • ON 025' ` -.)\ --r J a [-- SW 316TH / \ I i H r I \� / \. 1 I m I 8 • CUM 140E CURVE TABLE 3W 318TH ENO 4•:~'GONG PO MO COURT YOB W/I-I/7 BRASS MK CURVE 1 1E1101 ROM DELTA MK 8 1106+111 ROME MP W/PNGI ON 037 Cl 17.17 33007 75679 017 3927 2597 8915.49 - LEGEND C2 3979' 3304' 55707 018 3937' 254' 9900.15' C3 31.64' 470.00' 351.25' c19 20.59' 2500' 471747 BUILDING SETBACKS ARE AS 0 FOUND NOM01/C4 AS NOTED t' i MINIMUM • 0 FOUND REHAR/CAP AS WED 04 9506 410.00 741'15 C20 19.49' 53.00' 21.04•,6' a r t�FT7 MINBAUM * PIAT I SET(SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE 2,549Ef 2) C5 64.48' 47007 751'38' C21 - 4297' 53.00' 462957 E r" • SET CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 573100310 ROAD MONUMENT C6 54' 470.00' P371C Ca 314' 53.07 3353,5 SET i/2'RE&R 841174 P7 5110 CAP ICE 46315•AT 101 CORNERS C7 64.64' 3704• 11.13'23 023 39.16 53.07 4721'27' O'° f� 50 %ME WAIERUNE EASEMENT(SEE PUT NOTE 4,SHEET 3) �? r SOE STORM DRYNI00 EISD,E2T0(SEE PUT NOTE 5,SHEET 3) 5283' 27000' 11'12'42' 024 21.14' 53.00• 2751'12• SCALE:T•80' � JOB NO.16518 PSDE PRNA10 STORY DRAINAGE EASEMENT(SEE PUT NOTE 6,SHEET 3) C9 9.88' 510.00' 1'0749 C25 403' 5107 4•3735 ....,:. r A 41‘ 15 Q(MIMED AREA) CIO 65.49 5304' 704•47 026 59.67 53110' 605922• O. G/4 Barghausen UE MARY FASEAI 81(SEE 1 4.5947NIS AND 405030401047',SHEET 3) C11 1507 530.07 ,'37'29 027 - 912• 25.06 143706 ,..,••.0' 99 9ASN,00•. Consulting Engineers, Inc. PSE PUK;ET SOUND ENERGY EASEMENT,NEC.110.20131031003249 : eg.-:' '. ..z. • BSBI BUILDING SEIRACI(ta4E c12 tsar 530.07 x31'19' C28 1246 75.60' 2434'41' I CrvA Engineering,Land Phoning,Surveying,Environmental Services 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 . SO.FT.=lea FEET Cl) 61.14' 530.20' 93635 029 3932' 254' 9°06'49 ' • ....0 I' Telephone: (425)251-6222 Fa.: (425)251-8782 '" PUBLIC PEDESTPINI PAIR(SEE PUT NOTE 14,SHEET 3) 014 1957 530.07 21744• C30 3912' 25.00• 875716 114•• '•3 5•. .11. NE1/4 OF SWU4, SEC. 7, T21N-R4E, W.M. • C15 41.41' MOO' 8'4717 w1 3932 254' 970706 4(•LAWD CIA 0.29 210.00 70339' 032 15.01' 5514' 73729 SHEET 4 OF 5 `� • `crTY FILE NO. 14-103140-00-SU ,,,��„��....�,�.,...�.,....,e VOLWE/PME MIRROR ESTATES BEING A PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. • CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1191 2-t/2'BRASS' 20 28' 8/0905 IN CASE 42 L-- - - M CA RN AVE SW -- -- 56 - - - - -- -- - _ _N69'00'16'e 50390 _ - - - - 22 I a==w0.�L�mA.aS 6,y-se's R-mo.2O'L=0455' - - SW 314TH PLACE 58000',6197.15' ` 6-19'56'4• -T -T -- T"� -- -- _ 144 1-1/2•BRASSY I II I I 43 Rem 1-1/2-mew 46/05'N CASE ON 0.650 M/PNCNmrAE 0..0.1'0* 1 I I I 32 33 AT INm 111NPL 511 k SR 314191 Pt I W I \ 30 Di- - - - -) 23 1 d 25 II 1\11 29 I I TRACT B L- -N,\R?�R4G5oD.-13- - 44 24 i X I H I FRO z-t/z'BRASSY \ - - - ---I VO\..\2 I i-- W/PNCN 14 CASE 0.r ON I 34 I 20 28' Al END 111HR 5W 27 wooD 0.7.2 S.OF PROP UNE I - 28 31 • - FENCE ON 25 \ N UNE 51/2 51/2 NO 1/2'T680/ LINE 151/4.SWI/4.SEE 7 0.w 8104 3, S89T11'S0t 1134.83' EDGE 0.1'1 W..OA'S 170.31 0 OF PROP.GORIER � s • \• ! .`.' . n......6J.11'-:.'.•:. V. �� -J{� 45 g--: 71.51 .w'i �s0.F7 `/' w .1 aF o s/B saw/ Im y s0.F 23 'o ,n s ns� v+.± I o -.1''.`. .`.`.`.`. .`,' .�\SEE P1AT NOTE 7 ON 2 0 p UP'PCE 114460• y 30• b• SB903•z6'E,zzsr- (219°A. zy, . . . . . .,- at•i w.aisE I 0.'0981(1701 J --� I . . . . . . . . . 7 -i- -- n$ s'es� °'I s ` _ . . . _ . . 14.Br - 0.,s p x8057'4`*,08517 i Sy F.-1:----.- .`. t . . . . . . ( K 92 F!. 46179 �E. < 7,$B $1 0 i �', " `"•,'"`_"_-70 07`/ ' ''G N 46 t s2rz 24 le '`'� SO.FE� _ . .'. .., *f. ZI 1\f :01 h, S89'0.1'2B�1Yat6' ' ` - ' ' /" ` ` - -`/ Q' �'� I(- 0.5 �•. „ f . . . . . . . fi 8 0--- -� IW857uw,taez' NA '; i �� 7151 -i �,',`_`.``/ .`.�.`." / 3=' SO.FT 20 Or _ 1 m / R 3 47 S1 m = a " - -/" -TRACT A . . " . J W g W `�� OETAA 000544 9-.. R 2 :4 i� . . . . / .c' 09,1t x3911 E UNE 70 3 ; 7,35, 9 V .T }•„ sfiw03•m_•. 1 . OPEN SPACE/MAE/`.`.` 4. 7.117 0.930 4 1s .Cue a er. r 3 '�v 3N 25 < g , -5070028'E 12412 0ar_: 0 FSOE (.`. ./4,. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.• x19ssz1t `p�'� ---- '-TWA+ 50 PER MONABBFR y b J . -- - x RAT OF W(OTA I . I- a IX II 54030290E 031' - 7 0.-1029' I. ,( . . . .wLR9 5'0.f.- • •/ 1551' . III•• P�aa roms7uw mx M C s0Em9N PA 4 s37orzal _ .) •••.•. • ••• _ $ W metes off NOE 1 p1 SHEET 2.) `Q -5�'0r20E 114.68'S FSE 1I-�9. -p -.r 6•P,OE r • •••••.• ', 'j' g 2.ID3 X• T 1 RI9't $ 1.+t •.•.•.`•" ...+.`j x471''3 t , TRACT B (� a • s2 R 28 �'' S - I A� s 1 A- `. . " " " . "J� ,'PUBLIC PN/WATER J*9JTY/ I1I RID s PEW/ R c 17 s0.F2 g- " . . VP'0./14469' I - 5•BSE _ 5?/ �2 0=6500.00' `��.;V. _ _ _ _1 X.69 A2,7 W 0.1:w of lee -- - '.�. R=1s.ar ;:� .\• • • • • - V' - (A x865742'.109.61' CB 5_890.01,1__ . " " 1 ,-_ 30' �•- L:17.02' ` `1-.` 1f �' �l Seaarml,zat2'- ss9o93e1 , . . " `, • 48 �( y al0 n g '-'-----\`. . ./ I llEr>AENG�L S .7,0.7 27 1 2 A.4 ' i� 4216 I_ ' ,'(q Jed,' `5:1, ♦'"`•/ CENTERL NE, ,1.:2' 'RI E Ile k 4474 S 16 512 R m . SO Fr. YA• 4,,,,ATi ` • ,�I <21 'F' 2'}!A \- 7 , S\ OP4NWwNf -- 4/i - ,q{': 3 �--10042'_ a 30.0' 3009' ■ = 10.1.09" ___ e'•�N20t6'/0'E 136.79' _ 15451' „ _ 4' 1070 WOOD FENCE ' 29' 29• ON UNE s ME 51/2 S89'03'28"E 1314.54' 3 CONC 11100E I I I 1/SRC.7 1 I I I SNEO ON ONE 32 I 461'8 I I I I I I I I co • I U R LI . t--_ --_ I 31 I 30 I 29 I 28 I 27 I 26 I 25 I 31 I • F \ I I -MIRROR GLEN DIV. I VOL.113, PG5.35-36 I I I • 33 I \ 1*0,-I/2•BPASSI' ns WC 1-1/2'641552' I N/'2'O CASE ON 0.85• - n 8/644211 N{1DI CRC .. - - _ 58706011 563.80 w Q2S �a32e� III - - - - - u.1r• 20 �l SW 318TH PLACE 61'37'19• - I _ __ L645.00' \ 1-)756322'1 i 7 -- - - -- ---- -- -- • a I ts.a0• I T -� \ CLINK TABLE CURE TABLE Z UT 12.90 I. 80 RARE/ 0E1427H ROWS DELTA 08101E 1 134001 RAM 00114 G Cl 17.17' 330.00' 256'54' C17 39.27 25.00' 8059•!5' - • DETAIL 1"=30' �>s' 330x' s'sz'01• 01e 39.27' 2s0' 960'1s BUILDING SETBACKS ARE AS POLL. 1 C3 31.64' 470.00' 1757.25• 019 20.59 25.00' 4711.42' FRONT: 20 FEET M NBAUM A ND C! 65.06' 4'70.00 741'15 020 19.19' 52,00 21'0f16 UM B FOUND MOMENT PS*DIED !MUM CS 458' 470.10' 751'38' C21 4297 5300 4026'59' O FOUND REPAR/CAP AS.NOTED ' ,/C6 5.07 470.00 6574• C22 31.00' 530 3730'45• to NAT CORNER SET(SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE 2,SHEET 2) 0 25 5o 100 w/' /wa • SET OW OF P90084L WAY STANDARD ROAD MONUMENT C7 4.64' 33!1.00' 71'13'23 C23 3918 53.00• 4211'25' - PACE 7� • SET 1/2'FEW MN PLASM CAP'BCE 46315'AT LOT CORNERS C8 5250 270.20 11'12'42• 024 21.14' 53.00' 22'51'12' SCALE:1.•60 `JOB N0.16518 • W7E WATERLINE EASEMENT(SEE RAT NOTE 4,SHEET 3) 09 9.6e' 53x00' 1.02'4' 025 40.31 530 437035' SOE STORM MLtlNM0 ANENT(SEE PEAT NOTE 5,SHEET 3) C10 65.46' 5RL0' 7004' C26 59.67 53.00' 643072• %eBarghausen �^ PSDE PRNAIE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT(SEE PAT NOTE 6,SHEET 3) Y�D•NAS'E< MI NA AIWA) • 071 15.01• emou rozr C27 8.10 25.00 163706' �Q,t*.c:3�H7�, Consulting Engineers, Inc. LE UMW EASEMENT(SEE.'0ASDAQ85 AND RESBNAOONY,SHEET 3) C,2 150' 530x' 75'16 C25 7247' 25x' 2634'41' ■�) Cm1 Engineering,Land Flaming.Surveying,Environmental Services /, 4: 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent.WA 98032 PSE PUGET SOUND EKREN FASE/ENr.RED N0.201310.11000249 013 81.70 530.0' 63030 C29 39.31 250' 900642' '.i 4 f, o Telephone: (425)251-6222 For (425)251-8752 '" 858L BUILDING SEEBKK UNE C,4 1892 530.00' 202'44' C30 3972' 25.00' 875178' 7 •315 p J`" A' s0..F.SQUARE FEET �4°'CISTt°.S�° NEt/4 OF SW1/4, SEC. 7, T21N-R4E, W.M. PI8UC PEDESTRIAN PATH(SEE PAT NOTE 14,SHEET 3) 015 41.1,' 270.0' 64117' 031 39.32' 75.0' 900107' N,, 1AWS _ CITY FILE NO. 14-703140-00-SO C16 0.20 276.00' 641'19• 032 ,507' 530.00' ,-37'23• .. SHEET 5 OF 5 `.../ ri*ii ' ., ..r ;- . . -,• .. .. l:' • -,. '- 41.1;'':•..T.;,•-•441..:*.-, •�' ' ; - • �d_.:.5`f■�� ,.1.7- 1 0 hc. r ;� ..y"A r Y {' ',` - ?A15311yrN: r•• - ,'+y ,=: 1 _• . . x.R ..'t'. v • '' a' � '¢� ''�4 '� ... ' 'h°s. 7 as : • • :. ...... �'�.4. e4 .• ..„,. ,.. ,.. 4,, - •,,,i - • -4, ' -41, Lij -4 F'.t- 1r !a'.Ali. ♦ 'a it . Nr,a'• Sit iM1•- I • - •.ra N E • • Amt' ' a a+ y r } 1 ° •% • 4 U'.{ ' ".;s t •iv *f19.Tftih .4 , -.•t 1•• . 044:�S. > a. •C" r .. C N -M ;:• ,y ', -•∎ •• r•0 +A _ b'N ., .. R . • . . , . . ., .. 4 Nr o ., '1.".t' - - . - .. , ` :3 . '+ ,: ;: 2i.' .... me ,c_,, tt , tF ti E• f` 45�.k1.5, ii :y. •','"- ir m-.- 11 ,x.> e I g i�1 .. #� • ;i i r}.rt ;. - i-. Jj r,' .. iTIN ra • -rg a �• . Y WV/ c +µ § rte: ... a.S +?•,} ,r. ,..3ui *ti!�1 i°F y _J�li. • 'k 71-:.ri.: t W p E L Y 4 C.0 YG 5 T n � Fr J mEam F L 'r i .or. t ��mm >� I a a rY _ � f Jar '-!.....7.7.0c. '. �. p7...R C E rn L M ! • + W ',,,=.)'" - v u u o ,�^ '- � PIF S E r-o g n, r -.Y.',S i by '!• NI- ;4i.".-4,.. J� ,t . m m amo N C O „, ,,,,r,:,. . '-474: il Si� ` 0 C m U. m. u M S AV pUz . . . 'm i r Ms Ui pJ£ MS PAV P S</p„ > p ill fit! t, , . ro c M ”0 _ PAS and{ 19 <,a°'' 9 , riot h .. M. 1• u � '"0/ �Rth A SW c _ S,h€'t l Q r% . e,-,..-,P;See*, "+ _ � ,�t PF SW MS$j%.Ot.crt _ ,, tt.P1 Sit VI an C .11th Pi S!'ii L4 I G r re-) ,tL.zt MS AV LI3 4 �3 t 1ztt,<d ~„' ., ., S> `* ttAS i)r�r t3I£$ f .. x � x fr e k _ - n. RESOLUTION NO. Z 7-1/93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,WASHINGTON,APPROVING MIRROR ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT,FEDERAL WAY FILE NO.05-100590-00 SU. WHEREAS, the owner, New Concept Homes, applied to the City-of Federal Way for preliminary plat approval to subdivide certain real property known as Mirror Estates,and consisting of 9.37 acres into twenty-seven(27)single-family residential lots located on the west side of the 31500 block of 8t°Avenue SW;and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2006, an Environmental Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)was issued by the Director of Federal Way's Department of Community Development Services pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),Chapter 43.21C;RCW,and • WHEREAS, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner on January 30, 2007, held a public hearing concerning Mirror Estates preliminary plat;and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing, on February 9, 2007, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner issued a written Report and Recommendation containing findings and conclusions,and recommending approval of Mirror Estates preliminary plat subject to conditions set forth therein;and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council has jurisdiction and authority pursuant to Section 20- 127 of the Federal Way City Code to approve, deny, or modify a preliminary plat and/or its conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2007, the City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee considered the record and the Hearing Examiner recommendation on Mirror Estates preliminary plat, pursuant to Chapter 20 of Federal Way City Code, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and all other applicable City codes, and voted to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed Mirror Estates preliminary plat to the full City Council,with no changes to the Hearing Examiner recommendation;and • • EXHIBIT C Res.# 07-5L93 ,Page 1 • WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007, the City Council considered the record and the Hearing Examiner recommendation on Mirror Estates preliminary plat, pursuant to Chapter 20 of Federal Way City Code, Chapter 58.17 RCW,and all other applicable City codes. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Adoption of Findings of Fact and Conclusions. 1. The fmdings of fact and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner's February 9, 2007 Report and Recommendation, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, are hereby adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Federal Way City Council. Any finding deemed to be a conclusion,and any conclusion deemed to be a finding,shall be treated as such. 2. Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the Staff Report and Hearing Examiner's recommendation, and conditions of approval as established therein, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health,safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary waste,parks and recreation,play grounds, schools and schools grounds, and all other relevant facts as are required by City code and state law,and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. 3. The public use and interest will be served by the preliminary plat approval granted herein. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner and findings and conclusions contained therein as adopted by the City Council immediately above, Mirror Estates preliminary plat, Federal Way File No. 05-100591-00 SU, is hereby approved, subject to conditions as contained in the February 9, 2007, Report and Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner(Exhibit A). • u ! C Res.#67"17193 ,Page 2 PAG .� O■ .:. .,�n.�. • Section 3. Conditions of Approval Integral.The conditions of approval of the preliminary plat are all integral to each other with respect to the City Council finding that the public use and interest will be served by the platting or.subdivision of the subject property. Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event, the proposed preliminary plat approval granted in this resolution shall be deemed void,and the preliminary plat shall be remanded to the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner to review the impacts of the invalidation of any condition or conditions and conduct such additional proceedings as are necessary to assure that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and other factors as required by RCW Chapter 58.17 and applicable City ordinances,rules,and regulations,and forward such recommendation to the City Council for further action. Section 4. Severability.If any section,sentence,clause,or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the.validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. • Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6..Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,WASHINGTON,THIS.44-DAY OF e i�u%G(- ,2007. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, ICS,P.• • Res.# 0 7"X93 ,Page 3 `XHPw, IT PAGE OF ATTEST: hegidat CITY ,LAURA HATHA AY APPROVED As To FORM: CITY ATTORNEY,PATRICIA A.RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: a al 77 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 3 , o? RESOLUTION NO. 07 - Lfg3 EXHJ UT C PAGE__9 OF 5 Res.# ,Page.4 CITY OF CITY HALL • Federal Way Feder 8th Avenue South• Box 9718 Federal Way,WA 98063-9718 8 (253)835-7000 Page- I wwwcityoffederalway.com Huy • , : 11.!j FEB 1 2 2001 1,1:9 —s--° -" City Clerks Office City of Federal Way • February 9, 2007 • J3 Civil PLLC Jerrit Jolma, P.E. 1375 NW Mall Street, Ste. 3 Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MIRROR ESTATES FWHE#06-12 FW#05-100590-00-SU Dear Applicant: Enclosed please find the Report and Recommendation of the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner relating to the above-entitled case. Very truly yo • • PHE K. CAUSSEAUX, -R. HEARING EXAMINER SKC/ca cc: All parties of record • City of Federal Way• • • EXH1511 T PAGE OF . Page-2 - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) FWHE# 06-12 ) FW# 05-100590-00-SU PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MIRROR ESTATES ) I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval pursuant to the Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 20, "Subdivisions" (FWCC Section 20-110, Division 6, "Preliminary Plat"). II. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Hearing Date: Janua ry 30, 2007 Decision Date: February 9, 2007 At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: 1. Deb Barker, Senior Planner, City of Federal.Way 2. Bob Johns, Attorney at Law, 1601 114t SE, #110, Bellevue, WA 98004 3. Linda Brockmann, 31611 — 11th Place SW, Federal Way, WA 98023 4. Jerrit Jolma, 1375 SW Mall Street, Issaquah, WA 98027 5. Mark Jacobs, 7731 8t°Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98006 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record of these • proceedings: 1. Staff Report with all attachments (Preliminary Plat) 2. Staff Report with all attachments (Wetland) 3. Power Point Presentation EXH! UT PAGE_ co OF \� Page - 3 III. FINDINGS 1. The Hearing Examiner has heard testimony, admitted documentary evidence into the record, and taken this matter under advisement. 2. The Community Development Staff Report sets forth general findings, applicable policies.and provisions in this matter and is hereby marked as Exhibit "1" with attachments and hereby incorporated in its entirety by this reference.. 3. All appropriate notices were delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). • 4. The applicant has a possessory ownership interest in a generally rectangular, 9.37 acre parcel of unimproved property abutting the west side of 8`h Avenue SW between SW 312'h Street and SW 320th Street in the Mirror Lake area of the City of Federal Way. The parcel abuts 8th Avenue SW for 194 feet and measures 1,285 feet in depth. A rectangular parcel not included in the plat and located at the northeast corner is abutted by the plat parcel on the south and west. Beyond said parcel, the width of the plat parcel expands to 328 feet. 5. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to allow subdivision of the site into 27 single family residential lots having a minimum lot size of 7,204 square feet, a maximum lot size of 11,907 square feet, and an average lot size of 7,934 square feet. The preliminary plat map shows a large wetland/buffer tract(Tract A) located in the west-central portion of the plat and containing 2.1 acres. Said tract divides the plat into two sections connected by an eight foot wide, permeable, pedestrian path extending along the south property line of the plat parcel. A second tract(Tract B) containing 23,885 square feet will support the storm drainage detention and water quality facilities. Said tract abuts the southeast portion of Tract A and the south property line of the plat parcel. 6. The preliminary plat map shows the eastern portion of the plat improved with 15 single family residential lots accessed via a new cul-de-sac road extending east from 8th Avenue SW and terminating in the central portion of the plat. In addition, the applicant will construct 8th Place SW which currently terminates at both the north and south property lines across the plat parcel. Drivers on 8th Place SW will jog in an east/west direction on the internal cul-de-sac road known as 315th Place SW while traveling in a north/south direction. All lots in the eastern portion of the plat will access onto internal plat roads. EXHJPIT C PAGE_a...,OF 15 • Page-4 7. The portion of the plat located west of Tract A will consist of 12 single family residential lots accessed via 11`h Place SW which presently terminates at the plat parcel's north and south property lines. The applicant will construct said road through the plat parcel and provide a traffic circle calming device in the center of the site. Two, 30 foot wide; shared driveway easements will provide access to four lots abutting the Tract A wetland area. 8. Single family residential homes abut the north, south, and west property lines and the east side of 8`h Avenue SW opposite the plat parcel. The site and all abutting parcels are located within the High Density Residential designation of the Federal Comprehensive Plan and the Single Family Residential(RS-7.2) zone classification of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). 9. Section 22-631 FWCC authorizes-single family detached dwelling units as outright permitted uses in the RS 7.2 zone classification. Said section requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and structural setbacks of 20 feet front yard, five feet side yard, and five feet rear yard. Said section limits the height of structures to 30 feet above average building elevation and requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Maximum lot coverage cannot exceed 60%. All lot sizes exceed 7,200 square feet and each lot provides a building envelope sufficient to accommodate a reasonably sized, single family residential dwelling which can meet all setbacks. The proposed preliminary plat satisfies all bulk regulations of the RS 7.2 zone classification. 10. The City of Federal Way Responsible Official issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) following review of the environmental impacts of the development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Responsible Official identified probable significant adverse environmental impacts and imposed mitigating measures which would either eliminate said impacts or reduce them below the "significant"level. No one filed an appeal of the threshold determination and therefore SEPA review is final and binding upon the preliminary plat. Mitigating measures imposed address the pedestrian trail, wetland creation, wetland buffer mitigation, and the creation of supplemental snags within permanent open space areas. Measures also encourage informational and educational programs and activities dealing with the protection of wildlife for future homeowners. A mitigating measure also requires a pro rata share contribution of$76,347 toward traffic improvement projects identified by the City. • EXI! 19 PAGE 8 OF • Page- 5 11. The 1973 King County Soil Survey Map identifies the site as containing Alderwood gravelly sandy loam characteristics to include moderately well drained soils, slow runoff, and slight erosion hazard. These soils are considered capable of supporting urban development. Topography rises from the wetland area near the center of the site to the east and west. However, the site has no steep slopes or other geologically hazardous areas. 12. According to a tree retention plan (Exhibit"A3") the site is moderately wooded with a mixture of conifer and broad leaf trees with red alder the dominant species. The site contains 73 trees which meet the definition of"significant tree", and development of the plat will require removal of 47 (64%) of such trees. Twenty-six of such trees (35%) will remain within the wetland and buffer tract. Section 22-1568 FWCC allows removal of 75% of significant trees without requiring replacement. Even though the applicant proposes to remove 64% of significant trees and therefore does not trigger replacement trees, it will plant trees in the wetland and buffer, along road rights-of-way, and in the storm • drainage facilities. Tree retention and replanting will ensure that plat development will not affect the appearance.of the neighborhood.. 13. The site is located within both the five and ten year contour areas associated with critical aquifer recharge and well head protection areas. The applicant submitted a hazardous material inventory statement dated June 7, 2006, which shows that the project will not result in regulated activities of hazardous materials. The storm drainage system will protect the water quality of both groundwater and surface water resources, and impacts and protections for the on-site wetlands are addressed in the Process IV application for wetland. elimination and mitigation. • 14. The applicant will design the stormwater drainage system in accordance with the standards set forth in the 1998 King County Surfacewater Design Manual and the City's amendments thereto. According to the applicant's Technical Information Report(TIR), the western three quarters of the site sheet flows directly into the large wetland located in the west-central portion of the site (Wetland B), and the eastern quarter of the site flows into Wetland.A located at the northeast corner of the site which the applicant proposes to fill. Wetland A presently discharges through an existing, off-site, storm pipe to a detention pond north of Wetland B and then into Wetland B. The storm system will collect and direct stormwater presently flowing into Wetland A to Wetland B, thus, maintaining its hydrology. The storm drainage facility proposes a two cell wet pond/detention pond facility located in the 23,885 square foot Tract B. The storm EM E T c PACE, OF_ S__ Page - 6 drainage system will also provide compensatory storage volume for the loss of Wetland A in the Wetland B creation area. 15. The applicant submitted a wildlife study report prepared by Chad Armour LLC • dated July 31, 2006. The report identified a wetland habitat and hardwood forest habitat on the site, but noted that wildlife common to the area does not inhabit the site, but passes through the site to suitable habitat. Wildlife observed includes the pileated woodpecker, a priority species, but no wildlife species recognized as "priority" inhabit the site. The Washington State Department of • Fish and Wildlife (DEWY Priority Habitat Report and Species Map has no record of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of wildlife within 7,500 feet of the site. DEW also noted that the site does not meet the definition of.a fish and wildlif e habitat conservation area as set forth in Section 18-28 FWCC. However, 2.1 acres (23%) of the site will remain as conservation open space as compared with the FWCC minimum requirement of 15%. Preservation and expansion of Wetland B coupled with retention of significant trees throughout the tract will ensure that the site will continue to provide habitat opportunities. A SEPA mitigating measures requires the applicant to maintain the wetland and buffer tract to protect and enhance wildlife habitat to the maximum extent possible to include the creation of supplemental snags. 16. FWCC Chapter 20 entitled "Subdivisions" re q ui Y s.d edication of land to provide adequate recreational opportunities or pay a fee in lieu of such dedication. The City PARCS Department approved the applicant's proposal of a 1,174 foot long pedestrian trail linking the east and west portions of the plat along with a fee in lieu of payment for the balance of the open space requirement (1.38 acres). The. trail corridor provides approximately 2.34% of the usable open space requirement. 17. Primary vehicular access to the eastern portion of the site will consist of•an extension of 8"' Place SW, and primary vehicular access to the western portion of the site will consist of the connection of 11th Place SW across the plat parcel. To comply with Section 20.151 FWCC which requires a maximum block perimeter length of 1,320 feet for non-motorized trips and 2,640 feet for streets, the applicant would need to construct an east/west motorized connection. However, due to the presence of the large wetland which extends across the site, the City has agreed to the pedestrian trail as proposed. The applicant will construct all streets to City public standards and dedicate said rights-of-way to the City. . . EXHIRIT C PAGE \c` OF �S • Page - 7 18. In addition to the pedestrian trail connecting the two portions of the plat, the applicant will also install sidewalks on both sides of the internal plat roads. The homeowners association will own and maintain the portion of the pedestrian trail across Tract A, but the City will own and maintain the portion of the trail which - crosses Tract B, the stormwater facility. 19. In accordance with FWCC 20-179, development of the preliminary plat must meet the approved preliminary clearing and grading plans, and vegetation will remain except that removed for infrastructure improvements or grading. The initial clearing and grading will affect 52% of the site and will include the filling of Wetlands A and C/D. 20. The applicant's preliminary landscape plan complies with FWCC Chapter 20 and includes the landscaping of the storm drainage facility and installation of street trees along public roads. 21. The Federal Way School District has determined that school children residing in the plat will attend Lake Grove Elementary, Lakota Middle School, and Federal Way High School. All children will receive bus service for all schools and may walk via existing sidewalks and roadway shoulders to school bus stops. The applicant must also satisfy the City School Impact Fee Ordinance at building permit stage. 22. The Lakehaven Utility District will provide both domestic water and fire flow to the site as well as sanitary sewer service. 23. Prior to obtaining preliminary plat approval the applicant must show that the proposal satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 20-126(c) FWCC. Findings on each criteria are hereby made as follows: A. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan which designates the site as Single Family/High 9 9 Y 19h Density. The project satisfies all development regulations adopted to implement said designation. . • B. The project complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 20 FWCC including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. Staff has conditioned the preliminary plat to comply with the provisions of Chapter 18 "Environment Policy", Chapter. 19 "Subdivisions", Chapter 20 "Zoning"and all other applicable codes and regulations. EXHIRIT PAGE \ \ OF, 15- • Page - 8 C. Assuming compliance with conditions of approval and City ordinances, the project will further with the public health, safety, and welfare. D. The project is consistent with the design criteria set forth in FWCC 20-2 including the effective use of land, promotion of safe and convenient travel on streets, provision for the housing needs of the community, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and preservation of approximately 23% of the site as permanent open space. • E. The project complies with all development standards set forth in Sections 20-151-157 and 20-158-187 FWCC. 24. Concerns raised at the hearing by neighbors included increased water problems as a result of the development based upon a development in 1990 which filled a wetland, and safety issues due to increased traffic. Neighbors requested "Stop" signs at uncontrolled intersections or other methods to slow traffic. Significant • changes in stormwater and critical area requirements•have occurred since 1990, • and the proposed storm drainage system will release water downstream at its present discharge location at the predevelopment rate. The applicant conducted a downstream analysis for one quarter mile and determined that downstream facilities are adequate to conduct storrriwater discharged.from the plat. The applicant's traffic engineer and the City's traffic engineer both agree that "Stop" signs would increase speeds in the neighborhood for those roads where drivers need not stop. The engineers agree that uncontrolled intersections slow traffic. Both engineers also agree that the road connections will not provide pass through routes, but will provide alternative access for local residents. Finally, the City has no record of accidents occurring at any intersections in the area. However, the City will continue to monitor traffic in the area, and the Public Works Department can install traffic safety improvements if necessary. • • IV. CONCLUSIONS From the foregoing findings the Hearing Examiner makes the following conclusions: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the.Single Family/High Density designation of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and satisfies all bulk • EDIT PAGE '1-* OF 5.- Page- 9 • •regulations of the RS 7.2 zone classification. • 3. The proposed preliminary plat makes appropriate provision for the public health, safety, and general welfare for_opertspaces,-drainage ways, streets, roads, alleys, - other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary waste, schools and school grounds, parks and recreation, and safe walking conditions. 4. The proposed preliminary plat will serve the public use and interest by providing an attractive infill development which will allow connection of City streets, thereby improving the grid system for the City, and also providing an enhanced Category Ill wetland. Therefore, the proposed preliminary plat should be approved subject to the following conditions: • 1. Prior to the City's approval of engineering plans, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, addressing tree preservation within the plat, all landscaping within plat boundaries, wetland mitigation planting approved by the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, restoration of the areas disturbed by installation of the storm drainage easement and pedestrian trial outside of tract A, visual screening of the tract B storm drainage tract, and street trees for review and approval by the Directors of Community Development, Public Works, and Parks, Recreational, and Cultural Services (PARCS). Prior to submittal to the City, the landscape plan shall be reviewed and signed by a qualified wetland biologist and shall reflect all applicable recommendations contained in the applicant's Wetland Determination and Mitigation Plan. Pursuant to FWCC Sections 22-1286(d)(2), 22-1243, 22- 1313(3), and 22-1358(e)(1), the City may require the applicant to pay for the services of a wetland biologist to review plans, provide recommendations, and conduct in inspections and/or monitoring on behalf of the City, as determined by the Community Development Director. 2. All on-site fencing associated with plat construction is subject to the City's final review and approval of design, location, and any screening. Fencing shall allow for the migration of small wildlife animals, where appropriate. Any chain link fencing, if approved by the City, shall be vinyl coated black or green and shall be screened with vegetation. 3. Prior to final plat approval, open rail fencing, appropriate vegetation, and • appropriate signage shall be installed,to separate the pedestrian trail and residential lots from wetland B setback. EXHI LT C PAGE,_t3 OF \5 Page.- 10 4. Rockeries and retaining walls associated with plat construction must reflect residential scale, design, and sensitivity of materials or treatment, including use of vegetation_and/or terracing,where-they-ar-e visible-from - adjacent residences or usable open space. 5: The final plat drawing shall dedicate all usable open space in an open space tract to be owned in common and maintained by property owners'of the proposed subdivision, and shall prohibit removal or disturbance of vegetation and landscaping within the tract, except as necessary for maintenance or replacement of existing plantings and as approved by the City. Additional vegetation may be located in open space tracts to meet conditions as approved by the City. A note.shall be included on the final plat map that the open space tract shall not be further subdivided, may not be developed with any buildings or other structures except as may be . approved by the City for recreational purposes only for the benefit of the homeowners, and may not be used for financial gain. RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby recommended to the Federal Way City Council that the preliminary plat of Mirror Estates be approved subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above. • DATED THIS 9`h DAY OF February, 2007. • . ././.1.1111r Ati K. CAUSSEAT , J Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 9th DAY OF February, 2007, to the following: APPLICANT: J3 Civil PLLC Jerrit Jolma, P.E. 1375 NW Mall Street, Ste. 3 Issaquah, WA 98027 EXIIJ tS PAGE, k`1 OF� Page - I l OWNER: New Concept Homes Christine Balyeat P.O. Box 1229 Issaquah, WA 98027 OTHERS: Bob Johns Christine Balyeat 1601 114th SE#110 46809 SE 153rd Bellevue, WA 98004 North.Bend, WA 98045 Herbert Mall Gary Schulz P.O. Box 1229 7700 S. Lake Ridge Drive. Issaquah, WA 98027 Seattle, WA 98178 Heather Balyeat Wendy Easter P.O. Box 585 31601 8th Place SW Issaquah, WA 98027 Federal Way,.WA 98023 Mark Jacobs Chad Armour 7731 8`h Avenue S. 6500 — 126th Avenue SE • Seattle, WA 98106 Bellevue, WA 98006 Linda Brockmann City of Federal Way 31611 — 11th Place SW do Laura Hathway Federal Way, WA 98023 • P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 C . II 3 PAGE_OF.,\ .. I Q vm,3, MOWN/HSVM AVM 702003J j0.(Lf V CO ',0 ,mir�N,ed i ^O 4 i� .v.n (NS00-06500L-9o)L39Po/iN 3741 �E'"�" y O 1g S31t7�1S3 !IO!!!1/W r''t o�1 3 ONO H „� adim u-ii `�" maa,�N�aaa dVDY 1V7d AdVNWWl73Nd ‘ii „ • -- r- - .ez SwI.I�` e`„ , wg Otr,i1 , 2,,,— : ,,,,,.3$ € - '� g y, ',0t-4-.es ei- Fa PP r l ^MS 3/IV H1H ft sos 605 E 4 7 0 0 ' `-° -i --• 1----.„--1-..—• I 2 . 1. ai JY � 7 _ -� b• • i Y "a kk- " a /4 - _ - .rrrr so sa ; •L'_ ,f�,ms.,:3 , 84 �+-"--- _� $ : 2� 2 • /p � I 7 {_ 1 +�'I`r —Y � 3� $ aII of 4 qq� l - 1,-.' I qy 1 h°t I. % F 6$,p t` gg R w e- �^ I" g ! h s"s.383 3 �.° 4 e, / '. L .b'.N I f ; I r a` , I. e o € r y ` I u p .:-{27.7'`...„,"'", J i- b h E-- ,z � "t l + €E j it. / Id '▪ & € ' - u !bgae . ?. -c ill 1$ `€ '@y. f j ,t21 0, �, � Q 11• W ill H ggdli �h C� .j,1 `s`. ^w1,. �MS,rifle�' ^ J�J a ' � o # Mg Ili s.i 1 IIT‹.711,,_..L4_,--L__.,A 1I 1 ah� € M F r q J #4 a ■ G � 3 3 • "q 7� i .I®( � 3 �• 3 • 8".SC' y g� b �' a R a -, it 2 8 bs qF l• itiC : 'i, „, , '''',.`.. .-. —12. ...__,,:;_/'',.. )4,4,,,2,i,,,,,,,Lc,,,,,r,. ....„! ,,,,,; -y, y - s tgt q, - I ( r --L.:_—_,.., 1,.____ h :di Y M bI gw 9 iplg i';'.,5,et i' ,��q K N ' a- „. Y , 3.; / ` b NI ; s€ hg a: aRh•a '. .• h _'1/ hF t $�bq h7� hbR o f -; 'i,, 1g/-,ci • ' ,J.{ _'V,—i y Qo i§$ 5;kg!�a a 33�Y b`eY I r `,_ f-'� maL'ggg I a lig e 1 Cep fir : s 3 f:Jr ,, 1� O '�J 7 k. V i+e' ill i 6:-.;„:--- — \.a tc ' '�\ F I 2 it, � ti g: i$ € f $ p C y • a , q r f °C 8 8 8 4 f, • N �\ •1. ' 'v tk .' ,21214! # @ te .J �2Y�RC R� n Z ; ; --'!)\i'; k-.0.::_,...::- :". .:::;;.\_.‘ /:::::7._ -.,„., , , i 1 g itim_ Er 'i011 \ I I—v,'i l— ( I q 3I g 6 aa�iaiil��O �o �a : $3 rr' .II ��I \1 Y j I' -- :,"s ° b' Z 99�.g4.aaebel-b s % ._ _' "--I—,,.-1 IT �: `id' $is. 4" -e- " " 1 k ' 4 £ 'h'' R- 1 I i$ : - - 8 - C?F gF 1F 1F Ra= p ri err I 1- I'I III }p - t Q gag aid as a. az�a $G y1iI» 'I ..I I li \ b ,--1°L,-----, ::< U N Y ® • • 0•eY•.q,,• 1°I•,, , " ,, ,,,,H1.,„p, , IL 1_,▪, ,,„$ /4 .4 r ` ,r. -----� _ ';,:.77::-.;:?V-4-7.T:-:' -..e.ay:ilk 11111 Ah5 ID 2 y 6 F S ya R h • i_ h N -b j - y B �j _.�J 6 3�.J — -f If / - X, r BF — , PAGE �F k ' 1, i r£ yl i ??-E' t ,,-,f,,,,,;;-:1,,,,,,..,,,,7,,.:„ +: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the Mirror Estates Final Plat, Federal Way, Washington, File No. 14-103140-00-SU WHEREAS, on January 30, 2007, the Federal Way Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat application resulting in the recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, dated February 9, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Mirror Estates Preliminary Plat, City of Federal Way File No. 05- 100590-00-SU, was approved subject to conditions on March 6, 2007, by Federal Way City Council Resolution No. 07-493, which adopted the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the final plat application for Mirror Estates within the required 10-year completion time pursuant to RCW 58.17.140(3)(b); and WHEREAS, the applicant has satisfied or guaranteed all of the conditions set forth in Resolution 07-493; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way's Community Development Department and Public Works Department staff have reviewed the proposed final plat for its conformance to the conditions of preliminary plat approval and final plat decisional criteria, and their analysis and conclusions are s et forth in the Community Development Department Staff Report, February ruar 10, 2015, which is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the application and staff report for the Mirror Estates Final Plat during the City Council's Special Meeting on February 17, 2015. Resolution No. 15- Page 1 of 4 Rev 1/15 EXHIBIT PAGE, 1 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. 1. The Mirror Estates Final Plat, City of Federal Way File No. 14-103140-00-SU, is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat and is in conformance with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls in effect at the time the preliminary plat application was deemed complete. 2. Based on, inter alia, the analysis and conclusions in the staff report, dated February 10, 2015, which are adopted herein by reference, and on the City Council's review of the application for final plat, the proposed subdivision makes appropriate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare, and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes,parks and recreation,playgrounds, and schools and school grounds as are required by City Code, or which are necessary and appropriate, and provides for sidewalks and other planning features to assure safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. 3. The public use and interest will be served by the final plat approval granted herein. 4. All conditions listed in Federal Way Resolution No. 07-493, dated March 6, 2007, have been satisfied, and/or satisfaction of the conditions have been sufficiently guaranteed by the applicant as allowed by the application's vested provision of Federal Way City Code 20-135. Resolution No. 15- Page 2 of 4 Rev 1/15 EXHIRIT PAGE 2 OP 5. All required improvements for final plat approval have been made and/or sufficient bond, cash deposit, or assignment of funds have been accepted as guarantee for completion and maintenance of all required plat improvements as identified in the Staff Report. 6. All taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid or will be paid, prior to recording the final plat. Section 2. Application Approval. Based upon the Findings and Conclusions contained in Section 1 above, the Mirror Estates Final Plat, City of Federal Way File No. 14-103140-00-SU, is approved. Section 3. Recording. The approved and signed final plat, together with all legal instruments pertaining thereto, as required pursuant to all applicable codes, shall be recorded with the King County Department Recorder's Office. The applicant shall pay all recording fees. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution. Section 5. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Resolution No. 15- Page 3 of 4 Rev 1/15 EXHIBIT PAGE 3 OF..�. Section 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of , 20 . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JIM FERRELL ATTEST: CITY CLERK, STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, AMY JO PEARSALL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: Resolution No. 15- Page 4 of 4 PAGE `' ��—•a—' • COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 17,2015 ITEM#: ................. ._................................ .... ... .................... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT:MARIJUANA RELATED BUSINESSES--STUDY SESSION POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council ban or allow marijuana related businesses within the City? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: October 6, 2014 CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ® Other STAFF REPORT BY: Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner DEPT: CD Attachments: 1) Staff Memo to the City Council; 2) MRSC map; 3) Cityvision articles "Casing the Joint", "Local Marijuana Revenues" & "The Fed X Factor"; 4) AWC report by Berk, "Assessment of Impacts to Cities Marijuana Factor"; ) P Y P of Recreational Marijuana Legalization"; 5) House and Senate bill list; 6) October 21, 2014 City Council packet material (agenda item 7a). Background: The current marijuana moratorium expires on May 5, 2015. This study session is taking place at the request of the City Council. Council is being asked to review information and provide direction to staff for preparation of an ordinance to present to City Council for final action. Options: 1) Adopt regulations related to the siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses and/or collective gardens; 2) Adopt an ordinance banning the siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses and/or collective gardens; 3) Extend the moratorium to allow for further study of the issue prior to adoption of local regulation;or 4) Allow the moratorium to expire with no marijuana-related business regulations in place. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 MAYOR APPROVAL: f 2 /0 '., P b DIRECTOR APPROVAL: . 2//o b Co r itte' / Coon II Initial/Date Initial/Date Initial/Date CHIEF OF STAFF: J ,(,Jilwt / / Committer Council Initial/Date / Initial/Date /7 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:N/A PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:N/A (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL# ❑ DENIED 1sT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING(ordinances only) ORDINANCE# REVISED—1/2015 RESOLUTION# CITY O Federal Way Marijuana-Related Businesses Staff Report City Council Study Session February 17, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION Last October,the City Council considered a Planning Commission/LUTC recommendation of a ban on recreational marijuana businesses and also contemplated a ban on medical marijuana businesses(the 10-21-14 Council packet materials are attached).The result was that the Council enacted a moratorium (Ordinance 14-776)on the matter for an additional six(6)months,which is set to expire on May 5, 2015. This staff report presents a brief overview of recreational marijuana-related businesses and progress on this topic to date. The marijuana related code amendment is designated as a"high priority"item on the Planning Commission's work program. This study session is taking place at the request of the City Council. Council is being asked to review information and provide direction to staff for preparation of an ordinance to present to City Council for final action. Staff from Community Development,Police, Finance,and Law departments will be present to respond to questions.Additionally,the Washington State Liquor Control Board's Deputy Director, Randy Simmons,will be in attendance at the February Council study session. II. BACKGROUND In November of 2012,Washington voters approved 1-502 legalizing the possession of limited amounts of marijuana.According to King County election data, 63.5%of King County voters voted in favor of I-502. Statewide,the initiative passed with an approval rate of 55.7%. In the City of Federal Way,the approval rate was 53%. What is meant by the term "Recreational Marijuana-Related Businesses"? Recreational marijuana-related businesses are characterized as one of three business types under state law: • Retail operations; • Production operations; and • Processing operations. How many retail,producer,and/or processer businesses may be located in Federal Way? • The State has specified no more than five retail outlets may be allowed within the City limits. • A retailer may only be a retailer(not also a producer and/or processor). Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP February 17,2015 City Council Study Session Page 1 of 4 • A licensee may hold a producer and processor license together,but they must apply for two separate licenses,one for producer and one for processor. • There is currently no limit on the number of producer or processor businesses under state law. What is the current status of applications for marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way? Information on the proposed number and location of marijuana-related businesses is available from the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB).As stated above,the State will only license up to five retail operations in Federal Way. This number is based on population—the greater the population,the greater number of potential retail businesses within a city.There are currently 15 individuals listed as applying for a state license for retail within the City limits,but no more than five will be able to obtain such a license.The WSLCB did conduct several lotteries to determine priority ranking for proposed retail businesses within each jurisdiction, subject to the business meeting all the local regulations. If the proposed retail businesses with a lottery ranking of#1,2,or 3 are unable to obtain local approval for example,then businesses ranked 4, 5,etc.would be the next eligible for the five licenses,and so on until either five licenses are successfully issued, or all proposals have been exhausted. There are currently four individuals listed as applying for a state license for producer and three applications for processor within the city limits.Three of the four producer applicants also applied for the three processor applications. Therefore the seven applications for producers and processors equate to four business locations. How have other jurisdictions' responded to I-502? The Municipal Research Services Center(MRSC)maintains a map with the status of local jurisdictions'responses to I-502 to date. Staff reviewed the map, available online at http://www.tmse.org/subjects/legal/502/reemarijuana.aspx,at the time of the preparation of this staff report(map attached). Currently,approximately 40%of cities have either a moratorium in place related to marijuana businesses or have prohibited them altogether.The other 60%of cities either allow marijuana businesses by default under the initiative rules,have adopted permanent or interim regulations to allow the businesses subject to local regulations,or have taken no action. As noted above, some jurisdictions have implemented a ban on marijuana-related businesses.This option is allowed per the opinion of the State Attorney General's office (http://ins i ght.mrsc.org/2 014/0 I/l 6/state-attorn ey-gen eral-sav s-cities-and-co unties-can-ban- recreational-marijuana-uses!). However,the State Attorney General's opinion is not binding on the state courts. Financial& public safety impacts of marijuana related businesses At present there is no mechanism in place for the City to receive any revenue from the State from recreational marijuana sales, except for our share of local sales tax. Although several bills in the legislature have been proposed that may change this. See section below titled"Additional information". The Liquor Control Board is responsible for enforcing the state regulations on recreational marijuana- related businesses.Local law enforcement is responsible for responding to criminal activity and Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP February 17,2015 City Council Study Session Page 2 of 4 DUIs. We investigated statistics on robberies associated with recreational marijuana retail businesses, but that information is not readily available. According to the Washington State Patrol(WSP)in 2011,there were 1,735 DUI drug arrests, in 2012 there were 1,621 arrests,and in 2013 there were 1,357 arrests. So the number of Driving under the Influence of Drugs(DUID)arrests went down after I-502 passed in November 2012.The WSP stated that enforcement levels might have something to do with the drop. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries/Collective Gardens Dispensaries and collective gardens are not affected by I-502 and do not have to comply with any of the requirements including separation standards from sensitive uses(unless the City wants to create and implement such requirements).The Liquor Control Board does not regulate these types of operations. Medical marijuana"dispensaries"are not legal under state law. It is possible that the legislature may adopt regulations pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries/collective gardens.The City Council can ban and/or regulate medical marijuana for the time being;however medical marijuana is in a transitory period right now as we wait for clear direction from the legislature and/or courts. Additional information The Association of Washington Cities(AWC)publishes a magazine called Cityvision.The September/October 2014 edition is dedicated to the topic of marijuana.Articles pertaining to banning marijuana,local marijuana revenues,and the federal government response are attached as information for your review.AWC also retained the consulting firm Berk who recently prepared a report entitled "Assessment of Impacts to Cities of Recreational Marijuana Legalization",which is also attached for your review and information. The Washington State regular legislative session is scheduled to run from January 12—April 26, 2015.At the time of writing of this staff report,there are numerous bills pertaining to various aspects of marijuana(see attached list of House and Senate bills). Some of these bills include, in brief detail: • SB 5052-The Cannabis Protection Act o Clarifies and reconciles Washington State medical and recreational marijuana laws. • SB 5417-Local government marijuana policies o Addresses distribution of marijuana excise tax revenue and changes the distance restrictions on marijuana producer,processor and retail businesses. • HB 1165-Dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund o Relates to the establishment of a dedicated local jurisdiction marijuana fund and the distribution of a specified percentage of marijuana excise tax revenues to local jurisdictions. zctions. • HB 1411-Siting of marijuana facilities o Changes the distance restrictions on marijuana producer,processor, and retail businesses. • HB 1438-Relating to prohibiting production, processing and sale of marijuana o Permits jurisdictions to prohibit the production,processing, and sale of marijuana under I-502 only by public vote. • HB 1461-Revises many regulatory provisions regarding medical and recreational marijuana. Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP February 17,2015 City Council Study Session Page 3 of 4 III. PROGRESS TO DATE This section provides a summary of actions on this topic to date. • November 5,2013: Council enacted a one year moratorium on marijuana-related land uses. • August 20,2014: Planning Commission study session. o Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with preparation of final recommendations for siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses. • September 17,2014: Planning Commission public hearing. o Planning Commission recommended the Council ban marijuana-related businesses. • October 6,2014: Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC)meeting. o LUTC voted to forward the proposed ordinance(ban)to the City Council and directed staff to extend the moratorium on medical marijuana and remand that component back to the Planning Commission. • October 21,2014: City Council meeting. o Council approved Ordinance No. 14-776,renewing the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 13-749 on marijuana collective gardens and other related activities involved in the sale,manufacturing, or distribution of recreational marijuana for six months. Council also requested staff bring the topic back in a study session format. • February 17,2015: City Council study session. • May 5, 2015: moratorium expires. IV. NEXT STEPS City Council has the following options: 1. Adopt regulations related to the siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses and/or collective gardens; 2. Adopt an ordinance banning the siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses and/or collective gardens; 3. Extend the moratorium to allow for further study of the issue prior to adoption of local regulation; or 4. Allow the moratorium to expire with no marijuana-related business regulations in place. Staff will take Council direction and prepare appropriate documents for your consideration. Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP February 17,2015 City Council Study Session Page 4 of 4 • Q • • Orovi le • M •• 'cane • • • Bearing ham • °• la Cor to • • Colville O •0 • Twisp Owe • • 0 C • • • 0 •• Newport • • • Forks Port Townsend • I. •Brudgeport Electric• e e City • • Indere •• •• Mansfield •• r • Leavenworth Wale vole • Aimee Davenport ® • Coulee city • • e • East•atchee •Wlson Creek• Harrrrgton 0 • 4 e •Ephrata Odessa • as ■ • South Cie El um • • • Rosalie alie St John •» • •e George Moses Lake •lir• •• • Ebensburg • Lind •• F Westport Ealotvbe Royal City • Endicott •• U Othello • Pullman e South Bend 0 • Morton Mesa Kahbturs •• • d Porno • varier ®•• •�. • • Moen 0 Prosser Kennewick Wes• 0&. Coulee Place •r"• • 0 •°Whrde Salmon Washougal t OpenStreetMap contributors Jurisdiction Type Zoning Type ' ' Totals By Zoning Type(click to highlight) o, City `li (All) County E`1 Allowed Under Existing Zoning Allowed Under Existing Zoning - [✓i Interim Zoning Permanent Zoning Lj Moratorium Interim Zoning [a1 No Action No Action Permanent Zoning Prohibited Moratorium ,.P-.`:. 47 `; ' Prohibited Source: MRSC, 1-16-15 http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/legal/502/recmariivana.aspx#table MRSC Map Legend • Allowed Under Existing Zoning-Licensed recreational marijuana businesses are not specifically allowed, but can locate in appropriate zones already established (ie. retail marijuana businesses can locate in zones allowing retails sales, etc.) • Permanent Zoning- Licensed marijuana businesses are specifically listed as allowed uses in designated zones. • Interim Zoning- Provisional zoning regulations are adopted for licensed marijuana businesses, subject to review and amendment within a designated time period,as allowed by RCW 35A.63.220. • No Action- No regulations have been adopted regarding licensed marijuana businesses. • Moratorium- Licensed marijuana businesses are prohibited for a designated time while the legislative body gives the matter further consideration, as allowed by RCW 35A.63.220. • Prohibited- Licensed marijuana businesses are not allowed -either through an outright ban or through other local enactments,such as licensing regulations prohibiting businesses that do not comply with federal laws. INSIDE: NOTED Distribution of the marijuana excise tax THE QUESTION Impressions from a production facility tour CALENDAR The barnstorming regional meetings season 7 Casing the Joint '"� 6 , ' ..,. ...„ A court fight over Fife's marijuana ban threatens legalization. , k i< t . ,.., ..,.. iii,„, NO DOUBT every city attorney in the state was awaiting Pierce County Supe- rior Court Judge Ronald Culpepper's ' ruling on Case No.14-2-10487-7.But none was more anxious for the August 29 decision—the first judicial determination 41.6 that Initiative 502 allows local munici- A Llu palities to ban marijuana businesses— than Loren Combs. "For the City of Fife,Initiative 502 has been upheld,and the city ordinance has been upheld,"says Combs,a lawyer at Tacoma's VSI Law Group who serves as Fife's city attorney."Every jurisdic- tion should be able to look at their own circumstances and say,`Yes,this makes sense'or,`No,this doesn't.'" 'Y Fife,a five-square-mile suburb east of Tacoma,decided that it didn't make sense.So on July 5,Fife's council passed Ordinance No.1872,establishing a one- year moratorium on businesses involved with the production,distribution,and sale of marijuana.In addition to liability and public safety concerns,city leaders were hesitant to grant a local license to ;' any business that,although sanctioned .• continued on page 10 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 I CITYVISION MAGAZINE I 5 .-- Vision Municipal Solutions e Yr; r✓ .AT if A.,, PO Box 28429 � % Spokane,WA 99228 509-315-8845 www.visionms.net Vision has secure,innovative software solutions for local government.Our suite includes financials, payroll,cash management,utilities,licenses, receivables,and more.In addition to software we provide Professional Services,IT,and Forms. Casing the Joint continued from page 5 „ � �, by the state,would be operating in violation of the fed- eral Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Rich legacy. � r/" "Until the federal law changes or until a federal court r f �• ,y � says,`Yes,a state can do this,'there's risk,"Combs ar- '° Bright future. g gues."It's a cloud over this whole social change that's Helping communities grow going on.In my lifetime,people went to jail for having a and prosper has made our few seeds of marijuana in their car—it was a felony.Now business thrive.Pacific Power the state says it's legal for them to smoke it and sell it. I? e , is proud to have served That's a huge change.It's a lot easier being a lawyer than customers and communities it is being a politician who says,`Even if the federal goy- .— ' ''' ' for over 100 years. ernment still says marijuana is illegal,I'm going to allow ',u , PACIFIC POWER it to be sold in my city.'" �' Or disallow it.On July 15,would-be pot proprietor .,. Tedd Wetherbee filed a lawsuit,arguing that state law (Initiative 502)superseded local bans and that he had a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES right to open a retail marijuana business in Fife.If that's the case,Fife countered,then federal law trumps state IMIIIMINGION law,effectively seeking an unprecedented court ruling B RAU 11 that could fundamentally undermine the state's mar- Braun Consulting Group Juana law By ruling against state preemption(that state ° a '�4F* ° °R O O P` ar ° Personnel&Labor Relations law trumps local ordinances),Judge Culpepper dodged r ..i&t H rax,. www.braunconsuiting.com the matter of federal preemption. • "If they were successful,that would effectively evis- cerate marijuana legalization in Washington state,"says Braun Consulting Group salutes the Board, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson,who intervened Staff, and Volunteers of AWC for their outstared- in the case and shared Fife's position that cities and ing service in the interest of Washington State counties could ban recreational marijuana businesses public employers. but disagreed with the city argument that federal drug Thanks for all you do. laws preempted Initiative 502."I want to be clear that my role is to uphold the will of the voters—that's why we're intervening.There are real threats to marijuana i legalization in Washington state,and we're working hard Feeling restricted by B.A.R.S.? to stop those threats....I think Judge Culpepper got it exactly right,but this is the first step in what may be a , ! %,jf� Vor* ~ longlegai right,bu s." �,f, - t: . � In late September,Wetherbee appealed Judge Culpep- � per's decision directly to the State Supreme Court;his a# . - appeal was pending as of press time. "If I were a local elected official,I'd be talking to my "" —, a. .�� city attorney and monitoring these cases and watching f � - 4 them closely,"Ferguson advises."Until the State Su ,f s preme Court rules,it's an open question of whether or y i [ not local jurisdictions can opt out of allowing marijuana ,, businesses.That's the bottom line."—Ted Katauskas C For more information: 10 1 CITYVISION MAGAZINE 1 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 cityoftife.org ' ' -'•,- - BEAT, ,; ,/. NoTED "Me 2.612. 364,5* LOCAL MARIJUANA REVENUES Pepop4ed 44,,j 404"%cli clouhged-' When 1-502 was on the ballot in 2012, there was the promise of sip- 44m4h,5 1044‘ i of,(4.4.7Tx,404-41.excirje <4,:intz,"a„....i..*nt:ir.xievenues for the state. Recreational marijuana sales t each transaction point: grower to 44/4 14.044"1"5 5°!5,; ' processor, processor to retailer, and retailer to consumer. In its .t7' ecie.4450Verh* fiscal note for 1-502, the Office of Financial Management predicted aski.641 tk.e. ,t that 1-502 could generate up to $500 million per year. The initiative .I., cl.„,‘„vie. i was very specific in how the revenue would be spent. . $4003, ',,t,- lr-7,z1-45A-,-,=4"''' #,Fy,'„ul•i/.0,1,:pv---77770,,,,,,,x,,,,,,t,214,74, , umww,. .': — , - .,' To be used for conducting and DSHS $500,000 ding the - ' --Vne•-ceevLeini.,16,45.ffffinf evsei emfbrct .--''' 1 Washington State Institute of Contract with WSIPP on cost-benefit 1 $200,000 evaluation. Appropriation ends after 6141-4'465e5 ru74 4011.. Koi. ' 1 Public Policy completion. 4-i (contract) 4-1744 -aike,pusge4. f: 5Afe41 453144 . . 7 Alcohol and drug abuse institute. gecel. tev"c4147/ I' University of Creation, maintenance, and updating loirerpm.1.6.45. $20,000 Washington of web-based public education , '''' * materials on risks of marijuan;se. , , F Liquor Control Administration of 1-502, $5,000,000 Board (LCB) capped at this Check MAI' Implementation and maintenance tearvueJ7ou-4- :,c117.7::m:ff:f3b1:::::t!ns:nctof vA41,4A4ra".a.c...w-or/ DSHS/Dept. 15% this amount, 85 percent must go to 40 fir‘J oul- w.ore. Behavioral Health evidence-based and cost beneficial kinen.J•u›kr.4-Ike 544.4. programs and practices. i.$Joi...1 le, eJuzesit. Marijuana education public DOH 10% health -------** 'f- ' '-'-' ""*" peopit about University of ee.f..4.4.4".4.up.. Washington/ 1% Research on short- and long-term Washington State effects of marijuana use. University Tiel3Aci::: chilealt ,Pt:: rist:72: ion is Basic Health 50% :7-tsn!=tth:hiMi:tIliiiiiiiirdo'''' , 1...ocel.loveri...w..645 ,•,.,,-e.4‘,..v0A 13404. en,Avorie gel 041 Health Care Contracts with community health 5% . Pe#114.-Plae-"a too-yr Authority centers to provide various services. uboa a 1 perr..e4 exi,54$UntligistAm-e. rekurw.cm.$414 OSPI 0.3% Fund grants to building bridges cad&Woof.la deei.cle , fi-ov,4‘..e.scles Mx. program under RCW 28A.175 kaos,'170 vidblacacte 4446 !, Remainder to General Fund 18.7% '''' '' , I - ------"—' '' Cities will receive revenues from local sales taxes and local B&O tax, but these taxes are expected to generate relatively little , additional revenue: l'Ut.Le11.54411Are.Geo,. ; / B&O taxes srenJ 44 6.^-cw'401 r."1 ',. This is a 0.5 percent tax—county Basic Sales Tax 0.425% 0,041 ii G.X.645. if,„ gets the remainder This is a 0.5 percent tax—county , Optional Sales Tax 0.425% gets the remainder Average B&O tax that returns to B&O Tax <0.2% cities. Only 40 cities impose a local B&O tax. , aFor more information: awcnet.org 8 1 CITYVISION MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 HILARY BRICKEN,Canna Law Group CITY l THE FED 101 X FACTOR WHAT LOCAL CITIES NEED TO WATCH ON MARIJUANA'S LEGAL FRONT Eight Is Enough WITH THE PASSAGE of Initiative 502,Washington became one of the first states According to a 2013 Department to legalize cultivating,manufacturing,and distributing marijuana for recreational of Justice memo,the federal use.Nonetheless,marijuana remains a federally illegal controlled substance,and government priorities for some Washington cities and counties are using federal illegality as a basis for banning enforcement of federal law cannabis businesses in their midst. against state-licensed marijuana On August 29,2013,the Department of Justice(DOJ)issued an enforcement businesses are the prevention of: memorandum to all U.S.Attorneys on how the federal government treats cannabis businesses operating legally in states with"robust"marijuana regulatory regimes. y Distribution of marijuana In that memo,the DOJ emphasized eight federal priorities for marijuana-friendly to minors states,beyond which law enforcement would be left to state law authorities. Cannabis revenues going This memo,however,is not binding,and it does not change federal law.The federal AN to criminal enterprises, government remains able to enforce federal law even against I-502 businesses that gangs,and cartels are in compliance with all state laws.As a result,Washington cities and counties Diversion marijuana from states s where it is The 2013 DOJ must decide whether to allow for I-502 legal to other states businesses when their own resources are memo does not already strained and when the federal gov- State-authorized activity ernment may intervene at any time to the lig being used as a cover for change federal detriment of the city or county. illegal activity,including In addition,cities and counties remain trafficking of other illegal law. concerned about the conflict between drugs state and federal marijuana laws where Violence and the use of their own local business licensing and permitting for cannabis businesses may be firearms in the cultivation construed as violations of federal law because that licensing or permitting operates and distribution of marl- as an"endorsement"of marijuana cultivation and distribution.These cities and juana counties claim to fear federal prosecution of their civic leaders and the loss of federal Drugged driving and funding.I-502 is silent on whether cities and counties can ban I-502 businesses. Ilia exacerbation of other A number of prospective I-502 licensees have brought lawsuits adverse public health against cities(and at least one county)seeking to overturn their consequences associated bans on I-502 businesses,and we can expect at least one of these with marijuana use cases to go to the Washington Supreme Court.Pierce County Superior Court has already ruled in favor of the City of Fife's ban ' ' ny Growin g marijuana of marij on cannabis businesses,on the basis that no state law explicitly tlr,.> AV on public lands ' forbids such a ban(see"Casing the Joint,"page 5).However,the Marijuana possession or judge in that case abstained from ruling on the federal conflict iii use on federal property issue,which may resurface on appeal. As the marijuana marketplace develops in Washington,this issue offirst impression for marijuana businesses and municipali- f ties is almost certain to make its way to our highest state court. Be sure to stay tuned.C M. For more Information: 24 CITYVISION MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014 cannalawgroup.com Iffifil4k ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES Assessment of Impacts to Cities of Recreational Marijuana Legalization Final Report: January 9, 2015 :III BERK Dili Founded in 1988,we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm .�'I BERK providing integrated,creative,and analytically rigorous approaches to complex policy and planning decisions.Our team of strategic planners, policy 2025 First Avenue,Suite 800 and financial analysts,economists,cartographers,information designers,and Seattle WA 98121 facilitators work together to bring new ideas,clarity,and robust frameworks to the development analytically-based and action-oriented plans. www.berkconsulting.com PROJECT TEAM: Allegra Calder,Melanie Mayock, Emmy McConnell,and Annie Saurwein AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In November 2012,the voters of Washington State approved Initiative 502 (1-502), which legalized recreational marijuana statewide. More specifically, 1-502: • Defined and legalized small amounts of marijuana and marijuana-infused products for use by adults 21 years and older. • Created a regulated recreational marijuana industry comprised of marijuana producers, processors,and retail stores. • Instituted a marijuana excise tax of 25%on all sales by marijuana producers, processors, and retailers. While the excise tax will provide the state with funds to cover implementation and other associated costs and also provide some funding for state health efforts, concerns have been raised that there are externalities associated with recreational marijuana legalization that will have an impact on all levels of government. The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) hired BERK Consulting in an effort to understand the impacts that 1-502 has had and will have on cities in the state. This assessment seeks to understand the potential impacts to cities on both revenues and resource costs associated with legal recreational marijuana. Revenue Impacts Recreational marijuana businesses generate most of the same taxes that other kinds of businesses generate to the jurisdictions within which they operate. The analysis presented below looked into the primary sources of revenue that will be impacted by the recreational marijuana industry, both at the state and local level: • Recreational Marijuana Excise Tax • Retail Sales Tax • Business and Occupation(B&O)Tax • Business licenses and fees These revenue sources are estimated to bring significant new funds to the state. While current estimates are uncertain, city revenues will be substantially less.There is a need for further data from cities to fully understand the revenues that they will collect as part of recreational marijuana legalization. Revenue Impact Conclusions and Next Steps At this point in system implementation, revenues are inconsistent and growing as more stores open each month. In the five-month period from July - November 2014, tax collected by Washington State totaled about $14.2 million. Revenue accruing to cities is less clear at this time. To improve understanding going forward, the following metrics should be developed and tracked: FINAL:January 9,2015 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Revenue Potential Data Source Notes/Needed Changes State Marijuana Excise Tax Washington State Liquor Currently available Control Board (LCB) ................................................................................................................................................................................... State Retail Sales Tax Department of Revenue. No current NAICS category (DOR) State B&O Tax Department of Revenue No current NAICS category Local Retail Sales Tax Department of Revenue No current NAICS category Local B&O Tax Department of Revenue No current NAICS category Resource Impacts To describe the current and expected resource (costs and staffing) impacts of recreational marijuana legalization, this assessment focuses on the change in impacts from the time when recreational marijuana was g g p marijuana to now. Based on a literature review and interviews with ten cities, the resource impacts to cities are primarily related to criminal justice and public safety, public health,code enforcement,and business regulation. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Cities either have their own police departments or contract for law enforcement services with their county or a neighboring city. Therefore, changes in demand for police services could have financial impacts to cities. Research and interviews identified three main areas of concern: • Increased rates of impaired driving • Marijuana-related crime • Additional law enforcement training needs due to confusion around the intent of the law and different regulations for medical marijuana Public Health While counties have constitutional responsibility for public health provision in Washington State, cities are often involved through education work or partnerships with their counties to help fund public health activities. Public health activities related to marijuana usage include behavioral change campaigns to reduce usage rates of adults and youth to mitigate negative health impacts. • Potential impacts on youth usage from marijuana legalization • Potential impacts on adult usage from marijuana legalization Code Enforcement and Business Regulation 1-502 included detailed zoning and land use requirements for marijuana businesses, including buffer zones around areas frequented by children such as schools and parks. Cities employ permitting staff, land use planners,and code enforcement staff,and attorneys that may all be impacted by this new business activity. • Land use and zoning • Building permits • Increased lawsuits FINAL:January 9,2015 ii AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resource Impact Conclusions and Next Steps To understand and quantify the resource impacts to cities we need to know the following: 1. Is the legalization of recreational marijuana causing changes in the underlying factors related to criminal justice, public safety, public health, and licensing, permitting and legal activities in cities? 2. Are changes in these factors creating new costs to cities? The table below identifies metrics that could be tracked to better understand the impacts of recreational marijuana legalization on cities. Metric Potential Data Source Notes/Needed Changes Criminal Justice and Public Safety Count and percentage of driving Washington State Currently available arrests confirmed positive for Toxicology Laboratory Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Counts of licensing violations LCB Currently available Arrests for marijuana possession Washington Association of Arrests related to possession of all Sheriffs and Police Chiefs drugs/narcotics are aggregated; (WASPC) however WASPC does track how many of these incidences included the seizure of marijuana. Arrests for public smoking of WASPC Arrests related to public use/smoking marijuana offenses for all drugs/narcotics are aggregated; however WASPC does track how many of these incidences included the seizure of marijuana.' Crimes targeting marijuana LCB Not currently available, but could be businesses collected by the LCB as part of their ongoing work Pubic Health Marijuana-related emergency Department of Health Currently available room admissions (DOH),Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System (CHARS)database Percentage of 6th,8th,and 10th Healthy Youth Survey(HYS), Currently available graders using marijuana Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) Marijuana-addicted users in No current agency No official database treatment 1 Tracy Miller,WASPC,January 2015. FINAL:January 9,2015 iii AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metric Potential Data Source Notes/Needed Changes 4'b 4 .WM-rf%*P 'VoA lF; /n%e', /wstye fi / i ;;Code Enforcement and Buness Rgulation ... .____....... Number of and cost of permitting LCB Currently available and licensing marijuana businesses Calls for police service at Individual cities Will vary by city marijuana business locations Code violations by marijuana Individual cities Will vary by city businesses For metrics where data varies by city, it may be necessary for a coordinating agency to compile annual reports to understand statewide trends. Based on the interviews related to the current implementation of 1-502 completed for this analysis, there does appear to be an expectation that the legalization of recreational marijuana will have cost and resource impacts on cities. As this assessment was completed early in the history of legal recreational marijuana in Washington State, and because data on impacts is limited, it is difficult to determine the full extent of those impacts. Additional data (both more months of current data and new data) and assessment will be needed to fully assess impacts of recreational marijuana legalization.Tracking the metrics identified above will help with this. There is merit in continuing to investigate this issue to ensure that cities are adequately compensated for any costs incurred as a result of this law.Additionally,cities are important stakeholders in the evolution of marijuana policy in Washington and there is demand for advocacy on their behalf to address the issues(particularly related to formal regulation of medical marijuana)they have identified as most important in this assessment. FINAL:January 9,2015 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Project Overview 2 1.2 Project Approach and Methodology 2 2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 4 2.1 Initiative 502 Implementation Details 4 2.2 Current Status of Implementation 7 2.3 Medical Marijuana in Washington State 8 2.4 Other Jurisdictions with Legal Recreational Marijuana 9 3.0 REVENUE IMPACTS 10 3.1 Literature Review Findings: Revenue Impacts and Trends in Colorado 10 3.2 Revenue Impacts in Washington State 12 3.3 Recommendations to Refine Future Revenue Analyses 14 4.0 RESOURCE IMPACTS 15 4.1 Literature Review Findings 15 4.2 Impacts in Washington State 16 4.3 Recommendations to Refine Future Cost Analyses 21 APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS A -1 APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY B- 1 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview In November 2012, Washington State voters approved Initiative 502 (1-502), which legalized recreational marijuana statewide. 1-502 defined and legalized small amounts of marijuana and marijuana-infused Focus on Recreational products for use by adults 21 years and older. The new regulated and Marijuana licensed system is similar to the system for controlling alcohol in The purpose of the assessment Washington. 1-502 also created a 25% excise tax on all sales made by is to focus only on the impacts marijuana producers, processors,and retailers. of 1 502 and not the existing medical marijuana system. The distribution of the marijuana excise tax and other revenues was That said, interviewees codified by 1-502.The majority of the excise tax, license fee, and penalty mentioned the unregulated revenues collected are slated to support the Washington State Liquor medical marijuana industry Control Board's (LCB) implementation of 1-502,the Department of Social repeatedly, pointing to the and Health Services (DSHS), the Department of Health (DOH), and the need to clarify the law. state's Basic Health Plan. About 20% of revenues are to be disbursed to the state general fund.At this time, no specific revenues are allocated to city-and county-level implementation of recreational marijuana legalization, although local jurisdictions are able to collect regular taxes such as retail sales tax and business and occupation (B&O) tax (where levied) on marijuana businesses. While the excise tax will provide the state with funds to cover implementation and other associated costs and also provide some funding for state health efforts, concerns have been raised that there are externalities associated with recreational marijuana legalization that will have an impact on all levels of government. The Association of Washington Cities (AWC) hired BERK Consulting in an effort to understand the impacts that 1-502 has had and will have on cities in the state. 1.2 Project Approach and Methodology Methodology This assessment seeks to understand the drivers of change affecting cities with the introduction of legal recreational marijuana,and where data is available,estimate the magnitude of these impacts.Where data is not yet available, qualitative information from literature and stakeholder interviews is used. To better quantify and understand these impacts in the future,a number of metrics have been identified. Since the focus of this analysis is impacts to cities, it is important to think about how both revenues and costs may change due to the legalization of recreational marijuana. Approach Literature Review and Research. BERK conducted a literature review on the impacts of legalizing recreational and medical marijuana both in Washington State and in other states. This research focused primarily on the impacts realized to-date by Colorado, where recreational marijuana has been legally for sale for about a year. Research was also conducted into the impacts experienced by other countries (such as The Netherlands), but it was challenging to find studies that were meaningful or comparable to the issues in Washington State. Stakeholder Interviews. BERK conducted stakeholder interviews with officials and staff from ten cities. The purpose of these interviews was to hear about the impacts that cities are experiencing so far, and what this sample of cities believes are likely areas of future impact. FINAL:January 9,2015 2 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Exhibit 1 summarizes the cities represented by the interviewees. Interviews were conducted with one to three representatives from each city, frequently including the City Manager, Police Chief, City Attorney, and/or Planning Director. Exhibit 1 Cities Included in Stakeholder Interviews Number of Approved City 2014 Prohibition or Population Producer Processor Moratorium? Retail Licenses Licenses licenses gto ti, 1 Moratorium r� on `;Arlin tr" 18,360 6 7 r producers/processors Bellingham 82,810 5 11 11 Everett' , 104900' 2 1 1 Kennewick 77,700 0 0 0 Prohibited Longview 37,04 0 4 5 4 Seattle 640,500 4 6 9 Spokane Valley 92,050 1 9: 11 Union Gap 6,140 2 0 0 Vancouver 167,400 .2 1; 1 Wenatchee 33,070 2 2 1 Source:Berk,2014. Data Collection and Analysis.Although data is limited at this stage of implementation, BERK collected data from statewide databases provided by the LCB, Washington State Patrol (WSP), and the Washington State Department of Revenue(DOR). FINAL:January 9,2015 3 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 2.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 2.1 Initiative 502 Implementation Details Washington State voters passed 1-502 in November 2012 by a margin of 56% to 44%. While the initiative received a majority of votes statewide, support varied by county. Exhibit 2 shows which counties approved I- 502,and which did not. Exhibit 2 Initiative 502 Election Results by County WHATCOM ` IUAN S ,'. - PEND OREI E SKAGR ..FFIIY STEVENS ISIANb SNOHOMiSN', y (HKLAN F RSON .; DOUGLAS .... 5 SPOOK LMCOLN , s - MASON KEG „ RAYY HARBOk GRANT 1 KQTITAS - PIERCE', ADAMS tM! tMMt THURSTON' PACMK LEWIS .. YAKIMA t FRANKLIN GARFIELD i All IAKUM • COLUMBIA COWLITZ BENTON WALLA WALLA ASOTIN SKAMANI4 KLICKITAT CLARK Initiative 502 Initiative 502 County Results Statewide Results Yes i Yes(55.7%) �._.___--_No _I No(44.3%) 1 Source:Washington State Secretary of State,2014;and BERK,2014. After passage of 1-502,the LCB conducted a rule-making process for implementation. Rules became effective in November 2013 and the LCB began accepting license applications that month. In March 2014,the LCB issued the first licenses to produce and process marijuana and in April 2014 a lottery was held for retail licenses. The first retail stores opened in in July 2014. FINAL:January 9,2015 4 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Administration State-level Administration2 The LCB is the state agency given authority under 1-502 to license and regulate the recreational marijuana system. Under 1-502,the LCB is authorized to: • Define and conduct an application process to license marijuana businesses. • Charge fees necessary to implement and enforce the act,such as charges for sampling,testing,and labeling. • Collect the excise taxes created by 1-502. • Enact rules and establish procedures and criteria for inspection of marijuana businesses and their records; methods for producing, processing,and packaging products;standards for ingredients and ingredient quality,and business security requirements. • Set limitations on the number of retail outlets that can be in operation, in consultation with the Office of Financial Management(OFM). Under 1-502,the LCB determines the number of retail outlets and licenses, which are capped by county, but there are no limits on the number of producer and processor licenses. Local Administration While no specific powers were given to cities and counties by 1-502, a January 2014 opinion by the Washington State Attorney General concluded that 1-502 left in place the normal powers of local governments to regulate businesses within their jurisdictions.'This means that cities can impart additional regulations, charge their own business license or permit fees,or prohibit marijuana businesses entirely within their jurisdictions. Types of Legal Marijuana Businesses 1-502 created three legal types of licensed recreational marijuana businesses:4 • Marijuana Producer. Licensed to produce(grow) marijuana and wholesale it to licensed Marijuana Processors.The license allows for production, possession, delivery,and distribution activities. • Marijuana Processor. Licensed to process wholesale marijuana into saleable products, including marijuana- infused products for wholesale to Marijuana Retailers.The license allows for processing, packaging, possession,delivery,and distribution. • Marijuana Retailer. Licensed to sell marijuana and marijuana-infused products directly to consumers at retail,according to the enforcement provisions outlined in 1-502. Key Enforcement Provisions in 1-502 There are three categories of enforcement provisions governing I-502's implementation. It is important to remember that these are statewide regulations, and that some cities and counties have enacted additional regulations. Marijuana business regulations. In addition to complying with all local government land use and zoning regulations and building codes, 1-502 states that a licensed marijuana business cannot be within 1,000 feet of schools and child care centers, playgrounds, parks, public transit centers, libraries,and recreation centers. 2 Washington State Liquor Control Board,Initiative 502 Fact Sheet,2014. http://liq.wa.gov/marijuana/fact sheet. 3 Washington State Office of the Attorney General No. 2,1/16/2014.This opinion has been upheld in five separate decisions by lower courts ruling on challenges to local authority. 4 Washington State Liquor Control Board,Initiative 502 Fact Sheet,2014.http://liq.wa.gov/marijuana/fact sheet. FINAL:January 9,2015 5 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Consumer regulations. To purchase marijuana from licensed retailers, a consumer must be at least 21 years of age. Individuals 21 and older may legally possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused product in solid form, and 72 ounces of marijuana-infused product in liquid form. It remains illegal to smoke marijuana in public places. Law enforcement. Possession of amounts of marijuana above the legal limits remains illegal,as does growing or selling marijuana outside of the licensed businesses set up under 1-502. Additionally, driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana is illegal if the concentration of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a driver's blood is higher than the limit defined in 1-502. Officers may conduct field sobriety tests and, if there is probable cause based on that test,draw blood to test for impairment. A key topic that 1-502 does not address is the existing medical marijuana system in Washington State. This system is described in more detail in Section 2.3 (page 8). Revenue Generation and Distribution 1-502 created a marijuana excise tax of 25% that is charged at each step of the process: from producer to processor, from processor to retailer, and from retailer to consumer. All marijuana excise taxes collected are disbursed by the LCB according to the provisions laid out in 1-502. A driving factor behind the creation of the disbursement allocations was to fund health-related and drug prevention programs that have long-suffered from a lack of state funding. Under the rules, about 80% of tax revenue, after administrative costs, is designated for health-related programs and about 20% is designated for the state's general fund. The disbursement rules are as follows: 1. About$5.7 million of excise tax revenue per year is directed toward the following purposes: Receiving Entity Annual Purpose Amount Liquor Control Board $5,000,000 Administration of 1-502 Department of Social and $500,000 Healthy Youth Survey Health Services(DSHS) $200,000 Cost-benefit analysis University of Washington (UW)Alcohol&Drug $20,000 Web-based public education materials Abuse Institute Source:Initiative 502,2012;BERK,2014. FINAL:January 9,2015 6 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 2. After all of the above listed funds have been disbursed,any remaining revenues are to be disbursed as follows: Proportion of Receiving Entity Remaining Purpose Revenue Washington State Basic Health Plan 50% Support the state's Basic Health Plan Implementation and maintenance of programs DSHS 15% and practices aimed at the prevention or reduction of substance abuse Marijuana education and public health DOH 10% program Health Care Authority 5% Health and dental care, migrant health services, and maternity health care services UW and Washington State Research on the short-and long-term effects of 0 University 1 marijuana use Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction(OSPI) 0.03% Building Bridges programs State general fund 19.07% Discretion of Legislature Source:Initiative 502,2012;BERK,2014. 2.2 Current Status of Implementation Given the local authority to regulate such businesses,cities,towns,and counties in Washington State have taken a variety of approaches to regulating recreational marijuana. There are 281 incorporated cities in the state and according to the Municipal Research Service Center(MRSC):5 • About 45 cities(16%)have enacted regulations prohibiting marijuana businesses from siting within their boundaries. • About 60 cities(21%) have enacted temporary moratoriums,with permanent rules pending additional consideration by council. • The remaining cities(63%)either allow the businesses by default under current zoning,or have specifically stated that marijuana businesses are allowed within certain zones. According to marijuana excise tax records, as of November 2014 there were 75 licensed retailers, 30 licensed producers,and 130 licensed processors, however it is possible that not all of these businesses were operating in that month. The LCB is not currently accepting new applications for licenses, as it wants to assess the market and determine if licensing rules need to be adjusted before reopening the application process. The LCB set a limit of 334 total retail licenses;there are no limits on the number of producers and processors. 5 Municipal Research Service Center."Recreational Marijuana Ordinances across Washington."Available at: http://www.mrsc.org/recreationalmarijuana#table.January 7,2015. FINAL:January 9,2015 7 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 2.3 Medical Marijuana in Washington State Medical marijuana in Washington is in flux, as the implementation of 1-502 has raised many questions Medical Marijuana Legalization History around how the two systems should or should not be In 1998, Washington voters passed Initiative g inte rated This section describes Washington's current medical marijuana laws, and some of the key 692 (1-692), the Medical Use of Marijuana challenges and questions raised by its current Act, which provides authorized patients and structure. their designated caregiver a defense against criminal charges related to possessing or Local Regulation of Medical Marijuana using marijuana for medical purposes. The Washington State law allows cities, towns, and initiative set limits on possession amounts counties to adopt zoning and licensing requirements (no more than a 60-day supply) and and business taxes within their jurisdictions for those identified qualifying medical conditions for producing or using medical marijuana. Local which marijuana could be used (e.g., cancer, governments have taken a variety of approaches to glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, seizure disorders, or medical marijuana, including adopting interim or intractable pain). This act, in effect, legalized permanent regulations, moratoria on medical medical marijuana use in the state. marijuana uses, laws prohibiting marijuana, or no Additional legislative action in 2007 and 2010 action. clarified provisions in 1-692 and identified additional medical conditions for which Challenges and Questions medical marijuana could be authorized. The two entirely separate regulatory systems for Washington's medical marijuana laws were medical and recreational marijuana create confusion again amended in 2011 when "collective for consumers and for local jurisdictions attempting to gardens" were authorized, among other implement and regulate marijuana businesses within provisions, allowing cooperative growing of their boundaries. Since the medical marijuana statute marijuana plants by between two and ten does not allow for marijuana retailers, users of medical authorized medical users. marijuana can instead legally join "collective gardens" to cooperatively grow and process medicinal marijuana. Marijuana can be grown and shared by all members of the collective, but cannot be shared with non- members. In many areas,dispensaries have opened. Dispensaries are locations where medical marijuana is delivered and sold.There are many outstanding questions about the legality of medical marijuana dispensaries under current law, and cities have struggled to meaningfully regulate their location and operations. Representatives from many of the cities interviewed are concerned that unregulated medical marijuana interferes with the market for legal, recreational marijuana. Because the product is unregulated, untaxed,and cheaper, it siphons sales from legitimate retailers. In at least two cities, legal recreational retailers have requested regulation of medical marijuana businesses. Additionally,cities expressed concern that medical marijuana is easier for youth to access,as it is available by prescription (and in some cases without a prescription)to anyone 18 and over(versus recreational marijuana available to anyone 21 and over).They also feel that medical marijuana legalization led to an increase in marijuana-related crimes over the past several years, including robberies,violent crime, minor possession,and marijuana-related DUI charges. Because these crimes generally occurred before legal recreational marijuana businesses were operating and after medical marijuana was legalized,the cities believe they can be attributed to the medical marijuana industry. FINAL:January 9,2015 8 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Ongoing Work In December 2013, the LCB, DOH, and DOR submitted recommendations to the legislature regarding medical marijuana access. Recommendations included establishing a patient registry, aligning the production and distribution systems for recreational and medical uses of marijuana, eliminating collective gardens, clarifying access by age levels, and limiting possession amounts. Several bills attempting to regulate medical marijuana were introduced in the 2014 legislative session, but none passed. It is expected that additional legislation will be introduced in the 2015 session related to coordination and integration of the medical and recreational marijuana regulatory structures. 2.4 Other Jurisdictions with Legal Recreational Marijuana Washington is one of four states plus the District of Columbia that has legalized recreational marijuana. Jurisdiction Month and Year of Passage Characteristics ,,Washington November 2012 ,' Created a regulatory system for recreational marijuana f , that is separate from that for medical mari Juana Colorado November 2012 Streamlined medical and recreational marijuana into one regulated system. Alaska November 2014 Made it legal to manufacture, possess,and sell marijuana paraphernalia. Oregon November 2014 The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is still in the process of defining all rules and regulations to implement this recently-passed measure. Washington, D.C. November 2014 This measure did not create a regulatory system for the recreational marijuana industry.Given the unique relationship between Washington, D.C.and the United States Congress,this initiative has not yet been implemented, and the U.S.Congress may block implementation of Initiative 71 at the federal level. FINAL:January 9,2015 9 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 3.0 REVENUE IMPACTS This section outlines how the sale of recreational marijuana results in revenue impacts to government entities drawing primarily on the experience of Colorado and Washington. Given how recently laws were passed in Alaska and Oregon, neither state could provide information on sales or revenue. 3.1 Literature Review Findings: Revenue Impacts and Trends in Colorado As part of the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado,voters imposed a 2.9%recreational and medical marijuana sales tax, a 10% recreational marijuana sales tax, a 15% recreational marijuana excise tax, and recreational/medical marijuana application and license fees. Legal recreational marijuana was made available for purchase in Colorado on January 1, 2014, about seven months ahead of Washington. However, only nine months of revenue data (January to September 2014) is available for recreational marijuana production, processing,and retail sales in Colorado. Because Colorado's revenue data includes both medical and recreational marijuana sales, it is possible to see how the legalization of recreational marijuana is impacting medical marijuana sales over time. However, in Colorado, unlike in Washington, both the medical and recreational marijuana systems are regulated which may limit the value of this data for comparative purposes. Exhibit 3 shows the overall taxes collected on medical and recreational marijuana, as well as the first and last month's total,and the change in monthly marijuana taxes collected (and by proxy marijuana sales)over the nine month period. Exhibit 3 Tax Revenues Collected on Medical and Recreational Marijuana Sales in Colorado January to September 2014 First Month: Last Month: Increase from January Total for 9- January'14 September'14 to September Month Period Medical Marijuana Taxes $ 1,409,880 $ 1,698,786 20% $ 15,401,173 Sales Tax(2.9%) $ 913,519 $ 908,630 -1% $ 8,296,916 Business Licenses and Fees $ 496,361 $ 790,156 59% $ 7,104,257 Retail Marijuana Taxes $ 2,109,875 $ 5,534,084 162% $ 37,084,783 Sales Tax(2.9%) $ 416,690 $ 886,915 113% $ 6,071,373 Special Sales Tax(10%) $ 1,401,567 $ 2,940,346 110% $ 20,714,585 ExciseTax(15%)* $ 195,318 $ 1,446,105 640% $ 8,293,307 Business Licenses and Fees $ 96,300 $ 260,718 171% $ 2,005,518 Total Marijuana Taxes $ 3,519,755 $ 7,232,870 105% $ 52,485,956 Total Sales Tax $ 2,731,776 $ 4,735,891 73% $ 35,082,874 Total Excise Tax* $ 195,318 $ 1,446,105 640% $ 8,293,307 Business Licenses and Fees $ 592,661 $ 1,050,874 77% $ 9,109,775 Source:Colorado Department of Revenue,2014;BERK,2014. *Due to excise tax collection methods,excise taxes do not necessarily align directly with month to month sales.Sales tax revenues are a better proxy for trends in marijuana sales over time. Overall, monthly taxes collected on marijuana have grown 105% since the first month of sales. Because the regular sales taxes collected on medical and recreational marijuana are proportional to sales overall, this is a reasonable proxy for total marijuana sales, barring large fluctuations in price. FINAL:January 9,2015 10 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Tax revenues from medical marijuana have decreased by about 1% over the nine month sales period, while retail marijuana taxes have increased 113%.As total sales taxes collected have increased on the whole,we know that sales of recreational marijuana have increased overall. It makes sense that the new market for recreational marijuana in Colorado is outpacing medical marijuana. It is more difficult to purchase medical marijuana there, as one must procure and maintain a medical marijuana prescription from a physician to purchase it. Recreational marijuana is available without a doctor's approval. Exhibit 4 shows the relationship between medical and recreational marijuana sales over time in Colorado, as imputed through available sales tax data (sales tax divided by sales tax rate). Exhibit 4 Medical and Recreational Marijuana Sales in Colorado,January to September 2014 $70,000,000 — — —$60,000,000 $50,000,000 --- 30% 36% 41% 41% 46%■ 49% 51% 49% $40,000,000 31% ---- - $30,000,000 ii E II $20,000,000 ill MO 69% 70% 64% ' 59% 59%111 54% 51% 49% 51% $10,000,000 1 � U M IIIII January February March April May June July August September •Medical Marijuana Sales •Retail Marijuana Sales I Source:Colorado Department of Revenue,2014;BERK,2014. There are two key insights to be drawn from the comparison of medical to recreational marijuana sales from January to September 2014. • First, overall marijuana sales in Colorado are growing,from almost$46 million in January 2014 to about$62 million in September 2014,an increase of about 35%. • Second, recreational marijuana sales were a growing share of all marijuana sales,while medical marijuana sales were declining as a share of total sales from January to July of 2014.The proportion of sales from each have been relatively stable over the past three months. While a new system can have significant fluctuations and may not be predictive of future trends, the nine months of data provides some insight into what Washington might expect in terms of revenue growth going forward. FINAL:January 9,2015 11 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 3.2 Revenue Impacts in Washington State Overview of Revenues Generated by Recreational Marijuana Recreational marijuana businesses generate most of the same taxes that all businesses generate to the jurisdictions within 1111\ which they operate. This analysis focuses on the largest revenue Economic Development and sources generated by the industry,which include the following: Tourism The economic development impacts Recreational Marijuana Excise Tax. The new 25% excise tax, as of 1-502 were not analyzed as a well as the imposition of the existing sales and business and potential revenue source for this occupation taxes, and state business licenses and fees, is assessment though the topic came up expected to make taxes on the recreational marijuana industry a in interviews. substantial revenue stream for the state. All licensees are Two cities expressed concern that required to remit their statutorily required excise taxes to the having marijuana businesses will LCB. reduce their ability to attract other 6.5% businesses to locate nearby.One city Retail Sales Tax. Washington States 6.5/ retail sales tax applies expressed concern that, "There is very to all consumer sales of recreational marijuana and marijuana- high potential for the city's available infused products; wholesale transactions between producers, industrial space to be consumed by processors, and retailers are not taxed. This fee is levied and this industry..." collected by the DOR. Another city pointed to potential Cities, to support their operations, may charge a sales tax of up tourism opportunities while also to 1%. The analysis below focuses only on retail sales tax noting that attracting out-of-state generated by sales of marijuana and marijuana-infused products visitors(and purchases) might increase from retailers to consumers. While producers and processors are the risk of federal law enforcement subject to sales tax on their purchases of supplies and ` intervention. equipment, these revenues are likely to be minimal and not significantly different from other types of businesses. Business and Occupation (B&O)Tax. Recreational marijuana producers, processors, and retailors must all remit statewide B&O taxes, however their tax rate varies depending on their classification: • Producers and processors must remit taxes at the manufacturing or wholesaling rate of 0.00484. • Retailors must remit taxes at the retailing rate of 0.00471. While cities are authorized to levy a B&O tax,only about 40 of the 281 cities do so. Business Licenses and Fees. As with other businesses, business licenses and other fees are collected primarily for cost recovery of the resources expended to regulate and authorize the business (i.e.,to pay for the staff who do this work). For this reason,these revenues are expected to be minor,and are excluded from this analysis. Taxes Received by Washington State Exhibit 5 summarizes the growth of some state revenues, particularly retail sales and excise tax, from the recreational marijuana sales over time. Taxes on recreational marijuana were not collected until July 2014. It's important to note that (1)these tax collections represent only five months of implementation (July-November) and (2)given the fast increase in activity month to month,these revenues may not be representative of average annual revenues in future years,which will likely be higher. FINAL:January 9,2015 12 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Exhibit 5 State Tax Collected on Recreational Marijuana Sales in Washington,July to November 2014 First Month: Last Month: Percent Change Over Total for the 5- July'14 Nov.'14 5-Month Period Month Period ..�y , / ,�° / '' ;f, . :,� ` l flr.: ��/�''` r.=,i��.�.�,c-r�' ;. ,r,:. State Retail Sales Tax $0.1 M $0.6 M 332% $1.9 M State Marijuana Excise Tax $0.8 M $3.9 M 365% $12.1 M State Business and Occupation Tax $0.0 M $0.1 M 365% $0.2 M Total State Tax Revenues $1.0 M $4.5 M 360% $14.2 M Total Local Sales Tax $0 $7,869 N/A $193,880 Source:Washington State Department of Revenue,2014;BERK,2014. Note:Marijuana excise tax collections were provided directly from the data.BERK created estimates for retail sales tax and B&O tax revenue based on total marijuana sales and known tax rates. In the first six months, the recreational marijuana industry in Washington State has grown to over $15 million per month,which results in about$4.5 million in monthly tax revenue. Taxes Received by Cities in Washington State While local governments do not have a dedicated excise tax levied on the marijuana industry, cities are able to levy regular taxes that Recreational Marijuana apply to other businesses, such as the retail sales tax and the B&O Revenues as of November 2014 tax. However, to date, the revenues collected have been orders of magnitude smaller than those collected by the state: thus far the State Revenues: $14,000,000 state has collected $14 million in recreational marijuana related City Revenues: $195,000 revenues,while cities have collected only$195,000 altogether. Retail Sales Tax State law allows cities to levy a basic 0.5% sales tax plus an optional sales tax of up to 0.5%, for a total city tax rate of up to 1.0% for general revenue purposes. All but three cities in Washington levy the full 1.0%. Since revenues are partially shared with counties, cities achieve about 0.84% in tax revenue of each dollar of taxable retail sales within their jurisdiction. Due to data privacy and the small numbers of operators in each city, revenues cannot currently be reported for specific cities. Once additional marijuana retailers are operating,future studies can look at revenues by city. Business and Occupation Tax Only about 40 of the state's 281 incorporated cities levy a B&O tax. City rates range from as low as 0.045%to as high as 0.21% and many cities have structures that exempt businesses with gross revenue below a certain threshold from B&O taxes. Seattle,for example,only charges B&O taxes to businesses with annual taxable gross revenue of greater than$100,000. Due to the variations in tax rates and regulations, and the lack of city-specific reporting available at this time, it is unclear how much cities have earned to-date from B&O taxes. Given the ratio between local sales tax rates and local B&O tax rates, the amount of B&O tax collected is likely significantly lower than the sales tax collections for 2014. FINAL:January 9,2015 13 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 3.3 Recommendations to Refine Future Revenue Analyses Many systems are already in place that accurately track and report marijuana-related revenues at the state level. Interested parties should continue to receive reports from the state DOR and the LCB on total marijuana sales and marijuana excise tax collections. As the industry matures, annual reports can be used to understand growth in marijuana-related revenues over time. Impact of Local Prohibition and Moratoriums When local jurisdictions ban marijuana businesses it reduces the overall number of businesses in the state,as retail locations are capped by county.This reduced the overall revenue potential for the state. While the decision of whether to allocated marijuana revenue to cities is a policy choice based on multiple factors,encouraging cities to allow businesses could increase legal marijuana sales and state revenues. Some cities feel that a lack of revenue sharing is a disincentive.As one city stated, "If municipalities have to continue to manage this industry without any viable economic return I feel that more and more jurisdictions will be limiting and or banning the I-502's from their respective jurisdictions." However,there are additional metrics that would be useful to track at the state level to increase understanding of what is occurring at the local level: Revenue Potential Data Source Notes/Needed Changes State Marijuana Excise Tax Liquor Control Board Currently available State Retail Sales Tax Department of Revenue Identify sales from marijuana retailers, as there is not currently a NAICS category for marijuana retail businesses State B&O Tax Department of Revenue Identify sales from marijuana retailers, processors,and producers,as there is not currently a NAICS category for marijuana businesses Local Retail Sales Tax Department of Revenue Identify sales from marijuana retailers, as there is not currently a NAICS category for marijuana retail businesses Local B&O Tax Department of Revenue Identify sales from marijuana retailers, processors,and producers,as there is not currently a NAICS category for marijuana businesses FINAL:January 9,2015 14 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 4.0 RESOURCE IMPACTS This chapter outlines how recreational marijuana sales results in real and perceived resource impacts (including financial and staffing)to government entities. 4.1 Literature Review Findings Similar to the research on revenue impacts in other jurisdictions, the most relevant literature available at this time relates to Colorado's recent legalization of marijuana. However, given that there is closer integration between the recreational and medical systems in Colorado than in Washington, the studies do not cleanly identify impacts solely from recreational marijuana. Key findings from these studies are summarized below. Except where noted,the impacts are related to both recreational and medical marijuana. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Overall, traffic fatalities in Colorado decreased 14.8% from 2007 to 2012. However, during the same period, traffic fatalities involving operators testing positive for marijuana increased 100%,from 39 in 2007 to 78 in 2012. There was a 16%increase in marijuana-positive DUIs in Colorado between 2011 and 2013.6 However,the analysis does not show if the operators in these fatalities tested positive for only marijuana, or a combination of marijuana and other drugs and/or alcohol. It is also important to note that recreational marijuana did not become legal until 2013, which means that the operators in these statistics could not have legally obtained marijuana through the recreational system, but impacts may still be related to the decriminalization of basic possession and lowered perceptions of risk resulting in increased usage. Public Health Colorado has higher rates of both youth and adult marijuana usage compared to the national average. In 2012, about 10.5% of youth ages 12-17 were considered marijuana users, compared to 7.6% nationally; about 26.8% of adults ages 18-25 were considered marijuana users, compared to 18.9% nationally; and about 7.6%of adults age 26 and over were considered marijuana users,compared to 5.1%nationally.6 Again, since recreational marijuana was illegal during the assessment period, it's likely that higher usage rates may be due to cultural differences between Colorado and the rest of the country, and relaxed attitudes toward marijuana usage due to medical marijuana laws. Regulatory Challenges One of the biggest challenges Colorado has faced is the diversion of legally-purchased marijuana to other states. The federal government has identified marijuana crossing state boundaries as a significant risk of state by state legalization, and wants states to minimize these occurrences through regulations (see Federal Government Opinion textbox). In 2013,there were 288 highway seizures of marijuana destined for locations outside of Colorado,compared to 58 in 2008 (a 397% increase). Interceptions of U.S. Mail packages with Colorado marijuana destined for other states also increased significantly over the same time period.' In all cases, it is not known how the marijuana in question was originally obtained. 6 National Highway Transportation Safety Administration,Fatality Analysis Reporting System(FARS),2006-2011,and RMHIDTA 2012. FINAL:January 9,2015 15 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 4.2 Impacts in Washington State This section describes how legalized recreational marijuana creates impacts by affecting demand for government services. The section focuses primarily on cities and how specific city Federal Government Opinion responsibilities are impacted. The Department of Justice(DO1) has indicated a willingness to allow Because there is no single reporting agency that can compile Washington and Colorado to take data on impacts in real time, this section describes how their chosen approaches to legal marijuana is impacting a subset of cities, based on stakeholder marijuana. However,since marijuana interviews; identifies likely future impacts to cities; and makes remains illegal at the federal level,the recommendations for how to track and quantify these impacts DOJ has indicated a number of in future studies. concerns,such as: It is still early in the history of legal recreational marijuana and Banking.A question facing marijuana many communities have no data on impacts related to businesses is the legality of placing recreational marijuana legalization. Three of ten cities revenue earned from marijuana in banks and having banks process credit interviewed for this assessment did not have recreational card transactions.This forces most marijuana businesses operating at the time of the interviews. marijuana businesses to deal in cash, which creates logistic and security Overview of Likely Impacts challenges. Based on research into the impacts in other states as well as Diversion.The DOJ has stated that concerns heard from the ten cities interviewed as part of this states with legal marijuana must assessment, impacts to cities will primarily fall into the following control diversion of the product to three categories. other states and countries.This is one of the DOJ's primary concerns,and Criminal Justice and Public Safety. Cities either have their own the federal government may restrict police departments or contract for law enforcement services legal systems if diversion is shown to with their county or a neighboring city. Therefore, changes in be a significant issue. demand for police services could have financial impacts to cities. These changes may be positive or negative, as legalization could reduce arrest and incarceration rates. Public Health. While counties have constitutional responsibility for public health provision in Washington State, cities are often involved either tangentially, by doing some of their own education work,or through partnerships with their counties to help fund public health activities. Public health activities related to marijuana usage include understanding how to reduce usage rates of adults and youth to mitigate negative health impacts. Code Enforcement and Business Regulation. 1-502 included detailed descriptions of zoning and land use requirements for marijuana businesses, including buffer zones around areas likely to be frequented by children such as schools and parks. Cities enforce these requirements and their own building and fire codes for businesses in their jurisdictions. Cities employ permitting staff, land use planners, and code enforcement staff that may all be impacted by this new business activity. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Most cities interviewed stated that they have not yet experienced measurable criminal justice or law enforcement impacts from recreational marijuana, but have highlighted a number of concerns based on experiences elsewhere, experiences with medical marijuana, anecdotal events that have occurred within their jurisdictions,and specific provisions of the law. FINAL:January 9,2015 16 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Impaired Driving One of the largest areas of concern is increased rates of impaired driving due to increased access to marijuana. There is some indication that marijuana-impaired driving fatalities have increased in Colorado as marijuana usage increased,so it is important to track and understand this risk. The Washington State Toxicology Laboratory tracks the number of total driving cases that test positive for THC (which indicates active marijuana usage) as well as carboxy-THC (which indicates marijuana use within recent days of weeks). From 2009 to 2013, cases where active THC was present in drivers tested increased from about 875 to about 1,360.'About half of these instances in 2013 had levels that would meet the state's threshold for a drugged-driving conviction. However, an important caveat for this increase is that in January 2013,the Lab began testing nearly all impaired driving blood samples for both drugs and alcohol. Previously, drug tests weren't usually done if the alcohol test showed a blood-alcohol level higher than 0.10 percent. This change in methodology has likely resulted in an increase in samples tested for the presence of drugs. One city interviewed stated that their marijuana-related DUI traffic stops have more than doubled since 2012 and include three DUls for minors,of which the youngest driver was 14 years old and carrying six passengers. An additional consideration is the difference between processing 811\ an alcohol-related DUI and a marijuana-related DUI. One city interviewed stated that determining the level of impairment of a Community Concerns marijuana-related DUI compared to an alcohol-related DUI can In cities where 1-502 did not pass, take up to 125%more staff time (approximately 2.5 hours more) there is less support from the public by law enforcement than an alcohol-related DUI stop,depending for allowing marijuana businesses, on the circumstances of the stop and whether a Drug which influences decisions by the Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluates the driver. This means that government.However,neighborhood each stop for suspected marijuana-related DUI takes relatively opposition exists for all cities,even more staff time, and therefore increases the time that an officer those whose voters passed 1-502. is away from his or her regular duties. If there are a significant Many cities stated that there has been number of marijuana-related DUIs, cities may need to adjust neighborhood opposition to specific staffing to ensure adequate patrol coverage. DUIs and other locations for retail businesses,mostly marijuana-related criminal activities pose a significant public due to fear of associated crimes and safety risk to the public. Additionally, they could result in availability to youth. additional criminal justice costs at all levels of government. Security and Marijuana-related Crime Most cities interviewed expressed concern about the potential for robberies and burglaries at marijuana businesses due to large stores of cash or marijuana products on site. It is difficult for marijuana businesses to open bank accounts due to federal banking laws and to rent off-site storage, as storage site businesses are concerned with the potential crime and legal implications of renting to marijuana businesses. Under the LCB's implementation rules, marijuana businesses are not allowed to have armed security on their premises or while transporting cash or product. One city stated that without a local marijuana processor,the local store employee will have to drive hundreds of miles with large sums of cash to pick up large sums of product. While this concern was expressed, no cities had data available on specific incidents at licensed recreational sites. An interviewee from one city hired extra police officers when retail stores first opened as a precautionary measure. However, he indicated that, in the end,this increase in staff wasn't wholly necessary. 7 Washington State Patrol's 2013 Annual Report,December 15,2014. FINAL:January 9,2015 17 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Lack of Clarity for Law Enforcement Some cities communicated that the two regulatory systems (recreational and medical) are not well understood and that more clarity is needed around the systems and how they are going to be enforced, both statewide and locally. One city has enacted ordinances prohibiting dispensaries and collective gardens, but police have not enforced the ban because of a perceived lack of political will and support by the courts.Another city has banned dispensaries and enforced the ban with several arrests at medical marijuana businesses. The Seattle Times noted that King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said "medical dispensaries live in a legal "gray"area, and (he) hasn't brought many cases in part because King County juries simply won't convict.8 Enforcement of recreational marijuana laws such as youth possession and maximum possession are impacted by the limited regulation of medical marijuana, confusion between the two regulatory systems, and perceived public attitudes that seem to be accepting of marijuana and in favor of less criminal action related to it. One city stated that public opinion favors less enforcement of recreational marijuana laws and this impacts how the prosecuting attorney views cases. This makes it difficult for the police department to know how much enforcement is needed. Two cities stated that legal recreational businesses have expressed concern about unregulated medical marijuana businesses and have requested more enforcement, which has not been forthcoming for the reasons cited above. Finally, one city noted that state law is unclear regarding private marijuana vaping lounges, thus making it difficult to enforce identification checks to prevent youth access at these facilities. Public Health Potential Impacts on Youth Usage from Marijuana Legalization Most of the concerns around public health raised in the interviews focused on the increased risk of youth using marijuana. Cities are very concerned that legalization has lowered the perception of risk for youth, which may cause more youth to use marijuana At least one city is considering enacting its own law against minor consumption of marijuana,to augment I-502's clear laws on possession.They believe clearer laws would enable better enforcement and prevention of youth consumption. A 2004 study by the American Academy of Pediatrics, entitled Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth, is a meta-analysis of previous studies that found differing conclusions on whether or not decriminalization of marijuana has an impact on youth rates of marijuana use. Some studies found that legalization or decriminalization of marijuana resulted in decreased perception by adolescents of the risk of use, while others found no effect on beliefs and attitudes due to specific marijuana laws. Given this disparity in findings, it would be prudent for the state to track youth rates of marijuana use over time to discern if legalization has an impact on usage.There are currently two surveys in place to track this behavior— the Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS); both surveys are administered by the OSPI. In addition to simply asking about usage, the state should ask youth users where they obtained their marijuana,as medical and illegal market marijuana is still prevalent. Depending on each city's financial responsibility for public health, increases in youth usage could have associated costs related to increased need for education, behavior change and treatment programs, and enforcement. Additionally, indirect costs from substance abuse and underage usage, do impact cities via criminal activity and resulting law enforcement intervention. 8 As medical-marijuana advocates howl, no foul by City Attorney Pete Holmes, Jonathan Martin, Seattle Times, January 9, 2015. Available at:http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025417951jonathanmartincolumnmarijuana09xml.html FINAL:January 9,2015 18 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Potential Impacts on Adult Usage from Marijuana Legalization From a public health perspective, minimizing drug and alcohol abuse by adults is an important goal, regardless of whether the use is legal. Not only does long term or frequent use of drugs and alcohol negatively impact adults' long term health, in many cases individual instances of drug use can have acute effect. For instance, one interviewee explained that consumable marijuana can cause over-consumption by adults that must be treated by an emergency room visit. In Colorado, some proxies for unhealthy drug use behavior have been identified and correlated with marijuana legalization. These metrics include a rise in the number of marijuana-addicted users in treatment centers and increases in emergency room admissions related to marijuana exposure. Depending on each city's financial responsibility for public health, increases in use by adults could have associated costs related to additional need for education to counteract lowered perceptions of risk, treatment programs,and enforcement of marijuana use and marijuana-related crimes. Code Enforcement and Business Regulation Land Use and Zoning 1-502 lays out specific requirements for buffer separations between licensed marijuana businesses and areas frequented by youth, such as schools, parks, and recreation centers. It falls to city planning and permitting departments to determine appropriate locations for marijuana businesses in their jurisdictions based on a combination of 1-502 regulations and local zoning rules. Several cities interviewed expressed that it can be very time consuming to determine which sites fall within the 1,000 foot requirement,as not all prohibited uses (such as recreation facilities) are licensed and geocoded for easy identification. Confirming appropriate buffers can therefore require site visits and legal opinions,which are both time consuming and costly. Some of the cities noted that they have received a high volume of calls and email inquiries from potential applicants, developers, and the public related to new marijuana businesses. Some cities received calls from neighbors of potential retail locations, voicing concerns and asking questions. One city stated that its Planning Manager had received 450 inquiries on this issue in the first six months of implementation, significantly higher than for other business types over the same period. This level of activity may be a symptom of how new the industry is and once the industry has been in place for a few years, inquiries could drop down to levels similar to other industries. If they do not, cities should consider changing their business license structure to account for these costs. No city interviewed said that it had hired additional staff to handle the increased activity. It is more likely the case that existing staff spent time on these issues instead of other city needs. Indeed, cities interviewed stated they have spent countless hours on meetings and resources related to discussing appropriate courses of action for regulating this new industry. In some cities, this has resulted in legislation to prohibit marijuana businesses permanently or temporarily, or additional zoning requirements. In all cases,the efforts necessary to make these recommendations took significant staff time. Building Permits There were a variety of responses from interviewees on whether the building inspection, review, and permit process is more burdensome than with other businesses. Some cities described the process as time-consuming due to lack of industry standards and unusual or dangerous materials (such as butane) used in producer and processor operations. One city interviewed spent over 200 hours of staff time on zoning, building, and fire permits for marijuana producer and processor businesses between May and November.This included site visits, investigation of building materials,and significant vetting to ensure building and fire codes were being met. Other cities stated that the reviews were within standard building codes and similar to other industrial uses. Cities differed in their opinions on whether the permit fees cover the cost of the workload to the same extent as FINAL:January 9,2015 19 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT for other business applications. One city interviewed has enacted a much higher business license application fee for marijuana businesses ($750 versus between $75 and $570 for other businesses) to cover the higher cost of review and inspection. In addition, one city reported that some businesses did not realize they needed local licenses and/or permits in addition to their license from the LCB. Legal Implications Two of the ten cities interviewed have become involved in lawsuits related to siting marijuana businesses. One suit was brought against the city by an organization that neighbors a new marijuana retail location. The lawsuit came about due to different interpretations of the language in the land use buffer regulations, and what types of land uses can be legally considered youth or recreational facilities, even if they are not licensed as such. Another city was sued by a prospective marijuana retailer, challenging the city's ban on marijuana businesses. Lawsuits like these can have significant financial impacts to cities, especially smaller jurisdictions. If lawsuits become more common, measures to offset costs should be examined, such as coordinated solutions or expert support for evaluating and resolving these legal claims. Other Concerns Unregulated Medical Marijuana All cities interviewed expressed frustration with the lack of state regulation of medical marijuana. The unregulated medical market is seen as attracting crime in some areas; enabling greater access among youth; making it difficult to enforce recreational marijuana possession limits; and creating competition for legal recreational marijuana businesses.Comments from cities include: • There is a disconnect between medical and recreational marijuana.There's no control over how you acquire the note from your doctor for medical marijuana,so from a law enforcement perspective, anyone could have a marijuana card. • The idea that legalizing marijuana would make the associated problems go away is untrue,as long as we allow medical marijuana to continue under the radar. • To have a viable, legal, recreational market,there must be regulation and enforcement of medical marijuana. Two cities described an increase in marijuana-related crimes over the past several years, including robberies, homicide, aggravated assault, minor possession, and marijuana-related impaired driving. Because these crimes occurred primarily when legal recreational marijuana businesses were not operating,the cities believe they can be attributed to medical marijuana businesses. Economic Development As described earlier,two cities expressed concern that new marijuana establishments would impact their ability to attract businesses. One city is worried that available industrial space will be consumed by marijuana producers and processors, harming economic development and employment goals. Another city is concerned that retail marijuana businesses located in a depressed area will hurt the city's redevelopment efforts and the ability to attract new businesses to the area. FINAL:January 9,2015 20 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT 4.3 Recommendations to Refine Future Cost Analyses To understand and quantify the resource impacts to cities we need to know the following: 1. Is the legalization of recreational marijuana causing changes in the underlying factors related to criminal justice, public safety, public health,and licensing, permitting and legal activities in cities? 2. Are changes in these factors creating new costs to cities? The table below identifies metrics that could be tracked to better understand the impacts of recreational marijuana legalization on cities. In many cases, the answer to the second question will vary by city based on their cost structures and capacity to manage fluctuations in demand with existing staff. Metric Potential Data Source Notes/Needed Changes Criminal Justice and Public Safety Count and percentage of Washington State Currently available driving arrests confirmed Toxicology Laboratory positive for THC Counts of licensing violations Washington State Liquor Currently available Control Board Arrests for marijuana Washington Association Arrests related to possession of all possession of Sheriffs and Police drugs/narcotics are aggregated; however Chiefs(WASPC) WASPC does track how many of these incidences included the seizure of marijuana. Arrests for public smoking of WASPC Arrests related to public use/smoking marijuana offenses for all drugs/narcotics are aggregated; however WASPC does track how many of these incidences included the seizure of marijuana.9 Crimes targeting marijuana LCB Not currently available, but could be businesses collected by the LCB as part of their ongoing work Public Health Marijuana-related emergency DOH,Comprehensive Currently available room admissions Hospital Abstract Reporting System(CHARS) database Percentage of 6th,8th,and HYS,YRBS Currently available 10th graders using marijuana Marijuana-addicted users in No current agency No official database treatment Code Enforcement and Business Regulation Number of and cost of LCB Currently available permitting and licensing marijuana businesses 9 Tracy Miller,WASPC,January 2015. FINAL:January 9,2015 21 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT Metric Potential Data Source Notes/Needed Changes Code Enforcement and BusinessReguiaton Calls for police service at Individual cities Will vary by city marijuana business locations Code violations by marijuana Individual cities Will vary by city businesses For metrics that will vary by city, it may be necessary for a statewide coordinating agency to compile annual reports to understand statewide trends. Based on the interviews related to the current implementation of 1-502 completed for this analysis,there does appear to be an expectation that the legalization of recreational marijuana will have cost and resource impacts on cities. As this assessment was completed early in the history of legal recreational marijuana in Washington State, and because data on impacts is limited, it is difficult to determine the full extent of those impacts. Additional data (both more months of current data and new data) and assessment will be needed to fully assess impacts of recreational marijuana legalization.Tracking the metrics identified above will help with this. There is merit in continuing to investigate this issue to ensure that cities are adequately compensated for any costs incurred as a result of this law.Additionally,cities are important stakeholders in the evolution of marijuana policy in Washington and there is demand for advocacy on their behalf to address the issues(particularly related to formal regulation of medical marijuana)they have identified as most important in this assessment. FINAL:January 9,2015 22 APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Current Situation 1. Do you have recreational marijuana business operating in your city today? How many and what kinds? 2. Have you enacted any ordinances or regulations related to recreational marijuana businesses in your city, beyond what was enacted by Initiative 502(I-502)?This may include moratoriums, prohibitions,or other ordinances. 3. What are your local zoning rules for recreational marijuana producers, processors,and retailers?Do these differ from your zoning rules for medical marijuana producers, processors,and retailers? If so, how and why? [Potential data collection:Local zoning rules for both recreational and medical marijuana producers,processors, and retailers;How many recreational marijuana producers,processors,and retailers are in the city;How many medical marijuana producers,processors,and retailers are in the city] Community and Business Reactions 4. What was your community's reaction to recreational marijuana legalization?Is this the same or different from the reaction to medical marijuana legalization? 5. What are your community's concerns about recreational marijuana legalization?Are these the same or different than those related to medical marijuana legalization? Impacts of Legalization on Your City 6. Are you feeling any impacts from recreational marijuana legalization? How about specifically related to: o Criminal justice issues, like law enforcement and public safety? o Public health,for instance youth access? o Code enforcement and business permit/licensing? [Potential data collection:increase in marijuana related crime?Increase in youth access?Increase in code violations related to marijuana?] 7. Have you analyzed potential impacts,fiscal and otherwise,of recreational marijuana legalization in your city? o Have you attempted to quantify the costs of these impacts? o Do the recreational marijuana-specific revenues you generate(for instance,from B&O tax or business permits and licensing)cover those costs? 8. Do you charge any recreational marijuana business or other specific taxes or fees in your City? [Potential data collection:Any studies or analysis of potential/ongoing impacts of recreational marijuana legalization on city] 9. Do you anticipate other impacts of recreational marijuana legalization that you are not already experiencing? If so,what? 10. Is there anything else you want us to know about the impacts of recreational marijuana legalization in your jurisdiction? FINAL:January 9,2015 A-2 APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I APPENDIX B STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY Introduction As part of this assessment to investigate the impacts of recreational marijuana legalization on cities in Washington State, BERK conducted interviews with representatives from ten cities in November and December of 2014. Between one and three representatives participated from each city,generally including the City Manager, Police Chief,City Attorney,and/or Planning Director. Interviews were conducted with representatives from Arlington, Bellingham, Everett, Kennewick,Longview, Seattle,Spokane Valley, Union Gap,Vancouver,and Wenatchee.At the time of the interviews,three of the ten cities did not have any recreational marijuana businesses operating: Kennewick,Wenatchee,and Everett. Kennewick had a ban on recreational marijuana businesses;Wenatchee had just lifted a ban and did not yet have any businesses operating;and Everett did not yet have any businesses operating. Medical Marijuana Most cities interviewed expressed frustration with the lack of state regulation of medical marijuana.Comments on medical marijuana covered the following subjects. Local Regulation and Enforcement Several of the cities interviewed have banned collective gardens and/or dispensaries, but enforcement is uneven. In one city with a ban on dispensaries and collective gardens, police have not enforced the ban because of a perceived lack of political will and support by the courts.Another city with a ban on dispensaries has enforced the ban with several arrests at medical marijuana businesses.Two cities stated that they have not had any attempts to open medical marijuana businesses in their jurisdictions,and thus have no need for enforcement. Criminal Justice and Public Safety Two cities described an increase in marijuana-related crimes over the past several years, including robberies, violent crime,minor possession,and marijuana-related driving under the influence(DUI)charges. Because these crimes generally occurred when recreational marijuana was illegal,the cities believe they can be attributed to medical marijuana. Public Health Many cities expressed concern that medical marijuana is easy for youth to access,which raises public health concerns. Relationship to Recreational Marijuana Several cities stated that unregulated medical marijuana interferes with the market for legal, recreational marijuana. Because the product is unregulated, untaxed,and cheaper,it siphons sales from legitimate retailers. In at least two cities, legal recreational retailers have requested regulation of medical marijuana businesses. Growth One city stated that the number of medical marijuana businesses has increased substantially since passage of I- 502.A lax public attitude toward marijuana from 1-502 passage is believed to contribute to more medical marijuana businesses and customers. FINAL:January 9,2015 B-2 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I APPENDIX B Recreational Marijuana Community Reaction Each city interviewed has had a different community reaction to the legalization of recreational marijuana. In some cities where 1-502 was voted down,there has been less support for allowing local marijuana businesses. In others where the Initiative passed,there is generally more support. Many cities stated that there has been some neighborhood opposition to specific locations for retail businesses, partly due to a fear of associated crime. Many cities stated that there is public concern about youth access to marijuana. In one city there is concern that producer and processor businesses are harming an industrial business area. One city has had public concern over the establishment of a private consumption lounge. Revenue None of the stakeholders interviewed were able to provide information on the amount of revenue generated to their jurisdiction from marijuana businesses.Several cities mentioned that the Department of Revenue does not release revenue information to local jurisdictions if there are less than three businesses,for privacy reasons. All of the cities interviewed have a local sales tax,which would apply to sales at recreational marijuana businesses.Some cities have a local Business and Occupation (B&O)tax. Most cities expected local revenue amounts to be low. One city stated that potential producer and processor businesses have offered to pay higher taxes or fees, but the city is not allowed to institute a B&O tax specific to one type of business.Several cities without B&O tax receive no local tax revenue from producer or processors. One city stated that it enacted a much higher business license application fee for marijuana businesses,to offset expected higher costs of permitting. Resource Impacts to Cities Criminal justice and Public Safety Crime Two cities provided lists of marijuana-related crimes, including robberies,assaults, minor possession,and other incidents. Many of the listed crimes happened when recreational marijuana businesses were not operating,thus the crimes were likely related to medical marijuana. All cities expressed major concern about the potential for robberies and burglaries of cash or marijuana product, but none have had incidents so far. Under federal laws and Liquor Control Board rules,armed security of any type is prohibited at businesses and for transport. Transport must be by business owner or employee. For retail businesses without a processor nearby, long trips to pick up product could create the potential for crime,specifically burglaries,targeting their businesses. Impaired Driving Cities provided different responses about whether DUIs related to marijuana have increased. One city interviewed stated that their marijuana DUls have more than doubled since 2012 and include three DUIs for minors, of which the youngest driver was 14 years old with six passengers. Two cities stated that they have not seen a large increase in DUIs for marijuana. One city stated that DUIs for marijuana take longer to process because a warrant is required to draw blood. Training At least one city has trained a police patrol officer as a drug enforcement expert.This topic was not specifically asked about in the interview protocol,so there may be other cities that have conducted additional training. FINAL:January 9,2015 B-3 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I APPENDIX B Unclear enforcement Two cities mentioned that the police departments are unsure to what degree to enforce recreational marijuana laws (such as amount of possession) because of public attitudes impacting prosecutors and courts. Additional staffing One city hired extra cops when retail stores first opened,as a precaution.This was a one-time expense. Public Health Youth Access Several cities mentioned concern about the potential for youth using marijuana, but no data is available at this time.One city is considering enacting additional restrictions on minor consumption of recreational marijuana. I- 502 prohibits minor possession, but not consumption(unlike alcohol laws).This city believes stronger laws would enable better enforcement and prevention of youth consumption. Consumables One city noted that an increasing supply of consumables(such as candy),which could lead to over-consumption. This city mentioned one case of an adult going to the emergency room for ingesting too much consumable product. Code Enforcement Reviewing notices: Several cities stated that reviewing Liquor Control Board notices of new license applications requires staff time from multiple departments within a short period of time. Determining the 1,000 foot requirement can also be time-consuming. Planning/Zoning:Two cities stated that the planning department was burdened with a high volume of inquiries. One city stated its planner had received 450 emails and phone calls on this issue from potential applicants and others.Several cities mentioned some concern by neighbors about opening of retail locations. Building permits:There were a variety of responses on whether the building inspection, review,and permit process for marijuana businesses, particularly producers and processors, is a burden on local government.Three cities described the process as very time-consuming,due to unusual materials and a lack of industry standards. One city described spending over 200 hours of staff time for permits. These were primarily for producer and processor businesses. Other cities stated that these businesses are similar to other industrial uses and there was no additional burden to enforce codes.One city expressed particular concern for the storing and use of chemicals such as butane by marijuana processors.Cities differed on whether applicant permit fees covered the cost of the workload to the same extent as other business types. One city has enacted a much higher business license fee for marijuana businesses due to perceived higher costs. Business attitude toward local permits:One city that has banned recreational marijuana stated that a local p Y marijuana has announced its intention to open despite the ban,without a business license or building inspection. Another city stated that some businesses did not realize they needed local permits and opened for business before complying with local regulations. Other Impacts Lawsuits:Two cities stated that they are involved in lawsuits over marijuana stores. One city is being sued by a neighbor of a retail marijuana business over interpretation of the required land use buffer.Another city was sued by a prospective marijuana retailer,challenging the city's ban on marijuana businesses.One city stated that the lawsuit was a substantial expense, including the city attorney and outside counsel. FINAL:January 9,2015 B-4 AWC IMPACTS OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FINAL REPORT I APPENDIX B Economic development:Two cities raised concerns about the impact of marijuana businesses on economic development. One is concerned about the impact of producer and processor businesses on its industrial area, including its bid to attract Manufacturing Industrial Center status which requires a higher employee density than is typical of marijuana businesses.Another city has several retail businesses in an area slated for redevelopment, and is concerned that marijuana retail stores may make it harder to attract other businesses to the area. Potential Metrics to Track Cities suggested the following metrics to track to follow the impacts of recreational marijuana: • Marijuana-related DUIs • Arrests for public smoking • Emergency room admissions • Utilization of marijuana as a tourism-generator • Youth marijuana use • Number of medical marijuana cards and business licenses • Crime,nuisance complaints,and fire code violations for producers and processors. FINAL:January 20 ry 9 2015 B- 5 HOUSE BILLS: o Marijuana, medical use, lawful and unlawful acts: HB 1020 o Marijuana, misdemeanor convictions,vacation of: HB 1041 o Marijuana, recreational,excise tax revenues, disbursement: HB 1165 o Marijuana, impaired driving provisions, modifications: HB 1276 o Marijuana, recreational,excise tax rate increases and seller remittance: HB 1334 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, buffer between other entities: HB 1335 o Marijuana,acquisition by adults, standards and procedures for: HB 1359 o Marijuana,opening package of or consuming in public, prohibitions: HB 1360 o Marijuana, consumption, informational material concerning,funding with donations: HB 1361 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, exemption from 1,000 foot restriction,when: HB 1411 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, prohibiting by ordinance and voter approval,conditions, excise tax revenues,cities prohibiting businesses to receive no revenues: HB 1412 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, buffer between other entities: HB 1413 o Marijuana, recreational,excise tax,exempting producers for certain sales: HB 1414 o Marijuana, illegal production,enforcement through eradication: HB 1418 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, requiring public vote for local prohibition: HB 1438 o ,Marijuana regulatory provisions: HB 1461 Marijuana, g rY p o Marijuana, comprehensive tax reform: HB 2008 SENATE BILLS: o Marijuana and related substances, in motor vehicle,traffic infractions involving: SB 5002 o Marijuana, recreational, excise tax rate increases and seller remittance: SB 5003 o Marijuana, common carrier transportation of, rules for licensing:SB 5051 o Marijuana, medical use, provisions:SB 5052 o Marijuana, research license, establishing:SB 5121 o Marijuana, producers and processors, restricting to non-rural and non-residential areas:SB 5130 o Marijuana, recreational,excise tax revenues, disbursement for sub. abuse programs:SB 5245 o Marijuana, medical use, adding posttraumatic stress disorder to qualifying conditions:SB 5379 o Marijuana, concerning marijuana products in public:SB 5398 o Marijuana, consumption, informational material concerning,funding with donations:SB 5401 o Marijuana,ensuring safe, responsible,and legal acquisition by adults:SB 5402 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, licensing of, excise tax and revenues, provisions: SB 5417 o Marijuana, recreational businesses,siting of: SB 5450 o Marijuana, misdemeanor convictions, vacations of:SB 5461 o Marijuana, recreational,excise taxation, single point of sales:SB 5467 o Cannabis, health and beauty aids, not subject to marijuana regulation: SB 5493 o Marijuana, medical and recreational, comprehensive marijuana reform act: SB 5519 o Marijuana, recreational businesses, licensing of:SB 5572 *List updated on 2-9-15. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 21,2014 ITEM#: ! CQ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: ORDINANCE: Proposed amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC)related to the siting of marijuana-related businesses. POLICY QUESTION: Should the City prohibit the siting of marijuana-related businesses? COMMITTEE: LUTC MEETING DATE: October 6, 2014 CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business n Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Stacey Welsh,Associate Planner DEPT: CD Attachments: 1) Staff Memo to the LUTC; 2) Draft Ordinance; 3) September 17, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits A-D; 4) August 20, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits; 5) Draft Minutes of the September 17, 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing; and 6) Minutes of the August 20 , 2014 Planning Commission Study Session;and 7)Comment letter from George Garrett dated September 17,2014. Options Considered: 1)Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as shown in the Draft Ordinance;2)Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as further amended by the LUTC; 3) Do not adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends prohibiting marijuana-related business within the city limits expressed in the Draft Ordinance. MAYOR APPROVAL: IF Afffffr D RECTOR APPROVAL: Commit e .uncil / nitial CHIEF OF STAFF: -4,01 / ,,, 1�'!�' Con j1Pf , /j , COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATI• : I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading and Enactment on October 21, 2014., -l-k qi,Ct M k'1 to s-t4- l o yo_Pet;' 6L e +e-v-St 071. .- rn a f iw lm cs % WIC cc . uY) .rtf�,.�c� Bob Celski, Chair Kell J alone , Member/ is Assefa-D.At son, ember PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): "I move approval of the proposed ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: (� ❑ �.� APPROVED COUNCIL BILL# (/it ip / ❑ DENIED �j 1ST reading TABLED/DEFERRE 1 0 ACTION viz 1 *11,4 Enactment reading MOVED TO SECOND ' 1 G(ordinances only) ORDINANCE# AIL REVISED—08/12/2010 RESOLUTION# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: September 24,2014 TO: Land Use and Transpo tion Committee 14/1,VIA: Jim Ferrell,Mayor 1 1%/ 0/14/chFROM: Janet Shull, Senior anner(` c9 SUBJECT: Marijuana Related Busine'ses BACKGROUND: On November 5,2013,the City Council enacted a moratorium on marijuana-related land uses. The moratorium is due to expire on November 5,2014. Staff conducted research on the potential implications of siting marijuana-related businesses as allowed under Initiative 502(I-502) if the City Council were decide to allow such uses within Federal Way. A summary of the research findings and recommendations for amending the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC)Chapter 19—Zoning to allow for marijuana-related businesses can be found in Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated September 17 and August 20,2014 and attached to the Council Agenda Bill as Attachments 3 and 4 respectively. The staff recommendations for allowing marijuana-related uses were aligned with the requirements of I- 502 and the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB). Preliminary recommendations were reviewed with the Planning Commission at a study session conducted on August 20, 2014. At the conclusion of the study session, staff was directed to proceed with development of final recommendations for siting of marijuana-related businesses to be considered during a public hearing. Final staff recommendations were presented during the public hearing held on September 17,2014. There was no public testimony, but one letter was submitted for the record on behalf of George Garrett (Attachment 7). Mr.Garrett is one of three WSLCB lottery winners in Federal Way and desires to operate a marijuana retail business. At the public hearing,the Planning Commission discussed the staff recommendation and had some concerns regarding the application of state-required separation standards of sensitive land uses from marijuana-related businesses. Discussion focused on whether or not there should be additional use categories added to the state-mandated requirements(churches and group homes type III). Following the discussion, a motion was made and seconded to ban marijuana-related uses in Federal Way.There was no discussion following the motion. The vote was taken,and the motion passed 5 to 1. Therefore,the recommendation before the LUTC is to prohibit marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way. A draft Ordinance(Attachment 2)has been prepared based on this recommendation. Staff would like to point out that the draft regulations only pertain to marijuana-related businesses,and therefore may not address all medical marijuana uses currently allowed under state law. At the time of ATTACHMENT 1 September 24,2014 Land Use and Transportation Committee Page 2 enactment of the moratorium,there was an expectation that there would be further guidance from the state regarding medical marijuana uses, but that guidance was not forthcoming.Therefore, staff proceeded with land use regulations for the marijuana-related uses governed by I-502. The planning commission recommendation before the LUTC is for a ban on marijuana-related businesses. There may be a question as to whether or not the ban would specifically apply to medical marijuana dispensaries. If the LUTC would like to recommend to the City Council that the ban also specifically address medical marijuana dispensaries,then staff recommends that the LUTC direct staff to amend Section 1 of the draft ordinance to read as follows: "Section 1. Recreational and medical marijuana-related businesses such as marijuana production,processing or retail sales, including medical marijuana dispensaries,as may be allowed by State Law,are expressly prohibited from locating or operating in any zone within the City of Federal Way." The ban would not apply to medical marijuana collective gardens as authorized by RCW 69.51A.085. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends prohibiting marijuana-related businesses within the city as expressed in the Draft Ordinance. LUTC OPTIONS: The LUTC has the following options: 1. Recommend adoption of the Planning Commission's recommendations as shown in the Draft Ordinance; 2. Recommend adoption of the Planning Commission's recommendation as further amended by the LUTC; or 3. Do not recommend adopting the Planning Commission's recommendations. cc: Project File Day File ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to prohibiting all marijuana-related businesses including retail, production and processing. WHEREAS, in November 2012, Washington State voters approved Initiative 502 (I-502), codified in RCW Chapter 69.50, which "authorizes the Washington State Liquor Control Board to regulate and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older," and license marijuana producers,processors, and retailors;and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013 the City of Federal Way City Council passed Ordinance NO. 13-749 imposing a one year moratorium on marijuana collective gardens and other activities involved in the sale,manufacturing, or distribution of marijuana to allow for time to determine how best to respond to I-502 within the City;and WHEREAS, the proposed Washington State Liquor Control Board recreational marijuana rules do not affect local zoning and building regulations, but do place location restrictions on recreational marijuana businesses; and WHEREAS, staff prepared draft code amendments related to the siting of marijuana-related businesses,including marijuana production,processing and retail sales; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was properly issued for the draft code amendments on September 5, 2014, and no comments or appeals were received and the DNS was finalized on October 3,2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop on the proposed code amendments, on August 20, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on September 17, 2014; and Ordinance No. /4- Page I of 3 Rev 100 LL ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed code amendments and identified concerns regarding the relationship of marijuana-related businesses with other permitted uses that could potentially locate near them;and WHEREAS, following discussion of the proposed code amendments, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to prohibit marijuana-related businesses in the city to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation on October 6, 2014, and recommended adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting marijuana-related businesses, including marijuana production, processing and retail sales, as a land use is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2014, the Washington State Attorney General issued an opinion (AGO 2014-2) offering the opinion that Initiative 502 does not preempt counties, cities and towns from banning marijuana production,processing and retail businesses within their jurisdictions, and concluding that the issuance of a license from the Liquor Control Board does not entitle licensees to locate or operate a marijuana production, processing or retail business in violation of local rules or without necessary approval from local jurisdictions, concluding that local jurisdictions are permitted under the law to prohibit such activities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Marijuana-related businesses, such as marijuana production, processing or retail sales, as may be allowed by State Law are expressly prohibited from locating or operating in any zone within the City of Federal Way. Section 2._Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the Ordinance No. 14- Page 2 of 3 Rev I/10 LU invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance,or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 3._Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including,but not limited to,the correction of scrivener/clerical errors,references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers,and any references thereto. Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this 21'day of October,2014. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR,JIM FERRELL ATTEST: CITY CLERK, STEPHANIE COURTNEY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, AMY JO PEARSALL FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance±Vo. 14- Page 3 of 3 Rev 1/10 LU CITY Of Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Pertaining to Marijuana-Related Businesses Revised Sections 19.05.130 19.05.180 and 19.05.210; New Sections 19.220.150, 19.240.190, and 19. 280 et seq. "Marijuana Related Businesses" File No. 14-102659-00-UP Public Hearing of September 17, 2014 I. BACKGROUND In November of 2012,Washington voters approved 1-502 legalizing the possession of limited amounts of marijuana. According to King County election data, 63.5%of King County voters voted in favor of I-502. Statewide,the initiative passed with an approval rate of 55.7%. In the City of Federal Way,the approval rate was 53%. The initiative: • Legalizes the use of marijuana by people 21 years or older.They may possess up to one ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused product in solid form,and 72 ounces of marijuana-infused product in liquid form. • that only state-licensed marijuana production,processing, and sale of Specifies y � p p marijuana are permitted. • Requires licensed facilities to be at least 1,000 feet from schools, playgrounds, recreation centers,child care centers, public parks,public transit centers, libraries, and arcades. • Limits signage to a maximum of one that is no larger than 11 square feet in area. • Prohibits retail facilities from: o Displaying marijuana or marijuana products so they are visible from the public right-of-way; o Selling anything other than marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and paraphernalia. • Prohibits, for all recreational marijuana facilities,the following activities: o Advertising, in any medium,within 1,000 feet of any school,playground, recreation center,child care center,public park,transit center, library, or arcade. o Advertising on publically-owned or operated property,or within a public transit vehicle or shelter. • Prohibits on-premises consumption. • Establishes a standard for driving under the influence of marijuana. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014, Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 1 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 How many retail,producer,and/or processer businesses may be located in Federal Way? • State law specifies that no more than three retail outlets may be allowed within the Federal Way city limits. • A retailer may only be a retailer(not also a producer and/or processor). • A licensee may hold a producer and processor license together,but they must apply for two separate licenses,one for producer and one for processor. • There is currently no limit on the number of producer or processor businesses under state law. What is the current status of applications for marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way? Information on the proposed number and location of marijuana-related businesses is available from the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB). As stated above,the state will only license up to three retail operations in Federal Way.This number is based on population—the greater the population,the greater number of potential retail businesses within a city.There are currently 15 businesses within the city limits listed as applying for a state license,but no more than three will be able to obtain a license.The WSLCB did conduct a lottery to determine priority ranking for proposed businesses within each jurisdiction,subject to the business meeting all the local regulations.If the proposed businesses with a lottery ranking of#1, 2,or 3 are unable to obtain local approval for example,then businesses ranked 4, 5,etc. would be the next eligible for the three licenses,and so on until either three licenses are successfully issued,or all proposals have been exhausted.(See maps on pages 6 and 7 for the proposed retail business locations.) How have other jurisdictions' responded to I-502? The Municipal Research Services Center(MRSC)maintains a web page with the most recent white papers, links to the WSLCB, and relative WACs and RCWs related to marijuana businesses. The MRSC maintains a table with the status of local jurisdictions' response to I-502 to date. Staff reviewed the table available online at http.://wwvy.mrse.org/subjectsileual1502/reemarauana.a§•px at the time of the preparation of this staff report. Currently, some jurisdictions have a moratorium in place related to marijuana and are presumably conducting study of the issue. Other jurisdictions have recently adopted regulations in response to I-502, while a handful of jurisdictions have adopted interim regulations. Some jurisdictions have implemented a ban on marijuana-related businesses.This option is allowed per the opinion of the State Attorney General's office(http `insight mrsc.oruI2014/01/16istate- attorney_-g Weird-s ys-cities_and-counties-ca7-lean-retreat ionalin.arduana-iisesf).However,the State Attorney General's opinion is not binding on the state courts. Some jurisdictions that have banned recreational marijuana have been challenged. Most recently in the news has been the City of Fife. Fife was sued by a potential business owner for banning marijuana-related businesses. On August 29, 2014,the Pierce County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Fife's ban based on the same finding as the State Attorney General's office—that I-502 does not preclude local jurisdictions banning marijuana-related businesses. However,the party that filed the suit has indicated they will appeal the decision and take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 10 The following table contains a sample list of other jurisdictions status related to marijuana-related businesses taken from the MRSC table referenced above. Table 1 Jurisdictions' Status Related to Marijuana-Related Business Regulation STATUS Ban Moratorium Interim Zoning Zoning Enacted JURISDICTION Fife Auburn Bellevue Burien Lakewood Bainbridge Island Bellingham Centralia Pasco King County Everett Des Moines Pierce County Edmonds Kirkland Gig Harbor Richland Kennewick Lynnwood Issaquah Sea Tac Kent Tacoma Moses Lake Yakima Longview Walla Walla Mountlake Terrace Mill Creek Mount Vernon Milton Mukilteo Puyallup Pullman Redmond Seattle Renton Spokane Sammamish Spokane Valley Snohomish Tukwila University Place Tumwater Woodinville Vancouver In preparation of the draft regulations attached to this report, staff reviewed other jurisdictions' adopted regulations(zoning enacted). In review of the adopted regulations,the following common elements were noted: • Most jurisdictions do not allow outdoor growing of marijuana. • Most jurisdictions have adopted the state's definitions contained in RCW 69.50.101 for: o Marijuana; o Marijuana processor; o Marijuana producer; o Marijuana retailer; o Marijuana-infused products; o Retail marijuana outlet; and o Usable marijuana. • Most jurisdictions have adopted the state-required separation standards from sensitive uses. • Most jurisdictions do not allow marijuana-related businesses within residential zoning districts. • Most jurisdictions clearly reference the state licensing requirements and other business-related requirements for signage,advertising, etc. II. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS This section provides a summary of the proposed code amendments. The proposed zoning code text is attached as Exhibits A-D. Based on the review of existing comprehensive plan and zoning code language, state law, and other jurisdictions treatment of marijuana-related businesses,this section identifies staff's recommendations for zoning code amendments that would allow these uses in specific zoning districts subject to applicable development regulations. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17, 2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 3 of 10 1. Appropriate zones for marijuana-related businesses. Staff recommends that marijuana-related businesses be allowed in the Community Business(BC) and Commercial Enterprise(CE)zones.The BC and CE zones are two of the commercial zoning districts in the city that have land area that is greater than 1,000 feet from one or more sensitive land uses(see discussion of separation standards in Section 2 below). Specifically,staff recommends that retail marijuana businesses be allowed in both the BC and CE zones and that producer and processor businesses be allowed in the CE zone only.The table below summarizes the proposed allowable zones for the siting of marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way. Table 2 Marijuana-Related Businesses in Federal Way Zoning Districts Type SE RS RM PO BN BC CC-C CC-F OP CE Retailer Businesses P P Producer Businesses P Processor Businesses P Note: P=Permitted. For comparison,commercial zones that currently allow for liquor stores are BN,CC-C, and CC-F in addition to BC and CE zones. With regard to marijuana-related retail businesses,staff is recommending they only be allowed in the BC and CE zones as they are more auto-oriented retail zones, and therefore, less likely to be developed over time with sensitive and family-friendly land uses such as parks and schools.The Neighborhood Business(BN)and City Center-Core and-Frame(CC-C and CC-F)zones are more likely to be developed with sensitive land uses and mixed use, pedestrian-oriented development over time, and therefore,would be less compatible with marijuana-related businesses in light of state licensing and operation requirements. The reason that the producer and processor businesses are only recommended to be allowed in the CE zone, is that the CE zone allows for larger-scale, big box,and light industrial type uses.The growing of marijuana is anticipated to require larger site sizes,large buildings or greenhouse structures, and have greater water and energy usage, and wastewater and solid waste production. Marijuana production and processing would be considered most similar to light manufacturing uses and the CE zone is the only zone in the city that allows such a use outright. 2. Appropriate separation standards for marijuana-related businesses. Staff is recommending that Federal Way adopt the state mandated separation standards from sensitive land uses. Under I-502, recreational marijuana licensed business cannot be within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any of the following entities: 1. Elementary or secondary school; 2.Playground; 3. Recreational center or facility; 4. Child care center; 5.Public park; FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17.2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 4 of 10 6. Public transit center; 7.Library; or 8. Any game arcade where admission is not restricted to persons age 21 or older. Per I-502, distances are measured as follows: measure distance in a straight line, from the perimeter of a restricted area to the perimeter of a potential location. The maps on the following pages show where marijuana-related businesses could potentially locate within the City of Federal Way under the proposed code amendment. 3. Proposed definitions for marijuana-related businesses. Staff recommends adopting the following new definitions from RCW 69.50.101 as follows: "Marijuana"means all parts of the plant Cannabis,whether growing or not,with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis;the seeds thereof;the resin extracted from any part of the plant;and very compound,manufacture,salt,derivative,mixture, or preparation of the plant,its seeds or resin.The term does not include the mature stalks of the plant,fiber produced from the stalks,oil,or cake made from the seeds of the plant,any other compound,manufacture,salt,derivative,mixture,or preparation of the mature stalks(except the resin extracted therefrom),fiber,oil,or cake,or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. "Marijuana processor"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products,package and label useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets,and sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products at wholesale to marijuana retailers. "Marijuana producer"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the production and sale at wholesale of marijuana to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. "Marijuana retailer"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board where useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products may be sold at retail. "Marijuana-infused products"means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use.The term"marijuana-infused products"does not include usable marijuana. "Retail marijuana outlet"means a location licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the retail sale of usable marijuana and marijuana-infused products. "Usable marijuana"means dried marijuana flowers. The term"useable marijuana"does not include marijuana-infused products. In addition to the above definitions, language is proposed in new FWRC Chapter 19.280 that refers to WAC 314-55-050 for definitions, of specific land uses that shall have a 1,000 foot buffer applied. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17.2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 5 of 10 The map below shows where marijuana-related businesses could be allowed in the southerth end of the city. The dark grey areas represent the areas where businesses could locate within BC and CE zoning districts when 1,000-foot separation standards are applied.The blue dots represent locations where people have applied for state licenses for retail businesses. st �e'av tcm�v., Is3 OST ' 320 ST 32QTH ST ,a sT r D 'WM. 7 IP nw,iti- t 5321ST S. i�{ _.. D e _ g. sw yy* sz 3921 ,y" 'y ,:• j #.,i l� e .a .E- ' Q f W tQ r sas Si s.'c nl West i.arnpu ss s 4 ,. ^ilsa22 4fs*ft 6r ass , 999. 3 1 _... > ..xy 5 '\ ..324 SL... .,_ ''''''-‘5'1 .24$r rr - ? !g r ssss es say 'r .3 4 - :,i` sags" ass uk�Si per.3325 ,,t31 ST r`o� �`\„ ' ,r f ' i�'--:',�ff} m. --- r+c�caxsrar Fed er al 'a k =2 v t f''° m tt=ui xr:usru ' s c S sit s sp fa. �s 1 ae III ii IA/aY ?. aays.aza� ✓ # ` 4,ktF 1 .s-` 4, easy - � r� a' Z ss w $3 385 �sl"ty d ��e '� ! aax"a ;�� ,1 3 i 3`iY a2s SL ,� :�3 's.'''''''' Ex ! f ice •-•.Ja F: • ;i - . : s 't 2. federal Way i ;i "S 1 � w Y, I Community i i 331 /' r 1 tr. 4rraa .� .._.d � va,�m Si sr Center Q �d J'''." mph s>�p„ ��.-' /,'' ( _ `. ssiaST} i" /' f isx 2 ' F>, t S. ,3,* � j 1 1 333'_N . a i ' 2YI.'S ..s", � \L,,„p,,,'Hatt3,"''` dyes /,js !°*° 5T a331 ST ;_*3` 1__, fs` '7? �' is if I ss3aaw @ S P S 4`Ss• g3Y6 T u1 'JF 1-11., � x F 4 Q ,, s SS/ST I. l l x�a3 C@ ani tl V• , Q >- t.SG_ � y V � �r I t SSACa..0 ',.€i L � d„ t j ,/ 0,.� t; 1. ,.., t3`t.� �.:i_.,• el �a -, �' ,�s-.�" �, Bx;Et42Aand6_ /' g, Y '1' > �, 3 'V ' CC ♦�} S 34&ST °t 'Al � l (A i G _ a:rr r } a ..�" f1 I F 1`..a v .�. Maly ` S 349 ST ut' a� _ U2. --�—,� --7- i""�" � .�� r/ y .. g a L�`f F y. • "St PI_3° 5T ,! /If,' y •SW 3S3 N 535acb i SV ' l f r i s'1--i T 4. . S5yeT 1, _-- � :x` 5�.9 y ma.4 '" '''.. : IS.3SSST S 356TH .tl -- ' R }; aca 535657„ 413i y �,.- S t/, D �0 3,S90, , j �� f 0 a �� >Y :#'3 4ff � w Fe et r; ',{ ,..,,,9 ST File 14-102659-00-UP FWRC Code Amendments—Mariluana-Related Businesses September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public FIearing Page 6 of 10 The map below shows where marijuana-related businesses could be allowed in the northern end of the city.The dark grey areas represent the areas where businesses could locate within BC and CE zoning districts when 1,000-foot separation standards are applied.The blue dots represent locations where people have applied for state licenses for retail businesses.Note that some of the proposed business locations are not located within the grey shaded areas,meaning that they are located within 1,000 feet of one or more sensitive land uses and therefore, do not meet the state minimum separation requirement standard. S 2?2ND Jam¢ �i n „ : ::*,,,,,..:,:-..: ';,„,-,,,,,,,,,":„.,,,,";,,,,,,3;::,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,; � � tt/��F�-- tL,- � `"�- is ,' ,�.� x6,1 o ;net - � p ( S 28�'0^TH SI - r Y s� N9f Y Btr 1• i` C f "t ,Q If a,,yy, 'sS i term . cr.!. :: . Sf 288Z"/ $' $THST z�O .� o -1:,'. �9' Z A f Q T � Q, (W /c "y 01_ J,� S r J 3 �T � :4:1 s� f. S H ��T� ; "' Q i i.`Y. � 5 S � (4,....,::::.:.,_, ......,.LL , f„ � m� .> N, �`"<y Stelee¢ :1:;/Qr 1 O y'. '.1 ., .i, , T HS FWRC Code Amendments Marijuana Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 7 of 10 4. Add a new Chapter 19.280 "Marijuana-Related Businesses"to FWRC Title 19. Staff recommends establishing a new chapter in Title 19(Exhibit D)that will clearly identify the requirement for compliance with all state licensing requirements of 1-502 and the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB).This chapter highlights important development and safety standards, including: g • Marijuana-related businesses must take place within secure, enclosed structures. • Marijuana-related businesses may not be an accessory use. • Marijuana-related businesses may not be a home occupation. • Marijuana-related businesses must have a state license to operate,as well as a city business license. • No marijuana production and/or processing activities shall be visible from public areas. • Signage must comply with state requirements in addition to city standards. • Application of separation standards. • Security measures must be in place. • City personal shall be allowed to inspect site and facilities at any time during regular business hours. III. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 8/29/14: Public Notice of 9/17/14 Planning Commission public hearing published and posted 9/5/14: Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance(DNS)pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 9/19/14: End of SEPA Comment Period 10/3/14: End of SEPA Appeal Period IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were received as of the date of this report. V. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Chapter 19.80,"Process VI Council Rezones,"establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review,the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the proposed zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendments meet the criteria established in FWRC 19.80.130. 3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendments. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 8 of 10 VI. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC Chapter 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments.The following section analyzes compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by this chapter. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP)does not specifically address marijuana-related business uses. In determining appropriate zones for marijuana-related businesses, staff considered the general intent of each of the city's commercial zones, as well as the state requirements for a minimum 1,000-foot separation from identified sensitive land uses. Based on the comprehensive plan land use designations, staff is proposing that marijuana-related businesses only be allowed in the Community Business(BC)and Commercial Enterprise (CE)zones. 2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health,safety,or welfare. The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public health,safety, and welfare because the text amendments establish zoning districts where marijuana-related businesses may potentially locate,and also establish separation standards from state identified sensitive land uses.The location of the zoning districts and overlay of the separation buffer will help protect the general safety and welfare of Federal Way residents by limiting the potential for minors to be exposed to these business operations. 3. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the city. The proposed FWRC text amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the city because the voters of the state of Washington approved through the passage of Initiative 502 the establishment of businesses that produce,process,and sell recreational marijuana.The recommended zoning districts for the establishment of these uses would allow for these businesses to locate in areas that are at least 1,000 feet from state identified sensitive uses. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above staff analysis and decisional criteria, staff recommends that the following amendments to FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code,"be recommended for approval to the Land Use/Transportation Committee(LUTC) and City Council. 1. Modifications to FWRC 19.05.130, 19.05.180, and 19.05.210;the addition of Use Zone Charts FWRC19.220.150 and 19.240.190; and new FWRC Chapter 19.280 as identified in Exhibits A-D below and attached to this staff report. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 9 of 10 VIII.PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC Chapter 19.80.240,the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed development code text amendments: Recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as presented; 1. h' p 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to the City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to the City Council without a recommendation. EXHIBITS Exhibit A— FWRC 19.05.130, 19.05.180, and 19.05.210; Modifications to"M","R"and"U" definitions adding new definitions pertaining to marijuana-related businesses Exhibit B— FWRC 19.220.150, Proposed New BC Use Zone Chart: "Marijuana Retailer" Exhibit C— FWRC 19.240.190,Proposed New CE Use Zone Chart: "Marijuana-Related Businesses" Exhibit D— FWRC Title 19, Division VII,"Supplemental Zoning Regulations"adding a new Chapter 19.280,"Marijuana-Related Businesses" FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 10 of 10 Exhibit A-1 FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE (FWRC) Title 19, Zoning and Development Code Chapter 19.05, Zoning and Development in General 19.05.130 M definitions. "Maintenance,"for signs,means the cleaning,painting,and minor repair of a sign in a manner that does not alter the basic design,size,height,or structure of the sign. "Major stream"means any stream,and the tributaries to any stream,which contains or supports,or under normal circumstances contains or supports,resident or migratory fish.If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish,then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. "Manufactured home"means a factory-built structure transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities.A manufactured home shall be built to comply with the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974(regulations effective June 15, 1976). "Manufacturing and production"means the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or substances into new products, including the assembling of component parts,the creation of products,and the blending of materials, such as oils,plastics,resins,or liquors.Manufacturing and production is divided into the following categories: (1) "Manufacturing and production, general,"means establishments typically manufacturing and producing for the wholesale market. (2) "Manufacturing and production, limited,"means retail establishments engaged in the small-scale manufacture,production,and on-site sales of custom goods and products.These uses are distinguished from "manufacturing and production,general,"by a predominant use of hand tools or domestic mechanical equipment, limited number of employees,limited sales volume,limited truck deliveries, little or no outdoor storage,typical retail hours of operation,and an obvious retail storefront with a public entrance that is in scale with the overall building and oriented to the right-of-way.This category includes uses such as ceramic studios;candle-making shops;custom jewelry manufacturing;woodworking and cabinet making;manufacturing of specialized orthopedic appliances such as artificial limbs or braces;manufacturing of dental appliances such as bridges,dentures, and crowns;production of goods from finished materials such as wood,metal,paper,glass, leather,and textiles;and production of specialized food products such as caterers,bakeries,candy stores,microbreweries,and beverage bottlers. "Marijuana"means all parts of the plant Cannabis,whether growing or not with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound,manufacture,salt,derivative, mixture,or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.The term does not include the major stalks of the plant,fiber produced from the stalks,oil,or cake made from the seeds of the plant,any other compound, manufacture,salt,derivative mixture,or preparation of the mature stalks(except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber,oil,or cake,or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. "Marijuana processor"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products, package and label useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets,and sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products at wholesale to marijuana retailers. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses;Exhibit A-I File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 1 of 2 "Marijuana producer"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the production and sale at wholesale of marijuana to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. "Marijuana retailer"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board where useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products may be sold at retail. "Marijuana-infused products"means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use.The term "marijuana-infused products"does not include usable marijuana. "Maximum lot coverage"means the maximum percentage of the surface of the subject property that may be covered with materials which will not allow for the percolation of water into the underlying soils.See FWRC 19.110.020 et seq.for further details. "Mean sea level"means the level of Puget Sound at zero tide as established by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. "Medium density zones"mean the following zones:RS 15.0,RS 35.0 and comparable zones in other jurisdictions. "Microcell"means a wireless communication facility consisting of an antenna that is either: (1)Four feet in height and with an area of not more than 580 square inches;or (2)If a tubular antenna,no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet high. "Minor facility"means a wireless communication facility consisting of up to three antennas,each of which is either: (1)Four feet in height and with an area of not more than 580 inches;or (2)If a tubular antenna,no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet in length. A minor facility includes any associated equipment cabinet that is six feet or less in height and no more than 48 square feet in floor area "Minor stream"means any stream that does not meet the definition of"major stream." "Mixed-use building means a building containing two or more different principal permitted uses,as determined by the director,and which occupy separate tenant spaces. "Moorage facility"means a pier,dock,buoy or other structure providing docking or moorage space for waterborne pleasure craft. "Multiple-story building"means a building containing two or more floors of active permitted use(s),and each upper floor area excluding any storage,mechanical,and other similar accessory,nonactive areas,contains at least 33 percent of the ground floor area. "Multi-tenant complex"means a complex containing two or more uses or businesses. "Multi-use complex"means all of the following: a group of separate buildings operating under a common name or management;or a single building containing multiple uses where there are specific exterior entranceways for individual uses; or a group of uses on separate but adjoining properties that request treatment as a multi-use complex. "Mural"means a design or representation that is painted or drawn on the exterior surface of a structure and that does not advertise a business,product,service,or activity. (Ord.No.09-610,§3(Exh.A),4-7-09;Ord.No.09-593,§24, 1-6-09.Code 2001 §22-1.13.) FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses,Exhibit A-I File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A-2 FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE (FWRC) Title 19, Zoning and Development Code Chapter 19.05, Zoning and Development in General 19.05.180 R definitions. "Recreational vehicle"means a travel trailer, motor home,truck camper, or camping trailer that is primarily designed and used as temporary living quarters, is either self-propelled or mounted on or drawn by another vehicle, is transient, is not occupied as a primary residence, and is not immobilized or permanently affixed to a mobile home lot. "Registration sticker"for the purpose of sign regulations means the sticker that is assigned to a sign that has been inventoried and has been determined to comply with this title and other sections of this Code. "Regulated lakes"means Wetlands Nos. 8-21-4-26, 7-21-4-71, 11-21-3-9, 14-21-3-2, 14-21-3-5, 13- 20-21-4-61 shown in the June 19 1999,city of 17-21-4-55, 20-21-4 61 as sho ty 21-3-12 9-21-4-38, 17-21 4-55, and and around the Federal Way final wetland inventory report,except vegetated areas which are located in margins of regulated lakes and fall under FWRC 19.175.020. "Relative"means persons connected through blood,marriage or other legal relationships by not more degrees or affinity or consanguinity and including persons under legal guardianship. than four de g h' g "Required yard"means the area adjacent to and interior from a property line or the ordinary high water mark(OHWM)of a lot, as prescribed by regulations, and is the minimum required distance between a structure and a specific line,such as a property line,edge of private tract, or vehicular access q easement that is required to remain free of structures. If two or more required yards are coincidental,the area will be considered the required yard with the greater dimension. Yards are also known as setbacks. Except for flag lots, required setbacks are categorized as follows: (1)Front. That portion of a lot adjacent to and parallel with the front property lines and at a distance therefrom equal to the required front yard depth. (2)Rear. That portion of a lot adjacent to and parallel with the rear property line and at a distance therefrom equal to the required rear yard depth. (3)Side. That portion of a lot adjacent to and parallel with each side property line and at a distance therefrom equal to the required side yard depth. All required yards not otherwise categorized shall be designated side yards. "Residential use"means developments and occupancy in which persons sleep and prepare food, other than developments used for transient occupancy. "Residential zone"means the following zones: SE, RS 35.0, RS 15.0, RS 9.6, RS 7.2,RS 5.0, RM 3.6,RM 2.4,RM 1.8 and comparable zones in other jurisdictions. "Restaurant"or "tavern"means commercial use(excluding fast food restaurants) which sells prepared food or beverages and generally for consumption on the premises. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses,Exhibit A-2 File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page I of 2 "Retail establishment"means a commercial enterprise which provides goods and/or services directly to the consumer, where such goods are available for immediate purchase and removal from the premises by the purchaser. "Retail marijuana outlet"means a location licensed by the State Liquor Board for the retail sale of usable marijuana and marijuana-infused products. "Retail sales, bulk,"means a retail establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public as well as to other retailers,contractors,or businesses, and rendering services incidental to of sales of products in a warehouse setting,and may the sale of such goods, involving a high volume o p S g g include membership warehouse clubs, i.e.,"big box"retail. Bulk retail is differentiated from general retail by any of the following characteristics: (1)Items for sale include large, categorized products,e.g., lumber, appliances, household furnishings, electrical and heating fixtures and supplies,wholesale and retail nursery stock,etc.; and may also include a varie ty of carry out goods, e.g g roceries, household,and personal care r oducts; (2)A large inventory of goods and merchandise is stored on the subject site in high-ceiling warehouse areas, high-rack displays, and/or outdoor storage areas; and (3)High volume truck traffic,regular pick up and delivery of large items,a designated contractor pick-up area,and high parking-to-building ratios. "Retail sales, general and specialty,"means a retail establishment that is not engaged in bulk retail and includes the sale of smaller items such as groceries,drug store sundries, specialty hardware, paint supplies, and sports equipment,etc.,typically selling to the general public and is differentiated from bulk purchased, sales volume,and typically does not sell at a retail by the size of the building, of items h'p Y g p discount or in a volume warehouse store. "Retail shopping center, regional"means a series of unified commercial establishments that provide retail, entertainment,or professional services on a site comprised of at least 50 acres, with direct access to a state or federal highway,with shared parking facilities,with a combined gross floor area of at least 500,000 square feet, and with all or some of the stores configured with an inward orientation and connected with common interior walkway(s). "Right-of-way,"in addition to its normal meaning, may include, for purposes of the community design guidelines or sign regulations, land privately owned, used primarily for the movement of vehicles or pedestrian traffic, so long as such privately owned land has been constructed in compliance with all applicable laws and standards for a public right-of-way. "Right-of-way realignment"means the changing of the horizontal position of the improvements in a right-of-way. "Roofline"means the line formed by the outside of the gable of the roof, or if the roof is flat or mansard,the top of the roof or mansard. "Runoff" means the overland or subsurface flow of water. (Ord.No.09-610, § 3(Exh. A),4-7-09;Ord.No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1),4-7-09;Ord.No.09-593, §24, 1-6-09. Code 2001 § 22-1.18.) FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses,Exhibit A-2 File 14-102659-00-UP September 17.2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A-3 FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE (FWRC) Title 19, Zoning and Development Code Chapter 19.05, Zoning and Development in General 19.05.210 U definitions. "Urban agriculture"is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of activities involving the raising, cultivation,processing, marketing,and distribution of food.Urban agriculture land uses include: community gardens, urban farms,cottage food operations,farm stands,and farmers markets. See also the definitions for"agricultural use,""community gardens,""cottage food operation,""farm stand,"and "farmers market." "Urban farm"means privately or publicly owned land used for the cultivation of fruits,vegetables, plants,flowers,or herbs by an individual,organization,or business with the primary purpose of growing food for sale. "Usable marijuana"means dried marijuana flowers.The term "usable marijuana"does not include marijuana-infused products. "Use"means the activities taking place on property or within structures thereon.Each separate listing under the"Use"column in FWRC 19.195.010 through 19.240.170 is a separate use (Ord.No 13-754, § 7, 12-3-13; Ord.No 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord.No 09-593, § 24, 1-6-09. Code 2001 § 22-1.21.) FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses,Exhibit A-3 File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 1 of 1 L R 0 C ^ — L 0 a, O ` L> m` e —'C M p L.0 R d 6, .. M C R R o , -0 a,L L C O ti C i • L = a. L y E y y y c O E m . o = ^ i y y u m > E E y z e.a, 7 i L L a, O u y y - t L V L L = a+ E L u —',7.:4 y a "� E3 •o = z Q g w u CU E y o a, CU y y ESN �y Am, `� Fa7 .. = . Ez^ U �f Fr t= In 4. y ". V OG y �LLL7 y Cr.. 4.1 4. U O • y z t ; a. L =0= - O °•7 F L Vi •..1 ^ V C6 aj O �. C L4 y U 2•�.. .> .L.. m r OT - •,-_-, W Q y U L rM OL E.•> •ai L V� u z 1 L E y o c 0 Q an o yU3 s a= u I a' o u' '= m > vi �, C u L 0 V y > 3 I- •••• S I N i. - N y L V .= z a, y y Ls• .. .0 y y r .0 U L 4 ■ J C: a = y O L - a,„, ter w W = = Y L V C O Y 9 y 0 = U a V x you = am ay E _ w a - - - s 4. _ C — L yu c = i a.. — L •O s y V -0 Q z y; O 0 d z N r -_- ' tO L'y m ai A t yC '0 z Qe ^ W z C� d v C - y — 2 = y -• C 'd N O 0 i y Oa u y S Ld < . = N a a..y y L 0.0 l N a y V w Q d L � L = LL C z.- • 7 ^= - c. o CC 2 0...'.. 5 v L,a 7:L,.y N•y L 0 E C 0.. Liz O C?•• L ^ > y .z z = C y O '.- m C U • H ` yO ,,, -. L L C E"7 C O.y O R 2 m y al C.. " L V/ N Cz E q r u L L t O v y V z O = O LL G. "0 C C V] - — C.. y S. . P } y w y . L L L C N Gt saaedS auptaed 2 G1 paambaH ° rl d co U i . a.�n;anajs d I-� 5 w- Jo 343!aH H ^O E o N ,. 5 aea� U mo t j = 0 . -0 (gaga)apiS L =E. L d F. E u ' c o • _�v e iuoad L x ^ t, Y y •L w y > q • Ai C3 y V c/ '0 + v y y aG ,o z azIS 3°1 L ? X Q E L c G s y U UUUU = W ssaao.rd Ma! a� -o Z = a - : a pa. 3L n LLwc:. b, A, t V': v2 s•R . o S�IOI LV ill01?I -, ... •- L L.O. y V V V y o y C C II ' zN s W I o as s N N ' FIUUUU O. ~ Y L,_, . Y = . Y ., C L • + , O ti r..,M a Y Y Cr ^• i• Y CI C >Si O w L. O y j C i R .O N -y R O U R L 7 R t aR ,- ` y O =. y > L U U Y y ... L.-O - Y N ";L O R O .0 O Y R h = '6M C - i • y a� y n CA ,7 O C L R E c .0 L� L •,== _ _ Q � O h LV L.y CC Y R .= = L y • ;-6. R O • O LE =O . y R L > : a E y a o= i= O u o z L-. Y W Y•- Y = z ^ r• Y R Y - O -= -• - Y• R O R •C L +y+ = C c = O Y yOy t7.1 L - L y E O - _z Y U R en 'A Col F.-, y` ., Y - ,. yi p - - o N e 3 co • GI A d Y O C y- v L O� R_, - L y,, C -. .., O ea co; -' O J R Y R Y Y.- O - ^y O - Y == Y y s 60.. .L.. y O w t o = E L•; .t O R wr vi 14 1 Cd Z L Y Y v1 C.' L C 3 y i Y V V v' C R V Y .�dy O O _ Y L Y R -"3` Y L y e Y ,.a i.l ...w ar y C a. y C _ .:'7•C R C Y U nom.. R — O N U y Ca ay.. _ Y .� =' U `c aE �"s - tis �� -r_. uo Ems' L`el Liz. •i. .- O "7 R u E = Y ; c -! e - L L . y o .. O • Y •L 4 W y L L O C U = S0.-V ' ,- o R- O y Q O O Y U•13 = x Y u a.L R •c = _ L a A _o-a y V U0 L • I- . . O O O O Y p.. 01 . O ^J .0 Y l Sr O .. E R C Y :O z M R R y R R y z O -' Z vi rr C o y Ca Y O E'7 y m L- 'II y Y y L y = e I.+ •v 'O J Y ; V R " d.L J, > -_. C d = R Q L� y B R .0 ul R'C'O.C" y� Ce "' O o•N N p r � 0L L. E Rt RiC_sd R Y E m el •- o — C y m O E H W '-, s o o s u u = L s y t,, L.G i E R • L O 0 L y _ ;„y . d R C O i m y R y 'O C .a y U 0 Y .. Y R R .O R y . L O • R Oa L Y.6' = C e = C C O L C = p Y O R'.E R R 'R � R _L • Y C C = C s J y y w R L - V R _ YO- C — =•L y• C _ R •t 40 Y Ca-. C O. L L O Y 7 . s .+ i. V y C L CC ° E R RL ML RLd OL - ^ Y Y % R MI l laIq �, Yrz R o O J,, y a � o o i L o °c y ; ri)al v(� y u.6i� c ool a;` U c to L.T. FF-I--1 U R E a+ O , t., - '- z Saaeds 3URlJed z y . j L R y Y cn W C oL R - y w a ' = O • _r.01 .. ^ L y . © J o " C L F- .O oa 0 ea et O L O O O R a ►v :w L ai -ICI C1 - ,. o=. E ac. P Y Li N c Y Th 73 Q = == . O E e: > . fl -,E 3 _ F y e -o' aeau ^, y co y ° L y Y c C - •o e R E! Y Nava)am Y Y Y Y •C Y = 0, ^G E 7 -I-. _ Y ;uo1d d _d v CI e C o I d v > 14 Y - ett•4311. Sr I s j ZL I L. �i O • H C y Y U ti � ? ..7=C.): .. W eOW a o o y r. A � O � o O o L a N w sMoLl in✓1VV C^ E L L O Y R L yrO -, L L Y Y ea a U 7 L E = - y u 0. G R Ca o E - OA `n R R L - - . u L E E� v o Ea L L > 6J 7, y O E E t ti L 0 0 = = I_ c 0 O o .. .°r U•u zC ✓ '0 - E 3 N ° MM= 0 U z m Ow F+•f E 0 U E y a 0 N ot VI F y 2 L i— L C 0_ � w v a y CI z -4°; -C o C3 = — L L 'T r3 c y C t ^ . P/ F� : : ^" x o o U -_ Z ,4: - o ° o ••I L L' ' y O r r L V'i ct 0'! u R . c�yy u U x'� r •ti ;�N y Z ZLVU CI 4J1..w tiI! O E 0 ; L E O- 0 U • _' zrrw'' � y vc �"� O' O V V •L d U 3 L ° y V y = y cts O! •p'O t CC a, Q = yA v' W �zO - LIB � 0 c C%CI =_ y o W O • y• .� Y — y L L R L E E L rl E"■ Q .VO•:1 - i R Y V L 'O t Y y ri W ate+... ^ i y Q - N - • y 'O OBI U C y - .� y y m..�-v O y C i .Lr Q x V]... L. v C R y y ',.. 7 V N y • 'O O N LI F, a+ ,, a = y = v"3 0.0 ▪ L 0013 o `•f o L L Y W4 a, C �� 30 ° E °,= YL � `e Vo e y E �'L L c U w 0 y H ci EE ° ^0 .. U0 C rIC N ° V O y O O O ° V 6, C a z wU C Z z y w w L c j L /J.� O . ''0 L L L _ e. w ° L - 1.i'r "n s.6 e- .0. Gi • GL CrN i••� L'I F SJJ}Us 3UpiJ6d • pat—IT °- w N N U R' �_ alnlJnals d G1 ° `1 0 Jo 14 I H s - U E g _ U of 3 16g o W 0 • _I A cfs v' ° �yJBa)apps L% O Q '0. 3 0 �l w lotg C..) - 7 0• ,1 44 "1v h. 4= z' azts 3°'I a, o. •Iv O ea i c yl '� W ssaaoad nka11nag o C C x c4 :0 �',i x i pa.npi ag 3 3 3 w' www ^I '5'; �n o o I 0 of S,MOILVTR9�2[ .a, ..I L — �j L Y C, y 90 C y' u "' .+ 0 •.Oe U N L. WI o :a :a z t a T r - ,LL .EI U t.J U U_ x Exhibit D PROPOSED NEW SECTION FWRC Chapter 19.280, Marijuana-Related Businesses Sections: 19.280.010 Purpose. 19.280.020 Applicability. 19.280.030 General requirements. 19.280.040 Separation requirements. 19.280.050 Application requirements. 19.280.060 Signage. 19.280.070 Security requirements. 19.280.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to minimize the impacts of marijuana-related businesses on surrounding properties and ensure public safety while providing for appropriate siting of marijuana- related businesses licensed in accordance with state law. 19.280.020 Applicability. This chapter establishes special regulations that govern marijuana-related businesses.Marijuana- related businesses uses include marijuana processor,marijuana producer,and marijuana retailer as defined in FWRC 19.05.Marijuana-related businesses do not include medical marijuana collective gardens or medical marijuana dispensaries as regulated under Chapter 69.51A RCW. 19.280.030 General requirements. Marijuana-related businesses shall: 1. Be entirely within a secure, fully-enclosed structure with rigid walls, a roof, and doors.The structure shall comply with the City of Federal Way building codes and any other applicable codes; 2. Shall not operate as an accessory to a primary use or as a home occupation; 3.Not be established or conducted in a building that includes a residential use 4. Be operated by persons or entities holding a valid marijuana license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board issued under Chapter 314-55 WAC and any other applicable state laws and regulations; 5. Obtain a city business license; 6. Ensure that no horticulture production, processing, or delivery of marijuana shall be visible to the public; 7. Be subject to all applicable requirements of Title 69 RCW and Chapter 314-55 WAC and other state statutes, as they now exist or may be amended; 8. Comply with any and all requirements of the Washington State Liquor Control Board; and 9.Allow inspection of the site and facilities by city personnel, including law enforcement, for compliance with all applicable permits and licenses at any time during regular business hours. 19.280.040 Separation requirements. 1. Only one(1) marijuana-related business is allowed in a single tenant space, except a marijuana licensee holding both marijuana producer and marijuana processor licenses may locate their combined operation in a single tenant space; FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses,Exhibit D File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014,Planning Commission Public Hearing Page I of 2 2.No marijuana-related business shall be permitted within one thousand(1,000)feet of any of the entities as specified and defined in RCW 69.50.331 and WAC 314-55-050,as those sections currently exist or may be modified in the future, including the following: a.Elementary or secondary school; b.Playground; c. Recreation center or facility; d. Child care center; e. Public park; f. Public transit center; g. Library; h. Game arcade where admission is not restricted to persons age twenty-one(21)and over. The distance shall be measured as the shortest straight line distance from the property line of the licensed premises to the property line of a use listed above, asprovided in Chapter 314-55 WAC,as those sections currently exist or may be modified in the future; and 3. if a use listed in subsection 2 above, locates within 1,000(one-thousand) feet of a marijuana-related business after the marijuana-related business is lawfully established, such use shall not benefit from the separation requirements of this subsection. A marijuana-related business is lawfully located under the FWRC if it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. 19.280.050 Application requirements. An application for a marijuana-related business shall include the following information in addition to the standard submittal requirements for the applicable development permit. 1. The application shall be made by: a.A marijuana licensee; or b.An applicant for a marijuana license. 2.The application shall include a copy of the license or a copy of the license application.A development permit shall not be issued for a marijuana-related business unless the applicant is a marijuana licensee. 3. A map drawn to scale showing that the proposed marijuana-related business is at least one thousand(1,000)feet from all uses specified in RCW 69.50.331 and WAC 314-55-050.A survey prepared by a surveyor licensed in the state of Washington may be required by the Director. 4.The applicant shall submit a copy of the operating plan required by the Washington State Liquor Control Board as part of the license application. 19.280.060 Signa2e. All marijuana-related business signage shall comply with the requirements specified in WAC 314-55- 155, as well as FWRC Chapter 19.140,"Signs," as applicable. 19.280.070 Security requirements. A marijuana-related business shall: 1.Have installed,prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an operational security system that is monitored twenty-four(24)hours a day; 2. Have installed,prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an operational security camera system which retains recordings from all installed cameras for a period of not less than sixty (60)days; and 3. Comply with all other provisions in WAC 314-55-083. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses,Exhibit D File 14-102659-00-UP September 17,2014, Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 2 of 2 44k CITY OF «� r Federal Way • Development Regulations for Marijuana-Related Businesses Planning Commission Study Session August 20, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION This staff report presents an overview of recreational marijuana-related businesses and preliminary recommendations for amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC)to address their siting. Marijuana related business zoning i s designated nated as a"high priority" item on the Planning Commission's work program.The Planning Commission is being asked to review proposed amendments to FWRC Title 19 and forward a recommendation to the City Council's Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC)and City Council. Following the passage of Initiative 502(I-502), which legalizes the use of marijuana and the operation of certain marijuana-related businesses in Washington State,the Federal Way City Council u iness operation coin enacted a moratorium on the b component in order to allow for adequate time to s p p study the issue and determine how best to respond to the enactment of I-502 within the Federal Way city limits.The moratorium (Ordinance 13-749)is due to expire on November 5,2014.Therefore,the City Council must either adopt regulations that govern marijuana-related businesses prior to that date, or extend the moratorium if more time is needed to study the issue prior to the adoption of applicable regulations. The Federal Way City Council must take one of the following actions prior to the expiration of the moratorium: 1. Adopt regulations related to the siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses; 2. Adopt an ordinance banning the siting of recreational marijuana-related businesses; the moratorium to allow for further study of the issue prior to adoption of local 3. Extend th Y regulation; or 4. Allow the moratorium to expire with no marijuana-related business regulations in place. What is meant by the term "Recreational Marijuana-Related Businesses"?Recreational marijuana- related businesses are characterized as one of three business types under state law: • Retail operations; • Production operations; and • Processing operations FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014.Planning Commission Study Session Page I of 8 ATTACHMENT 4 Retail operations are stores where marijuana products may be sold to buyers of legal age.Production operations are often referred to as grow operations or facilities or farms,and are businesses that grow marijuana pla nts. Finall y,processing o p erations a re businesses that take the marijuana plant material and process the plant material into consumable products that can then be sold at the retail operations. What is the focus of the proposed zoning code amendments for marijuana-related businesses? The primary issues being considered in the proposed amendments to Federal Way development regulations include: • Determine which zoning districts are potentially appropriate for the siting of marijuana-related businesses within the City of Federal Way. • Determine the appropriate locational and development standards for permitting marijuana-related businesses. • Adopt definitions of marijuana-related businesses. • Clarify that marijuana-related businesses are not allowed as a home occupation. II. BACKGROUND In November of 2012,Washington voters approved I-502 legalizing the possession of limited amounts of marijuana.According to King County election data, 63.5%of King County voters voted in favor of I-502. Statewide,the initiative passed with an approval rate of 55.7%. In the City of Federal Way, the approval rate was 53%. The initiative: • Legalizes the us e of marijuana b y p eo p le 21 years or older.They may possess up to one ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused product in solid form, and 72 ounces of marijuana-infused product in liquid form. • Specifies that only state-licensed marijuana production, processing, and sale of marijuana are permitted. • Requires licensed facilities to be at least 1,000 feet from schools, playgrounds, recreation centers,child care centers,public parks, public transit centers, libraries, and arcades. • Limits signage to a maximum of one that is no larger than 11 square feet in area. • Prohibits retail facilities from: o Displaying marijuana or marijuana products so they are visible from the public right-of-way; o Selling anything other than marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and paraphernalia. • Prohibits, for all recreational marijuana facilities,the following activities: o Advertising, in any medium,within 1,000 feet of any school,playground, recreation center, child care center,public park,transit center, library,or arcade. o Advertising on publically-owned or operated property, or within a public transit vehicle or shelter. • Prohibits on-premises consumption. • Establishes a standard for driving under the influence of marijuana. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 2 of 8 How many retail, producer,and/or processer businesses may be located in Federal Way? • State law specifies that no more than three retail outlets may be allowed within the Federal Way city limits. • A retailer may only be a retailer(not also a producer and/or processor). • A licensee may hold a producer and processor license together,but they must apply for two separate licenses,one for producer and one for processor. • There is currently no limit on the number of producer or processor businesses under state law. What is the current status of applications for marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way? Information on the proposed number and location of marijuana-related businesses is available from the Washington State Liquor Control Board(WSLCB).As stated above,the state will only license up to three retail operations in Federal Way. This number is based on population—the greater the population,the greater number of potential retail businesses within a city.There are currently 15 businesses within the city limits listed as applying for a state license,but no more than three will be able to obtain a license.The WSLCB did conduct a lottery to determine priority ranking for proposed businesses within each jurisdiction, subject to the business meeting all the local regulations. If the proposed businesses with a lottery ranking of#1,2,or 3 are unable to obtain local approval for example,then businesses ranked 4, 5, etc. would be the next eligible for the three licenses, and so on until either three licenses are successfully issued,or all proposals have been exhausted. (See Exhibit A for the proposed business locations.) How have other jurisdictions' responded to I-502? The Municipal Research Services Center(MRSC)maintains a web page with the most recent white papers, links to the WSLCB, and relative WACs and RCWs related to marijuana businesses. The MRSC maintains a table with the status of local jurisdictions' response to I-502 to date. Staff reviewed the table available online at http:!/www.Fnrsc.orgi subjects/le!ga11502!recinarijuana.a.spx at the time of the preparation of this staff report. Currently, most jurisdictions have a moratorium in place related to marijuana and are presumably conducting study of the issue.There are a few jurisdictions that have recently adopted regulations in response to 1-502, while a handful of jurisdictions have adopted interim regulations. Some jurisdictions have implemented a ban on marijuana-related businesses.This option is allowed per the opinion of the State Attorney General's office(httpliinsight.mrsc.org/20 1 4/0 1/I 6/state- atto.rney-genera(-says-cities-and-counties-cats-ban.-recreational-ittarijuana-uses!).However,the State Attorney General's opinion is not binding on the state courts, and there also was a bill (HB 2322) introduced in early 2014 that would prevent local jurisdictions from prohibiting the location of marijuana-related businesses within their borders. The following table contains a sample list of other jurisdiction's status related to marijuana-related businesses taken from the MRSC table referenced above. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 3 of 8 Table 1 Jurisdictions'Status Related to Marijuana-Related Business Regulation STATUS Ban _Moratorium Interim Zoning Zoning Enacted JURISDICTION Fife Auburn Bellevue Burien Pierce County Bainbridge Island Kirkland Des Moines Sea Tac King County Gig Harbor Edmonds Issaquah Kent Mountlake Terrace Mill Creek Seattle Milton Spokane Puyallup Tukwila Redmond Tumwater Renton Sammamish Snohomish University Place Woodinville In preparation for the discussion of this topic with the Planning Commission, staff primarily focused on the jurisdictions that have adopted regulations(zoning enacted). In review of the adopted regulations, the following common elements were noted: • Most jurisdictions do not allow outdoor growing of marijuana. • Most jurisdictions have adopted the state's definitions contained in RCW 69.50.101 for: o Marijuana; o Marijuana processor; o Marijuana producer; o Marijuana retailer; o Marijuana-infused products; o Retail marijuana outlet; and o Usable marijuana. • Most jurisdictions have adopted the state-required separation standards from sensitive uses without any additional separation standards. • Most jurisdictions do not allow marijuana-related businesses within residential zoning districts. • Most jurisdictions clearly reference the state licensing requirements and other business- related requirements for signage, advertising,etc. III. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides a summary of each of the proposed code amendments. Staff would like to emphasize that, at this point in the process;this information is provided primarily to prompt discussion with the Planning Commission.Your comments and suggestions in reaction to the preliminary draft zoning code language will help staff fine-tune the draft regulations prior to presentation at the public hearing. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 4 of 8 The staff's preliminary recommendations for zoning code amendments are based on the review of the city's existing comprehensive plan and zoning code language, state law,and other jurisdictions' treatment of recreational marijuana-related businesses. 1. Appropriate zones for marijuana-related businesses. Staff is recommending that marijuana-related businesses be allowed in the Community Business (BC)and Commercial Enterprise(CE)zones.The BC and CE zones are two of the commercial zoning districts in the city that have some land area that is greater than 1,000 feet from one or more sensitive land uses(see discussion of separation standards in Section 2 below). Specifically, staff recommends that retail marijuana businesses be allowed in both the BC and CE zones and that producer and processor businesses be allowed in the CE zone only.The table below summarizes the proposed allowable zones for the siting of marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way. Table 2 Marijuana-Related Businesses in Federal Way Zoning Districts Type SE RS RM PO BN BC CC-C CC-F OP CE Retailer Businesses P P Producer Businesses P Processor Businesses P Note:P=Permitted. For comparison,commercial zones that currently allow for liquor stores include BN,CC-C,and CC-F in addition to BC and CE zones. With regard to marijuana-related retail businesses, staff is recommending they only be allowed in the BC and CE zones as they are more auto-oriented retail zones, and therefore, less likely to be developed over time with sensitive and family-friendly land uses such as parks and schools. The Neighborhood Business(BN)and City Center-Core and-Frame(CC-C and CC-F)zones are more likely to be developed with sensitive land uses and mixed use,pedestrian-oriented development over time, and therefore,would be less compatible with marijuana-related businesses in light of state licensing and operation requirements. The reason that the producer and processor businesses are only recommended to be allowed in the CE zone, is that the CE zone allows for larger-scale,big box and light industrial type uses.The growing of marijuana is anticipated to require larger site sizes, large buildings or greenhouse structures, and have greater water and energy usage, and wastewater and solid waste production. Marijuana production would be considered a manufacturing use and the CE zone is the zone in the city that allows such a use outright. 2. Appropriate separation standards for marijuana-related businesses. Staff is recommending that Federal Way adopt the state mandated separation standards from sensitive land uses. Under I-502, recreational marijuana licensed business cannot be within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any of the following entities: 1. Elementary or secondary school; 2. Playground; 3. Recreational center or facility; 4. Child care center; 5. Public park; FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 5 of 8 6. Public transit center; 7. Library; or 8. Any game arcade where admission is not restricted to persons age 21 or older. Per 1-502, distances are measured as follows: measure distance in a straight line, from the perimeter of a restricted area to the perimeter of a potential location. Staff is working on an exhibit(map)that we will provide at the workshop that shows where marijuana-related businesses could potentially be located based on these separation standards. Also, superimposed for reference on this exhibit will be the locations of the proposed retail businesses based on information obtained from the WSLCB. You will see that in some cases, businesses have been proposed in locations that will not be permissible based on application of state mandated separation standards. The exhibit will show the BC and CE zoning district boundaries in relation to the separation standards to represent the potential area available to locate marijuana-related businesses based on the preliminary recommendations for appropriate zoning districts presented in Section 1 above. 3. Proposed definitions for marijuana-related businesses. Staff recommends adopting the following new definitions from RCW 69.50.101 as follows: "Marijuana"means all parts of the plant Cannabis,whether growing or not,with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis;the seeds thereof;the resin extracted of the plant;and very compound,manufacture,salt,derivative,mixture,or from any part p ry p , preparation of the plant,its seeds or resin.The term does not include the mature stalks of the plant,fiber produced from the stalks,oil,or cake made from the seeds of the plant,any other compound,manufacture,salt,derivative,mixture,or preparation of the mature stalks(except the resin extracted therefrom),fiber,oil,or cake,or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. "Marijuana processor"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products,package and label useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products for sale in retail outlets,and sell useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products at wholesale to marijuana retailers. "Marijuana producer"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the sale at wholesale of marijuana to marijuana processors and other marijuana production and sa marijuana J P producers. "Marijuana retailer"means a facility licensed by the State Liquor Control Board where useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products may be sold at retail. "Marijuana-infused products"means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use.The term"marijuana-infused products"does not include usable marijuana. "Retail marijuana outlet"means a location licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the retail sale of usable marijuana and marijuana-infused products. "Usable marijuana"means dried marijuana flowers.The term"useable marijuana"does not include marijuana-infused products. 4. Add a new section to FWRC Title 19 called "Marijuana-Related Businesses." FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 6 of 8 This new section in Title 19 would clearly identify the requirement for compliance with all state licensing requirements(see www.liq.wa.gov for specifics)including,but not limited to: • Signage/advertising • Facility size • Staffing • Background checks • Product labeling/packaging • Security • Hours of operation(8 am to 12 am) • Indoor/outdoor: Grow operations shall be in buildings/greenhouses(note: 1-502 allows for outdoor grow but public view must be obscured by a wall or fence at least eight feet in height and must meet security requirements described in WAC 314-55-083) • State law does not allow for grow operations at a personal residence Other concerns: • Solid waste management from producer and processer businesses. • Waste water management—may contain insecticide and fertilizer chemical concentrations. • Odors. • Fire protection and permitting—especially related to hazardous flammable/explosive materials. • Building code compliance. The growing and processing of marijuana is anticipated to require a lot of water for growing,rowin and generate wastewater from production. In addition,the growing and processing of marijuana may involve agrichemicals that could find their way into P g J Y g wastewater and solid waste, so proper handling of waste needs to be addressed in reviewing and approving the siting of these facilities. Additionally, fire protection is a special consideration when the processing of marijuana involves solvents or other hazardous and potentially explosive materials. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION POINTS Staff is asking for Planning Commissioners' input on the draft recommendations presented in this staff report and look forward to hearing your feedback on the issues listed below,as well as any additional issues you may have identified related to the siting of marijuana-related businesses in Federal Way. With your advance input on this topic,staff will then prepare a report that provides further analysis of these issues, as well as a series of specific recommendations for your consideration and action at an upcoming meeting. 1. APPROPRIATE ZONES Staff's preliminary recommendation is that marijuana-related businesses only be allowed in the Community Business(BC)and Commercial Enterprise (CE)Zones. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 7 of 8 Discussion: Do you agree with the general siting recommendations outlined in Table 2? 2. SEPARATION STANDARDS Staff's preliminary recommendation is that the city adopts the state-required separation standards for marijuana-related businesses of 1,000 feet from designated sensitive uses. Discussion: Do you agree with the general recommendations for separation standards for marijuana-related businesses? 3. PROPOSED DEFINITIONS Staff's preliminary recommendation is that the city adopts the state's definitions for marijuana and marijuana-related businesses as established by RCW 69.50.101. Discussion: Are you comfortable with the proposed definitions for marijuana and marijuana-related businesses? 4. PROPOSED NEW CODE SECTION ON MARIJUANA-RELATED BUSINESSES Staff's preliminary recommendation is that city adopt a new code section in Title 19 on Marijuana-related businesses Discussion: Do you have any particular concerns,comments or questions about the preliminary recommendations for a new code section on marijuana-related businesses? 5. OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS Are there other discussion topics or questions pertaining to marijuana-related businesses that the Planning Commission would like to raise at this time? V. PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT STEPS Staff will consider the input of the Planning Commission and prepare detailed proposed code amendments for your consideration at an upcoming public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 17,2014. FWRC Code Amendments—Marijuana-Related Businesses File 14-102659-00-UP August 20,2014,Planning Commission Study Session Page 8 of 8 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION September 17,2014 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present:Tom Medhurst,Lawson Bronson,Hope Elder, Sarady Long,Wayne Carlson, Diana Noble-Gulliford,Anthony Murrietta, and Nikole Coleman-Porter.Commissioner absent: Tim O'Neil(excused). City Council Members present: Bob Celski and Lydia Assefa-Dawson. Staff present: Interim Community Development Director Larry Frazier,Planning Manager Isaac Conlen,Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Senior Planner Matt Herrera,Officer Sierra Baker, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Call, and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of August 20,2014,were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen introduced Alternate Commissioners Murrietta and Coleman-Porter,and Interim Community Development Director Frazier. He stated the next Commission meeting will be October 15, 2014. Because of a City Council budget meeting,the Planning Commission will be meeting in the Patrick Maher Room. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING—Proposed Amendments Related to Development Regulations for Marijuana- Related Businesses Senior Planner Shull delivered the staff presentation. She went over the background and the staff's overall approach, which is intended to align with I-502 and the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) licensing requirements. Staff has been researching what other jurisdictions are doing and she noted that of those that have adopted regulations,most have adopted the state regulations.The proposed amendments will allow marijuana retail businesses in the Community Business(BC)and Commercial Enterprise(CE)zones. They will allow marijuana production and processing businesses only in the CE zone.The proposed amendments will adopt the state's minimum 1,000-foot separation from sensitive uses, as well as the state's definitions. Lastly,the proposed amendments propose a new chapter that deals with other marijuana-related businesses regulations, such as signage must meet state regulations and they may not be a home occupation. K\Planning Commission\2014\Meeting Summary 09-17-14 doc ATTACHMENT 5 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 September 17,2014 The meeting was opened for public testimony. Senior Planner Shull read a letter into the record from George Garrett,CMA.He is in support of the proposed amendments.He is one of the three winning lottery applicants selected to receive a retail marijuana license as issued by the state.He writes: "My statement is simple: residents of Federal Way are using marijuana and marijuana-related products every day despite the ban on legal retail marijuana facilities.Without any legal channels by which to obtain marijuana currently,a marijuana consumer is forced to obtain his or her product on the black market. By moving forward to allow the legal and highly regulated sale of marijuana and marijuana-related products,you move this existing business out of the black market and into a business that contributes to the community by generating well-paying jobs and tax revenues. Of further importance,you remove money from the underground economy,much of which ends up supporting illegal activities, locally, nationally and beyond our borders." Commissioner Carlson complimented staff on their work and that they took the Commission's direction to follow the state guidelines. He agrees that the BC and CE zones are the most compatible for this type of use. He is concerned that the city recently passed an amendment locating Group Homes Type III in these zones as well. Specifically, his concern is that those who may be struggling with the use of controlled substances will possibly be housed close to a business selling a previously controlled substance.He proposed a separation standard of 300 feet from Group Homes Type III be included in the proposed amendments.The Commission debated this issue.Commissioner Elder commented that she agrees that the city has to be sensitive to group homes.Alternate Commissioner Coleman-Porter expressed concern that additional separation standards would decrease the amount of property available for marijuana-related businesses. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated that many churches may house a sensitive use(day care, school)and should also be included in the separation standards. Senior Planner Shull commented that if a church has a sensitive use registered with the state(i.e. day care)they will be subject to the separation standards. Staff did not include churches in general in the separation standards because many are located in retail outlets and including,them could decrease the amount of property available for marijuana-related businesses. Commissioner Bronson commented that he is concerned that if a marijuana-related business is established and later a sensitive use(day care,maybe group home)chose to site closer to the marijuana-related business than the separation standards,that would make the marijuana-related business nonconforming. Senior Planner Shull stated if a sensitive use chooses to be established within the separation standards, that would not make the already established marijuana-related business nonconforming. She went on to say that the city cannot deny a sensitive use(day care)if it chooses to locate within the separation standards.Commissioner Elder commented that allowing a sensitive use to establish within the separation standard does not sound consistent. Commissioner Long expressed concern regarding the possibility of a marijuana-related business located near a family-oriented business(such as Pattison's West). He requested that staff sent a notice to all family-oriented businesses in the BC and CE zones that the city is proposing these amendments and a marijuana-related business may locate near them. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta stated that the people voted yes for I-502 and the Commission and city sho uld honor that de cision. Commissioner Bronson agreed and noted that li uor-related businesses do not have separate regulations. Chair Medhurst commented that this is a stewardship moment for our city. We need to consider what we want our city to be. K Planning Commission A2014\Meeting Summary 09-17-14.don Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 17,2014 was seconded by Commissioner Noble-Gulliford)to ban marijuana- related Bronson moved and it as s Co ( Y related businesses in the City of Federal Way. There was no further discussion. A roll-call vote was held: Chair Medhurst—Yes Commissioner Carlson—No Vice-Chair Bronson—Yes Commissioner Long—Yes Commissioner Elder—Yes Commissioner Noble-Gulliford—Yes With five(5)yes and one(1)no,the motion carries.The public hearing was closed Commissioner Bronson moved(and it was seconded)to change the order of the agenda and hold the Briefing on the Critical Areas Ordinance before the Briefing on the Comprehensive Plan Update.There was no further discussion and the motion carried. BRIEFING-Critical Areas Ordinance Update Senior Planner Herrera delivered the staff presentation. The purpose of this briefing is to share the findings from the city's consultant(Environmental Science Associates).He went over the background, explained what critical areas are,and what the critical areas ordinance does. Our consultant found gaps in our existing ordinance: * Provisions regarding unauthorized alterations and enforcement. * Mitigation sequencing steps. * Wetland mitigation ratios for creation,restoration, or enhancement. Hand functions and value. * system that considers wetland rating y * No stream buffer enhancement requirements. * No buffer from eolo g Y icall hazard area setback. g They also found opportunities for change: * Use State Department of Natural Resources stream typing. * Could provide greater flexibility of buffers/setbacks for non-salmon bearing streams. * No gaps or confusion between state and local regulations. * Rely on state's best available science. * Use State Department of Ecology wetland classification. * Applicants would no longer need to apply both city and state ratings in order to obtain permits. * Again,we can rely on state's best available science. * Allow offsite mitigation of wetland impacts. * Provide a list of allowed activities that do not require permits. * Modification of existing structures, invasive removal, grandfathered vegetative maintenance. * Allow administrative decisions for certain permits. * Encroachments into stream and wetland buffers. * Public notice of application and opportunity to comment would remain. * Structure the code for better ease of use. * Housekeeping * All definitions,purpose statements and policies within the critical areas chapter of zoning and development code. Senior Planner Herrera commented that the city has a lot of information on the city's webpage (www.cityoffederalway.com/criticalareas), including a survey, a short video explaining several K.\Planning Commission\2014\Meeting Summary 09-17-14 doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 17,2014 environmental considerations, and several city documents(map, staff presentation,etc.).The city plans to hold a public workshop in October or November 2014 and focus/stakeholder group interviews in October or November 2014.The proposed amendments will then go to the Land Use/Transportation Committee for a briefing in December 2014 and a study session with the Planning Commission in January 2015. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked for a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. She also asked if aquifer recharge areas are a part of the critical areas ordinance update and what to do about old ones. Specifically, she is concerned because Federal Way's first well, which is located at Brooklake and is close to a wetland, and a new fire station may be built on the site. Senior Planner Herrera replied that current aquifer recharge areas are part of the ordinance update. He will need to research about the old ones. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked what the city can do in the meantime about the gaps found by the consultants. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the State Environmental Protection Act(SEPA)process will address the gaps. Planning Manager Conlen assured the Commission that the city's current regulations are not dysfunctional or non-effective, but they can be improved. BRIEFING—Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWRC)Major Update—Chapter Ten,"Private Utilities" Commissioner Long recused himself; he is working on this project as a staff member. Principal Planner Clark delivered the presentation. She went over the background and stated that staff will be streamlining the plan to make it easier for the citizens and decision makers to read and quickly grasp the vision and how it will be implemented.It is difficult for staff to update this chapter due in part to changes in and upgrades/changes by the utilities. For this GMA required chapter,most other technology an pgr g y q ci jurisdictions describe what exists and generally what may exist in the future an d the city will do the same in our chapter with this update.The majority of the edits are corrections of outdated language and elimination of unnecessary'language. The city is in process o f obtaining information from some private utilities(such as Puget Sound Energy), but this should not affect the policy level discussion. Staff proposes to delete the detailed descriptions on how the utilities work because this information is easily found elsewhere. Staff recommends deleting the Issue Statements as they do not appear to add value to the chapter(in addition,no other chapters have Issue Statements). Staff proposes to delete two of the current goals and add a different goal. Finally, staff proposes deleting five of the current 23 polies and adding two new policies. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford noted that Waste Management is not included in the chapter and asked if they are exempt.Principal Planner Clark replied she does not know why they have not been included and will talk with the city's Solid Waste Coordinator about adding information on Waste Management. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford also noted that the city has a franchise with the Zayo Group for a fiber optic network in the city and suggested that utilities of this type be added to the chapter.Principal Planner Clark replied that she will research the issue. Alternate Commissioner Coleman-Porter suggested that the staff indicate any goals and/or policies required by the state or county. Senior Planner Clark replied that the state and King County each has one for private utilities. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. K.1Planning Commission\2014Uvleeting Summary 09-17-14.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION August 20,2014 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present:Lawson Bronson, Sarady Long,Wayne Carlson,Tim O'Neil,Diana Noble- Gulliford,and Nikole Coleman-Porter. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst, Hope Elder,and Anthony Murrietta(all excused). City Council present: Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge,Members Lydia Assefa- Dawson, and Martin Moore. Guest present: King County Environmental Health Planner Amy Shumann. Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Janet Shull,Associate Planner Stacey Welsh, Officer Sierra Baker,Assistant City Attorney Ryan Call, and Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 2, 2014,were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen stated the next Commission meeting will be a public hearing on the proposed amendments regarding marijuana-related business on September 17,2014. He commented that the Commission will be meeting often the next few months regarding the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Major Update. COMMISSION BUSINESS PRESENTATION-Seattle King County Health Department,"Health and Comprehensive Planning" King County Environmental Health Planner Amy Shumann delivered the presentation. While King County ranks high in regards to general health, South King County is less healthy. She reviewed health statistics Commissioners with a copy of the Federal Way and East Federal Way Health profiles.In and provided C py Y Y P addition, she gave the Commissioners information about Communities Count, which is a public-private partnership committed to providing reliable,timely, and relevant data to improve the quality of life for King County residents(www.communitiescount.org). Ms. Shumann noted that community-wide policies and traits impact each person's health. Such policies and traits include: • Tobacco advertising near children • Availability of smoke-free housing • Bike and pedestrian facilities—access and quality K^Planning Commission\2014\Meeting Summary 08-20-14 doe ATTACHMENT 6 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 20,2014 • Parks—access and quality • Access to healthy foods • Density of liquor stores Good bike and pedestrian infrastructure; high quality public transportation;and quality, affordable housing all provide health,economic, and environmental benefits. Commissioner Carlson commented that if staff uses this data, be aware that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked what will happen to the data when the Federal Way Health Clinic closes. Ms. Shumann replied that there are no answers at this time. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford asked if marijuana use will be included in future statistics. Ms. Shumann replied that she will have to research this question and will let staff know the result. Commissioner Long asked how access to healthy food is measured.Ms. Shumann replied it is by how far one lives from a full-service grocery store. STUDY SESSION—Proposed Amendments Related to Development Regulations for Marijuana- Related Businesses Senior Planner Shull delivered the staff presentation.The intent of the study session is to provide an overview of state law and obtain Commissioner input.The City Council enacted a moratorium on marijuana-related businesses and directed staff to begin working on recommended regulations that address: appropriate zoning; health and safety; licensing; and compliance with the law.The moratorium expires on November 5,2014. Per state law, up to three retail establishments may be located in Federal Way. The state does not limit the number of processing(turning marijuana into a product)or production (growing)establishments.There are separation standards from sensitive uses(schools, libraries,parks, etc.). Given partially to these separation standards,there is little area in Federal Way where marijuana establishments may locate.To date, 15 applicants have applied for a Washington State Liquor Board marijuana retailer license in Federal Way. Staff is keeping track of how other jurisdictions are responding to this issue. Staff's preliminary recommendations for amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC)deal with appropriate zoning districts, separation standards,and definitions. Staff recommends that retail establishments be allowed in the Community Business(BC)and Commercial Enterprise(CE)zoning districts, with processing and production facilities allowed only in the CE zoning district.Adoption of the staff's recommendation of zoning districts would mean that establishments would be able to locate in a few areas at the south end of the Pacific Highway South corridor at SR 18/South 348`h Street and the north end of the Pacific Highway South corridor at South 312th and north to the city limits. Staff proposes adopting the state's minimum 1,000-foot separation from sensitive uses. Such uses include: elementary and secondary schools; playgrounds; recreational center or facility; child care center; public park; public transit center; library; and game arcades open to people under 21. Staff proposes adopting the state definitions for: marijuana; marijuana processor;marijuana producer; marijuana retailer; marijuana- infused products; retail marijuana outlet; and usable marijuana. Staff recommends adoption of a new code section that would address: signage; facility size; security; visibility;hours of operation; indoor or outdoor growing;waste management; and fire protection. Upon receipt of Commissioner input, staff will proceed with development of specific recommendations for the FWRC amendments.The recommendations for amendments will be brought to the Planning Commission for consideration at a Public Hearing scheduled for September 17. The Planning Commission recommendation is tentatively scheduled to go to the Land Use/Transportation Committee October 6 and to the City Council October 21. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the city currently has any medical marijuana dispensaries and does the city have any applications for processing and/or production facilities. Senior Planner Shull responded that the city does not have any medical marijuana dispensaries (she noted that the legal opinion is that now with 1- K\Planning Commission\2O l 4\Meeting Sumrnary 08-20-I4 doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 20,2014 502, any medical dispensaries will have to be retail outlets). Another possibility for medical marijuana is a collective garden. We do not have any that staff is aware of in Federal Way. It is unclear under I-502 how collective gardens will be regulated. Senior Planner Shull does not know if any processing and/or production facilities have been applied for. She can research the answer. Commissioner Carlson feels the staff is heading in the right direction.He is concerned about allowing group homes and marijuana-related businesses in the same area.The city may be placing people who struggle with the tendency to abuse next to retail sales of the product.Perhaps a smaller separation standard could be required for them(say a couple hundreds of feet, so we do not amplify that temptation). Senior Planner Shull responded that she has not seen a jurisdiction that has a separate separation standard for group homes, but she has seen some with separate separation standards for similar facilities. Staff will need to research this issue. Commissioner Long asked if a jurisdiction bans marijuana-related businesses, would another jurisdiction responded no, it is her establishments. Senior Planner Shull , be allowed more than three retail est P understanding that the state will only allow a certain number of retail establishments in a jurisdiction based on its population. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford expressed concern that churches are not included in the separation standards because many of them have schools and daycares. Senior Planner Shull responded that if a church daycare is registered with the state,they would be protected by the separation standard. She is not sure about schools in churches and if they are registered with the state. She will have to research this issue. Vice-Chair Bronson expressed concern that if church and home schools are registered with the state and protected by the separation standard,there may be no place in the city that a marijuana-related business could locate. Commissioner Long inquired if there is any information from Colorado regarding before and after crime rates. Officer Baker responded there are a few articles that discuss this issue and she can look up statistics that show that establishment in Tacoma are often robbed(because they are cash businesses).The potential for violence is there and some articles state they believe marijuana-related businesses have increased the crime rate in Colorado. Alternate Commissioner Coleman-Porter encouraged staff to base most of their proposed amendments on current state regulations because this is a fluid issue and those regulations may change,which could leave more detailed Federal Way regulations in conflict with the state regulations. Commissioner Long encouraged staff to make a special effort to let businesses in the proposed zoning districts and nearby areas know that amendments are being proposed that may allow marijuana-related establishments to locate near them. Vice-Chair Bronson noted that the Commission's consensus is for staff to proceed with the current direction regarding proposed amendments on marijuana-related businesses. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Planning Manager Conlen introduced Alternate Commissioner Nikole Coleman-Porter and Assistant Planner Stacey Welsh. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. K vPlannine Conunission12014\Meeting Summary 08-20-14.doc p George Garrett, CMA 19124 12th Avenue NW Shoreline,WA 98177 206-792-6857; george.garrett206 @gmail.com September 17,2014 To: Federal Way Planning Commission Re: Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC)to regulate recreational marijuana-related retail, production,and processing businesses within the city. By way of background, I am one of the three winning lottery applicants selected to receive a retail marijuana license as issued by the State, pursuant to 1-502. I encourage the City's Planning Commission to move forward with the planning for and implementation of rules and regulations allowing marijuana and marijuana-related retail sales within the City, in accordance with the voter's initiative 1-502. My statement is simple: residents of Federal Way are using marijuana and marijuana-related products every day despite the ban on legal retail marijuana facilities. Without any legal channels by which to obtain marijuana currently,a marijuana consumer is forced to obtain his or her product on the black market. By moving forward to allow the legal and highly regulated sale of marijuana and marijuana-related products, you move this is existin business out of the black market and into a business that contributes to the community by generating well-paying jobs and tax revenues. Of further importance,you remove money from the underground economy, much of which ends up supporting illegal activities, locally, nationally and beyond our borders. Regards, George Garrett,CMA, Managing Member Green Grotto LLC ATTACHMENT 7 1