HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2015-02-23 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Comm unity Affairs &
Parks Committee
O Verna Seal, Chair
O Dennis Robertson
O Allan Ekberg
AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(formerly known as CR #3) at east entrance of City Hall
Item
Distribution:
Page
V. Seal
C. C'Flaherty
D. Robertson
R. Turpin
A. Ekberg
L. Humphrey
K. Kruller
M. Dhaliwal
Mayor Haggerton
N. Gierloff
D. Cline
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(formerly known as CR #3) at east entrance of City Hall
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. A development agreement for the proposed hotel
a. Committee direction on the
Pg.1
at 90 Andover Park East.
parking issue.
Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor
b. Status on medical cannabis and review of
b. Committee direction on
Pg.25
recreational marijuana licensing.
choice of ordinance (to
Nora Gierloff, Community Development Deputy Director
continue moratorium or to
make a Zoning Code
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
change).
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, March 9, 2015
I• The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 - 433 -1800 ( TukwilaCityClerk @TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Jack Pace, Director Department of Community Development
BY: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor
DATE: February 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Development Agreement for the proposed hotel at 90 Andover Park East.
ISSUE
Should the City Council approve the Development Agreement for the proposed hotel
development at 90 Andover Park East; allowing the shared use of parking in the right -of -way of
Christensen Road?
BACKGROUND
Tukwila TSD LLC is proposing to develop a new five story hotel at 90 Andover Park East with
approximately 90 guest rooms. One parking space per room is required for lodging uses in the
Tukwila Urban Center Transit Oriented Development District. The developer has submitted a
site plan showing that the required number of parking stalls cannot be accommodated on the
project site. Therefore the developer is proposing shared use of parking and drive aisle area in
the right -of -way of Christensen Road.
TMC 18.86 allows the City to use development agreements to provide flexibility to achieve
public benefits, respond to changing community needs, or encourage modifications that provide
the functional equivalent or adequately achieve the purposes of otherwise applicable City
standards.
This item was previously discussed by the Community Affairs Committee on November 12,
2014; Committee of the Whole held a public hearing on November 24, 2014 and it was referred
back to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee on December 1, 2014. See attached
memo for the information that was provided to the City Council previously on this item
(Attachment A). Additionally, the Parks Commission was briefed on the pocket park proposal on
January 21, 2015, and the minutes of the meeting are attached (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
City Council asked staff to provide information on how the proposal complies with the City's
shoreline regulations and asked the Community Affairs and Parks Committee to further review
the proposal and make a recommendation to the Committee of the Whole. Additionally since the
last City Council meeting the developer has come back with a couple of additional options for
the City to consider, which are also attached.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
In order to help facilitate decision making on this proposal it may be easier to break down the
discussion into following issues:
1. Does the proposal comply with the city's shoreline regulations?
2. Does the city want to allow use of public right -of -way for shared parking for the hotel?
3. How many parking spaces should be shared between the hotel and trail users and how
many should be guaranteed for the trail users?
4. What is the appropriate compensation for sharing parking in the right -of -way?
1. Does the proposal comply with the city's shoreline regulations?
This area of the shoreline is designated as Urban Conservancy and the shoreline buffer ends
on the river side of the existing roadway (Christensen Road). The conceptual site plan showing
the hotel location and other site improvements meets the shoreline use, site setback and site
configuration requirements. Detailed review of the construction plans will be done during the
shoreline substantial development permit review process, which is an administrative decision
issued after public notification to the interested agencies and surrounding property owners. The
staff report of the shoreline permit is then sent to Department of Ecology for their review. See
attached handout explaining the shoreline review process and code criteria along with the map
showing the shoreline buffer (Attachment C).
2. Does the city want to allow use of public right -of -way for shared parking for the
hotel?
The existing site is a former gas station. The fuel canopy and the underground tanks were
removed in 2007. In 2008, land use approval was granted for a 12,000 sq. ft. single story retail
building that was never constructed. The existing lot is only 50,000 sq. ft. and without the shared
parking agreement the likely form of development to occur on this site is single story. The
current proposal to share the parking in the right -of -way would allow a five story hotel to be
constructed. This form of development fits in with the vision anticipated by the Southcenter
Subarea Plan for this area. The previous memo to the City Council (Attachment A) listed the
goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Southcenter Subarea Plan that are
achieved by the City entering into this development agreement.
The proposal includes:
• Shared use of parking in the right -of -way.
• Initial term of 50 years with an option to extend for 30 additional years
• The agreement shall terminate if any of the following terms are not met:
a) The applicant fails to submit a complete building permit application for the
construction of the hotel within one year; or if the construction is not completed within
three years; or if the developer does not comply with maintenance obligations;
b) If the property is redeveloped or a change of use occurs;
c) If WSDOT widens 1 -405 or should any other project or condition arise that requires
reconfiguration of Tukwila Parkway and /or the Project parking area;
d) If the developer abandons the project;
e) The developer shall renegotiate a new agreement or provide documentation showing
how the number of parking spaces required by code will be provided if the hotel use
is to continue after the expiration of the agreement.
2
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
3. How many parking spaces should be shared and how many should be
guaranteed for the trail users?
Tukwila Municipal Code requires one parking space per hotel room. The developer has stated
that the franchise requires one parking space per hotel room plus two additional spaces.
Per Smith Travel Research Report for hotels in Tukwila's general market, the occupancy rate for
year 2014 varied from 80 to 90 percent during the high season (May through September) with
December /January being the lowest around 60 percent; for an average annual room occupancy
of 77 percent.
The proposed hotel has 53 on -site parking spaces (hotel use only) and would like to share 45
parking spaces within the right -of -way (hotel and trail users). There are currently only 27 parking
spaces in the right -of -way and the developer has proposed to add 18 new parking spaces within
the undeveloped right -of -way; resulting in 45 spaces in the right -of -way. 41 out of 45 spaces will
be shared between the hotel users and trail users and four spaces will be reserved exclusively
for trail users. This allows four guaranteed spaces for the trail users but they could also park
anywhere on the remaining 41 spaces.
There is currently no data on the number of spaces used by trail users. However it can be
stated that hotel parking spaces are expected to be used primarily in the evening and night time
hours and parking for the trail access is expected to be used during day light hours.
The proposed hotel has only a small meeting room and no restaurant, therefore the parking
demand is anticipated to be less than a hotel with a large meeting room /convention facility. The
developer has also provided parking data for the hotels currently operated by them showing that
the parking demand is less than one car per occupied room (Attachment D).
4. What is the appropriate compensation for sharing parking in the right -of -way?
Since the last meeting the developer has come back with the following options for the City to
consider as appropriate compensation for allowing shared use of parking:
Option 1: Develop and maintain a public pocket park within the existing cul -de -sac with $10,000
payment to the City.
Option 2: Replace the asphalt in the cul -de -sac area with landscaping along with a monetary
payment of $93,849 to the City.
Option 3: Convert the cul -de -sac into parking area with a monetary payment of $145,897 to the
City.
3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
Listed below is the summary of compensation for all three options:
Compensation for sharing
Option 1:Pocket
Option 2: Cul -de-
Option 3: Cul -de-
parking in the right -of -way
Park
sac to
sac into parking
landscaping
Developer shall develop
x
and maintain a public
pocket park
Developer shall maintain
x
x
x
the parking area
Parking spaces for trail
41 shared and 4
41 shared and 4
41 shared and 7
users
guaranteed.
guaranteed
guaranteed
Developer shall construct a
x
x
x
pedestrian connection
between the intersection of
Andover Park East and the
Green River Trail
Members of the public
x
x
x
and emergency vehicles
will have access through
the hotel parking lot.
Monetary Payment
$10,000
$93,849
$145,897
Pros and Cons
A public pocket
The impervious
There are three
park in the urban
surface in the
additional parking
center, which
shoreline zone is
spaces under this
complements the
reduced. There is
option but
Green River Trail.
opportunity to plant
impervious surface
The impervious
native vegetation
increases. The city
surface in the
in the shoreline
gets monetary
shoreline zone is
zone. The city gets
payment of
reduced. The city
monetary payment
$145,897.
gets monetary
of $93,849.
payment of
$10,000.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The land is valued at $25 per square feet. The right of way area is 17,103 square feet with a
land value of $427,575. The developer had previously provided a cost estimate of $186,037 for
the development of the pocket park. All three options listed above cost the developer $186,037.
Additionally the developer has estimated about $6000 per year in maintenance costs. There is
no negative financial impact to the city under any of the three options.
City Council may want to decide what could be done with the monetary payment. This decision
could occur separate from the development agreement process. Some options for the City
Council to consider are:
• Put the money the city's tree mitigation fund
• Establish a shoreline restoration fund
• Designate the money towards another project in the Urban Center such as Tukwila Pond
or pedestrian bridge project.
al
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
Designate the money towards any other project on the City's Capital Improvement
Program list
Put the money in the City's general fund.
�i7i7i61►�i1�►f 7eli us]
Staff recommends that the city enter into the development agreement to share the parking in the
right -of -way in order to facilitate the hotel development. Regarding the decision on the
appropriate compensation for the shared use of right -of -way staff recommends option 2. Under
this option the city will get a monetary payment of $93,849, impervious surface in the shoreline
zone is reduced and the city still retains the opportunity to put in a pocket park at a future date.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Memo to Committee of the Whole Nov 24, 2014.
B. Meeting minutes Parks Commission meeting Jan 21, 2015.
C. Memo analyzing the proposal as it relates to the regulations in the shoreline zone along
with the buffer map.
D. Letter from the Developer with three alternative site plans.
9
M
Attachment A
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Committee of the Whole
FROM: Jack Pace, Director Department of Community Development
BY: Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor
DATE: November 18, 2014 (Revised after Community Affairs and Parks Committee
meeting on November 12, 2014)
SUBJECT: Development Agreement for the proposed hotel at 90 Andover Park East.
ISSUE
Should the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreement for the proposed hotel
development at 90 Andover Park East that would allow the shared use of parking in the right -of-
way of Christensen Road in exchange for the construction of a public pocket park?
BACKGROUND
Tukwila TSD LLC is proposing to develop a new five story hotel at 90 Andover Park East with
approximately 90 guest rooms. One parking space per room is required for lodging uses in the
Tukwila Urban Center Transit Oriented Development District. The developer has submitted a
site plan showing that only 53 parking spaces can be accommodated on the project site.
Therefore the developer is proposing shared use of parking and drive aisle area in the right -of-
way of Christensen Road in exchange for developing a public pocket park in the cul -de sac area
of Christensen Road.
TMC 18.86 allows the City to use development agreements to provide flexibility to achieve
public benefits, respond to changing community needs, or encourage modifications which
provide the functional equivalent or adequately achieve the purposes of otherwise applicable
City standards.
DISCUSSION
The proposal reviewed by the Community Affairs and Parks Committee included:
• Shared use of parking and drive aisle area in the right -of -way of Christensen Road, with
18 new parking spaces added by the developer within the undeveloped right -of -way area
adjacent to the hotel site. The developer would also reconfigure the existing spaces to
increase the number of parking spaces in the right -of -way. A total of 45 parking spaces
would be available within the right -of -way; out of which 41 will be shared between the
hotel use and members of the public with four spaces exclusively reserved for non -hotel
users including those who want to access the Green River Trail.
In exchange for the shared parking the developer shall:
a) Develop and maintain a public pocket park within the existing cul -de -sac area.
b) Maintain the park and the parking area for the term of the agreement.
c) Provide public access through the subject property to compensate for the cul -de -sac
closure.
d) Construct a pedestrian connection between the intersection of Andover Park East
and Tukwila Parkway to the pocket park and the Green River Trail.
7
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
• Initial term of 50 years with an option to extend for 30 additional years.
The agreement shall terminate if any of the following terms are not met:
a) The applicant fails to submit a complete building permit application for the
construction of the hotel within one year; or if the construction is not completed within
three years; or if the developer does not comply with maintenance obligations for the
park and the parking areas;
b) If the property is redeveloped or a change of use occurs;
c) If WSDOT widens 1 -405 or should any other project or condition arise that requires
reconfiguration of Tukwila Parkway, the Project parking area, and /or the Pocket
Park;
d) If the developer abandons the project;
e) The developer shall renegotiate a new agreement or provide documentation showing
how the number of parking spaces required by code will be provided if the hotel use
is to continue after the expiration of the agreement.
This proposal furthers the following goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
Southcenter Subarea Plan:
• The Southcenter .Subarea Plan envisions that parking will be accommodated by a
combination of off- and on- street parking spaces /lots and shared parking facilities within
the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Neighborhood.
• The Southcenter Element of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan includes policy 12.2.1 to
"Recognize, protect and enhance the open space network by augmenting existing parks,
enhancing access to passive and active recreation areas such as Tukwila Pond, Minkler
Pond and the Green River...."
• The implementation strategies for policy 10.2.1 of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
includes, "Look for opportunities for pocket park development" and "Seek opportunities
for public /private partnerships ".
• Uses that provide public access and public recreation are prioritized in the Urban
Conservancy Environment in the Shoreline Element of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
The pocket park and shared parking are considered mutually beneficial to the City and the
developer for the following reasons:
• There are currently only 27 parking spaces in the right of -way area and the proposal will
provide 45 parking spaces.
• Hotel parking spaces are expected to be used primarily in the evening and night time
hours and parking for the trail access is expected to be used during day light hours.
• The pocket park will complement the Green River Trail.
• The proposal facilitates higher intensity development that is envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan for this area.
• The cost of construction and maintenance of the pocket park and the parking spaces will
be paid for by the developer in exchange for the shared use of the parking.
Members of the public and emergency vehicles will have access through the hotel
parking lot.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
Alternative proposal discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee:
Committee's Recommendation: At the Community Affairs and Parks Committee an
alternative that would allocate the funds specified—in the development agreement for the
pocket park to go toward a tree planting project in the area of the river bank across
Christensen Road was discussed. This alternative was recommended by the Committee
as it advances the goals of regional efforts to restore aquatic ecosystems and salmon
habitat in the Green - Duwamish watershed. Under this proposal, the developer would
provide the money and the City could assume responsibility for the project, either alone
or in collaboration with a group already doing this kind of restoration work. The
Committee supported the alternative if it did not delay the agreement .or add costs for the
developer. The Committee agreed to forward the item for Committee of the Whole
discussion to include the original proposal and additional analysis relating to the
alternative proposal. The Committee of the Whole would then select the preferred
option.
Staff has further reviewed the alternative proposed by the Committee with the City's
Public Works and Parks Department and listed below is their response. A map showing
the riverbank area in the general vicinity of the subject site is attached to this memo. The
total area from south of 1 -405 to the bend in the River is approximately 73,000 square
feet. The project cost for any shoreline restoration project that includes site preparation
and planting is approximately $2 per square foot.
Review of the Committee's recommendation by Bob Giberson, Public Works
Director: Following projects are underway that might preclude the quick approval of a
Green River planting plan adjacent to 90 Andover Park East along the river:
a) Green River System Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) process will be ongoing
through early 2015. It is a US Army Corp of Engineers planning process that is being
completed by King County Flood Control District. It involves ongoing engagement
with state /federal agencies, business community, environmental community, WRIA9
and other agencies. It will include a prioritized list of capital projects to achieve flood
protection goals and vegetation management plans to address large trees and
shrubs location with respect to levees. More information about SWIF is available
online at http://«. �\,,,A,. ki .ngcounty.gov /enviro.nment /wlr /sections -pro�-:,rams /river-
f1 oodplain- sectioil/capi tai- projects /green- river- system- w.ide-- improvement-
framework.aspx
b) The Tukwila 205 Levee Certification effort will not be completed for at least one
year. The biggest unknown to obtain FEMA levee accreditation approval is the scope
of repairs and /or improvements. Any required repairs and /or improvements will
jeopardize any recent plantings.
c) The TUC Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge final design may include habitat mitigation near
the bend in the river to the south of 90 Andover Park East. The design for this project
will be completed in 2015 and constructed by 2017
As an alternative option, it appears that there is sufficient contingency in the pocket park
cost estimate to allow the developer to contribute $10,000 towards a planting plan for the
riverbank. Once a planting plan is approved by the necessary agencies, the developer's
funds can be used as a match to other available funds for a complete habitat
enhancement planting effort in this vicinity.
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
Review of the Committee's recommendation by Rick Still, Parks and Recreation
Director:
Background on why the pocket park is a valid proposal:
a) A system of pocket parks in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) is vital to meeting the
recreation and social needs of-the community because purchasing larger parcels in
this area is cost prohibitive at this time. The few parks currently located in TUC are
heavily used by patrons for spending time away from offices on breaks, gaining
access to the trail system, meeting people to gather and socialize, for exercise at or
to visit as a part of their exercise routine, for access while walking to the train, and to
enjoy nature while in an urban setting.
b) In 2006, staff met with a developer who introduced the concept of using the
Christensen Trail parking area as part of their development located between
Christensen Road and Andover Park East. Through discussions with this developer,
staff hired a landscape architect to initiate a site study and prepare a conceptual
design for a pocket park at the turnaround at the north end of Christensen Road.
This conceptual design was utilized with several developers throughout the past
seven years.
c) The Christensen Road pocket park provides an area on the north end of the TUC
where there currently is not a recreational opportunity for the community. The area is
easily accessed from local businesses and residential areas near City Hall. Hotel
development in this area increases the need for a park since many of the people
staying in hotels will be using the trail to access Starfire Sports at Fort Dent Park.
The park will help contribute to a more connected community and build a sense of
community pride.
Staff has looked at ways to accommodate tree planting along the Green River while
maintaining construction of the pocket park. Staff believes that with value engineering of
the pocket park the developer could reduce the construction cost to allow approximately
$10,000 for tree plantings along the Green River Trail at Christensen Road.
The Committee of the Whole has the following options:
1. Approve the development agreement as originally proposed to allow shared parking in
the right -of -way in exchange for building and maintaining a pocket park.
2. Approve the development agreement for the alternative proposed by the Community
Affairs and Parks Committee to allow shared parking in the right -of -way in exchange for
getting a monetary payment for the Green /Duwamish riverbank planting project.
3. Approve the development agreement as originally proposed with an amendment to
include $10,000 payment by the developer towards Green /Duwamish River
restoration /planting projects or to implement the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan related to Urban Forestry.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the City as all costs associated with the development and
maintenance of the pocket park and additional parking shall be borne by the developer. The
developer's cost estimate for the development of the pocket park and additional parking area is
$186,037. Also, the annual maintenance costs are anticipated to be $6000 per year and subject
to inflation over the term of the agreement. The land value of the right -of -area with the shared
parking is $427,575 ($25 per square foot for 17,103 square feet total area).
10
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to hold a public hearing on this item and select one of the options
listed above. Staff recommends approving the development agreement as originally proposed
with an amendment to include $10,000 payment by the developer for the Green %Duwamish
River restoration /planting project or to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan related to Urban Forestry. If the Council selects this option then Section 8 of the
Development Agreement will be revised to include a clause stating the developer shall be
responsible to make a payment of $10,000 for Green %Duwamish River restoration /planting
projects or to implement the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan related to
Urban Forestry. This payment shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit for
the hotel. Also, Exhibit 3 shall be amended to reflect this payment.
Staff also recommends adding two items to the 2015 work plan:
a) Review current policies regarding non - public uses in the public right -of -way.
b) Review policies /projects for restoration /planting projects of the Green /Duwamish
riverbank and how the city will implement the goals and policies of City's Comprehensive
Plan relating to Urban Forestry.
ATTACHMENTS
Vicinity Map
Draft Ordinance
Development Agreement
Exhibit 1- Legal Description
Exhibit 2- Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit 3- Conceptual Site Plan of the Pocket Park; list of park amenities with construction cost
estimates; and land value. estimates.
Map showing the riverbank in the vicinity of the subject site
Minutes from Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting Nov 12, 2014.
11
12
Attachment B
TUKWILA PARKS COMMISSION
PARKS & RECREATION MINUTES
c;C)C)1) F EALTr i Y F ;r_
January 21, 2015 5:30pm Tukwila Community Center
Call to Order: Committee Vice - Chairperson Don Scanlon called the meeting to order at 5:37pm.
Attendance: Commissioners — Don Scanlon, Alice Russell, Joanne McManus
Staff — Dave Johnson
Approval of Minutes: Alice Russell moved to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2014 meeting. Joanne
McManus seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Business Items
A. Proiect Update — The Commission reviewed the Project Update included in the Agenda Packet.
B. Commission Appointments —Staff informed the Commission that Julie Lee has resigned her position on
the Commission due to time constraints and will begin advertising to fill the vacancy. Hassan Abdi's
position on the Commission as a Student Representative expires in June 2015. Hassan will work with staff
to recruit a student to replace him. Alice Russell's term on the Commission expires in March 2015.
C. Department Update —Staff informed the Commission of department updates including the MLK Day of
Service at TCC and Duwamish Hill Preserve, transfer of Pool operations to the MPD, and recent clean -up
work at Crystal Spring Park.
Staff provided updates and the Commission offered feedback to the staff on the following items:
1. Duwamish Gardens — Commission "asked to begin considering names for the site. The
Commission would like to get some historical information about the site. Also suggested the
idea of holding a public contest to name the site.
2. Golf Cart Purchase at Foster Golf Links - The Commission supports the purchase.
3. Chinook Wind project - The Commission supports this project, especially as it ties in with
Duwamish Gardens and Duwamish Hill Preserve.
4. Pocket Park project —The Commission supports the development of the originally proposed
Pocket Park design along Christensen Road.
Other
A. Don Scanlon attended the City training on the Open Government Trainings Act on January 12, 2015 and
provided a summary to the Commission.
B. Joanne McManus asked staff to look into jackets or some other apparel for the Commissioners as an
identifier when meeting with the community and out in the public.
C. Don Scanlon noted that due to pollution, nearly all of the coho eggs in the Southgate Creek incubator
have died. Don is working with Public Works on this.
Adjournment: Alice Russell moved to adjourn at 6:13pm. The motion was seconded by Joanne McManus. The
motion passed unanimously.
13
14
Attachment C
Analysis of the proposal as it relates to the regulations in the shoreline zone
State Shoreline requirements are implemented through the Shoreline Overlay District in the
Tukwila Zoning Code (Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.44). Tukwila's shoreline regulations
were updated in October, 2011 when the Department of Ecology approved the City's new
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and implementing regulations.
If the Council decides to enter into the development agreement for the use of public right -of -way
for the hotel development, the project is still subject to obtaining approval of a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit by the Community Development Director and Design Review
approval by the Board of Architectural Review.
What is the process for the shoreline permit?
A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for the construction of a hotel at the
property located at 90 Andover Park East. The decision on this permit is made administratively
by the Director of the Department of Community Development after the expiration of a 30 day
public notice period. As part of that process, a detailed staff report that analyzes the proposal
with respect to the City's Shoreline Master Program is prepared and a decision is rendered. The
City's decision is sent to the Department of Ecology for its review. There is a 21 day appeal
period on Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and no construction may occur during that
time.
What is the shoreline environment designation around the subject site?
The shoreline environment along the west side of the Green/Duwamish river bank from 1 -405 to
the south city limits is Urban Conservancy. The shoreline in this area is part of the Tukwila 205
Levee.
What is the shoreline zone and shoreline buffer in this area?
The shoreline zone is the entire 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the
River. Within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction, there is a shoreline buffer, which in this area is
125 feet from the OHWM due to the presence of 205 levee. Also, it is important to note that if
there is a road that runs parallel to the river through the buffer, the buffer ends on the river side
of the existing improved street or roadway. See attached map that shows the shoreline buffer
around the subject site.
What uses are allowed in the shoreline buffer area?
TMC 18.44.050 lists the permitted uses in the shoreline buffer of the Urban Conservancy
environment. Parks and maintenance of existing streets and rights -of -way are permitted in the
buffer area. Additionally, any proposed project in the shoreline zone is reviewed to ensure that
the proposed use is consistent with TMC 18.44.030 - Shoreline Use Matrix and the underlying
zoning. The current proposal to build a hotel at the subject site is a permitted use outside the
shoreline buffer.
15
What other shoreline requirements will apply to the proposed project?
As part of the shoreline permit review process the proposed project will be reviewed to ensure
the following code requirements are met:
a) TMC 18.44.070 C.
i) General Standards to meet standards of the underlying zoning district.
ii) Setbacks and site configuration requirements.
iii) Height Restrictions of 15 feet within the river buffer area and 45 feet between the outside
edge of the buffer and 200 feet of the OHWM.
iv) Lighting to meet minimum lighting levels and at the same time preventing spillover on
the river channel.
v) Off street parking and loading — requirements to screen parking, loading or storage
facilities located between the river and any building.
b) TMC 18.44.080 Vegetation and Landscaping: The project will be reviewed for consistency
with the Shoreline Master Program's vegetation and landscaping requirements. Please note that
on properties located behind publicly maintained levees, an applicant is not required to remove
invasive vegetation or plant native vegetation within the river buffer. However retention of
existing trees; planting standards for interior parking lot and yard landscaping standards are
required along with specific vegetation management standards including limitations on use of
pesticides.
c) TMC 18.44. 100 Public Access: The project will be reviewed for consistency with the public
access requirements. As part of the development agreement, the developer has agreed to
construct a pedestrian connection between the intersection of Andover Park East and Tukwila
Parkway to the Green River Trail.
d) Analysis of "no net loss of the ecological function" shall be done. This analysis shall take into
consideration how much vegetation currently exists within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction;
what is the condition of the shoreline; and how the proposed project impacts the shoreline. This
analysis takes into consideration if any fill is proposed along the shoreline; if any stormwater
will be discharged to the river; and if there is any alteration of the vegetation. If any loss of
ecological function is anticipated then the loss is mitigated through one or a combination of the
mitigation sequencing steps identified in the SMP.
16
Shoreline Buffer: 90 Andover Park East
r
4 fi
0.'"i �f
��
r(r➢"7ek.. '�iA
^ w';
�dy
"zo
Y
Y
�
Buffer Ends At
�
„uN d Ar
w /
Roadway Edge
{
w
a
L
v u19Y� Ilk,Y
x�
I�
PP4
y�rcpYi"�"�
4 +�✓`i;�'Y 6 } M✓�i'; �^ 4 Vn R'', 746'
�+
K
�P
m
w
Y
�t
�9 j
M
Y
�,rn.�'�n�u4'ki✓ 1'� i4"+iir�:jw
W%I
� {
"Yr i
Shoreline Jurisdiction
;
r
im
Attachment D
January 27, 2015
Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal
Planning Supervisor
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Sent via email: Minnie.Dhaliwal @TukwilaWA.gov
RE: Proposed hotel to be located at 90 Andover Park East by Tukwila TSD LLC
Dear Ms. Dhaliwal:
We have reviewed the attached three development scenarios that include design options for
development of our proposed hotel and the adjacent parking area and /or pocket park that would
allow shared use parking in the right -of -way of Christensen Road. We are seeking approval of
one of the options so that we may finalize a Development Agreement that would allow shared
use parking in exchange for the selected option.
We want the City to select the Scenario that is best suited for their needs; however, we are of the
opinion that Option 3, which would maximize parking for the park and hotel and allow for
development of 101 spaces (53 on -site hotel spaces and 48 off -site spaces along Christensen
Road) is the best option for the City, Public, and hotel. The cost for development of this scenario
is approximately $40,140 which would include a payment of $145,897 to the City for utilization
as deemed most appropriate for the City's needs.
The second preferred option is Option 2. This Scenario would include landscaping the cul -de sac
area at the north end of Christensen Road which would allow for development of 98 spaces (53
on -site hotel spaces and 45 off -site spaces along Christensen Road). The cost of this scenario is
estimated to be $92,188 with a residual amount of $93,849 being paid to the City for utilization
as deemed most appropriate for the City's needs.
The third preferred option is Option 1. This scenario would include development of the existing
cul de sac into a pocket park as initially proposed which would allow for development of 98
spaces (53 on -site hotel spaces and 45 off -site spaces along Christensen Road). The cost of this
scenario is estimated to be $186,037 less $10,000 that will be paid to the City for use along the
Green River Shoreline or for other appropriate uses.
Me,
Ms. Minnie Dhaliwal
January 27, 2015
Page 2
The proposed hotel will include 92 rooms with no restaurant and only a board room and one
small meeting room which should minimize the amount of parking required (94 spaces required
per hotel company). Most of the hotel's parking will be required during the late evening hours
with minimal parking needed during daylight hours. We have also attached a summary of three
different hotels' parking requirements at various times of the daylight hours. Based on our
experience, guests will require minimal parking during the daytime hours which should leave
more than adequate parking for the public (see the attached parking summary).
Our architect cannot finalize plans until we have approval to proceed. We have already acquired
the site and would greatly appreciate a timely decision so that we might move forward with the
preliminary design that must then be submitted to the City for review and approval before we can
get building permits.
We thank you for your assistance and look forward to expediting the Development Agreement.
Sincerely,
wila TSD LLC
20
Parking Stats:
Based on the hotels we operate within King County in neighboring cities close to Tukwila and Eastern
Washington, this is an example of what we observed from the hotel parking lot.
All three hotels include one board room and one hotel also has an additional meeting room that seats 50
persons (p). None of the hotels has a restaurant. The following tables show the occupied rooms for the
day and number of cars parked at the designated hours surveyed.
Hotel 1 [60]
1 Board room
Friday /Sat
Sunday
Mon — Wednesday
Thursday
Occupied Rooms
38
20
24
22
11 AM — Cars in lot
3
4
4
2
5 PM — Cars in Lot
1
1
7
3
Hotel 2 [100]
1. Board Room & 1
Meeting Room 50p
Friday/Sat
Sunday
Mon — Wednesday
Thursday.
Occupied Rooms
26
17
65
51
11 AM — Cars in Lot
7
2
5
4
5 PM — Cars in Lot
3
3
18
6
Hotel 3 [85]
1 Boardroom
Friday /Sat
Sunday
Mon — Wednesday
Thursday
Occupied Rooms
65
18
37
32
11 AM — Cars in Lot
6
7
6
4
5 PM — Cars in Lot
5
4
10
7
21
22
OPTION 2
- CUL DE SAC INTO
LANDSCAPING
EXISTING CURB LINE
TUKWILA PARKWAY
LANDSCAPING
9d-d
LS
4 W OF SI E
AR IN
S AC S� -'
PST
I a
...
I b
I
PATIO
:::;:;::;:: €: #: <:
t
Cu
::......................
..........
0
N
w
Li
CL
Q
HOTEL
&TYPICAL PARKING
Cu
w
5 -5TORY
ORCE 9'X19'
Q
_
59, 17 0 5Q. FT.'
W
92 UNITS
u�
o
o
¢
�W
>
L3
L3
o
4
a
(1)
I
o
w --
N
w
PROPERTY LINE
�b4
A
Z
J
Y
v ¢
(n
-
Of
A
w
I2
¢
I
v
�
o
x
53 ONSITE PARKING SPACES
a
z
ti
I
4� On:3ITE
PAR
NG
C
C C C C C C
C
C C C C C C C C C C
X
w
ICICICICICI
I
it
-- --
-- --
--
SITE PLAN - OPTION 2
1 " - 50' -0"
53 ONSITE PARKING SPACES
N 45 OFFSITE PARKING SPACES
98 TOTAL
Ii
HOLIDAY INN XPRESS
TULWILA, WA
TUKWILA TSD L.L.C.
Dale 5weenec,.
ARCHITECT
5715 143rd Place S.E.
Ballewe. WA 98006
425 - 260 -8969
1/22/15
23
24
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Jack Pace, Director DCD'
BY: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
DATE: February 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Medical Cannabis Status and review of Recreational Marijuana Licensing
ISSUE
Tukwila's current moratorium on medical cannabis collective gardens and dispensaries will
expire on May 27, 2015. Should the moratorium be renewed or should Tukwila modify the
zoning code to prohibit these uses?
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the Washington State legislature passed ESSB 5073, codified as RCW 69.51 A,
creating rules regarding medical cannabis patients, collective gardens, and medical cannabis
dispensaries. The Governor vetoed portions of the bill. The partial veto created conflicts in the
remaining portions of the bill but the general assumption is that dispensaries are prohibited by
the veto but "qualifying patients" can participate in "collective gardens ". The bill allows local
jurisdictions to adopt and enforce requirements for zoning, business licensing, health and safety
and business taxes related to the "production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis and
cannabis products within their jurisdiction" (RCW 69.51 A. 130).
Since August 15, 2011, the City Council has enacted and renewed moratoriums on cannabis
collective gardens and dispensaries. The latest renewal, Ordinance 2439, will sunset on May
27, 2015. While the moratorium was enacted and extended, the City waited, expecting the state
to provide clarification on the statutes and the conflicts created by the partial veto and to create
clarity on the relationship between medical cannabis and recreational marijuana. So far the
current legislative session has not resulted in the adoption of any new or clarified regulations for
medical cannabis.
DISCUSSION
The Federal Government's Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the possession and
distribution of marijuana for any purpose. In March, 2014, U.S. District Attorney Jenny Durkin
issued a statement that all medical cannabis dispensaries are illegal but the Federal
Department of Justice will not focus resources on individuals that are in "clear and unambiguous
compliance with existing state laws." This follows US Deputy Attorney General's statement
25
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
before the US Senate in September, 2013 that the Governor of Washington is expected to
"implement a strong and effective regulatory and enforcement system to fully protect against the
public health and safety harms..." (see Attachment A). The State of Washington is developing
a clearly regulated system for recreational marijuana but the State has yet to create laws that
provide clear or unambiguous rules for medical marijuana use, production or sale.
State law clearly does not allow medical cannabis dispensaries so allowing them would not be
legal and disallowing them would be unnecessarily redundant. However, collective gardens
remain illegal under federal law and are not subject to a State regulatory system that the
Department of Justice has indicated is necessary to avoid DOJ scrutiny.
The expectation remains that the future for medical cannabis in Washington State will involve
either merging the medical cannabis and recreational marijuana uses into a combined
regulatory system or establishing a regulatory system for medical cannabis. The current system
with strict regulations on recreational marijuana and essentially no regulation on medical
cannabis is untenable. As the recreational marijuana regulatory system matures, the impacts of
marijuana production, processing, and retail sales will be better understood.
Currently the cities of Kent, Bonney Lake and Woodinville have prohibited collective gardens.
Last March the state court of appeals upheld Kent's ordinance. If and when the Federal
Government changes the legal status of marijuana and /or if the State of Washington develops a
regulatory system for medical cannabis that satisfies the DOJ, the City of Tukwila can choose to
revisit allowing medical cannabis collective gardens in the City of Tukwila. At this time, allowing
medical cannabis in the City would have the City preempting Federal law.
Recreational Marijuana Status
At this time there are nineteen active applications for recreational marijuana producers,
processors, or retailers within Tukwila but as of January 27, 2015 the Washington State Liquor
Control Board (LCB) has yet to issue any licenses for locations within the City. No proposed
locations meet both Tukwila's zoning standards (location in Heavy Industrial or Tukwila Valley
South zones) and the LCB buffers around schools, parks, etc.
Next Steps
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee is being asked to choose between renewing the
current medical cannabis moratorium or sending an ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis
collective gardens and dispensaries to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.
Options:
1) Forward the question to the full Council for consideration at the March 9m Committee of
the Whole meeting; or
2) Recommend renewing the moratorium on medical cannabis and forward the item to the
April 27 Committee of the Whole meeting for a public hearing and adoption at the May
4'h Regular Meeting; or
3) Forward an ordinance prohibiting medical cannabis collective gardens and dispensaries
to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation at their March 26th
26 Z: \DCD n Clerk's \to Melissa \COW InfoMemo Med Cannabis.dou
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
meeting followed by a hearing at the April 27th Committee of the Whole and adoption at
the May 4' Regular Meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None
GTE0707 Pi1A�[* '
Staff recommends option 3, referring an ordinance adopting a Zoning Code prohibition on
medical cannabis collective gardens and dispensaries to the Planning Commission for a hearing
and recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Statement of James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General
Z: \DCD n Clerk's \to Melissa \COW InfoMemo Med Cannabis.docx
27
W.
STATEMENT OF
JAMES M. COLE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
FOR A HEARING ENTITLED
"CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL MARIJUANA LAWS"
PRESENTED ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
Attachment A
29
Testimony of James M. Cole
Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
September 10, 2013
Good afternoon Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished
Members of the Committee. I am pleased to speak with you about the guidance that the
Department recently issued to all United States Attorneys regarding marijuana enforcement
efforts. That guidance instructs our prosecutors to continue to enforce federal priorities, such as
preventing sales of marijuana by criminal enterprises, preventing violence and the use of
firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana, preventing distribution to minors, and
preventing the cultivation of marijuana on public lands — priorities that we historically have
focused on for many years — and also notes that we will continue to rely on state and local
authorities to effectively enforce their own drug laws as we work together to protect our
communities.
I. Introduction
As you know, the relevant federal statute, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA),
among other prohibitions, makes it a federal crime to possess, grow, or distribute marijuana, and
to open, rent, or maintain a place of business for any of these purposes.
For many years, all 50 states have enacted uniform drug control laws or similar
provisions that mirrored the CSA with respect to their treatment of marijuana and made the
possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana a state criminal offense. With such
overlapping statutory authorities, the federal government and the states traditionally worked as
partners in the field of drug enforcement. Federal law enforcement historically has targeted
sophisticated drug traffickers and organizations, while state and local authorities generally have
focused their enforcement efforts, under their state laws, on more localized and lower -level drug
activity.
Starting with California in 1996, several states have authorized the cultivation,
distribution, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes, under state law. Today,
twenty -one states and the District of Columbia legalize marijuana use for medical purposes
under state law, including six states that enacted medical marijuana legislation in 2013.
30
Throughout this time period, the Department of Justice has continued to work with its
state and local partners, but focused its own efforts and resources on priorities that are
particularly important to the federal government. The priorities that have guided our efforts are:
• Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs,
and cartels;
• Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in
some form to other states;
• Preventing state - authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for
the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana;
• Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use;
• Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and
environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
• Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
Examples of our efforts have included cases against individuals and organizations who
were using the state laws as a pretext to engage in large -scale trafficking of marijuana to other
states; enforcement against those who were operating marijuana businesses near schools, parks,
and playgrounds; and enforcement against those who were wreaking environmental damage by
growing marijuana on our public lands. On the other hand, the Department has not historically
devoted our finite resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of
marijuana for personal use on private property.
II. The Department's Updated Marijuana Enforcement Guidance
In November 2012, voters in Colorado and Washington State passed ballot initiatives that
legalized, under state law, the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and made Colorado and
Washington the first states to provide for the regulation of marijuana production, processing, and
sale for recreational purposes. The Department of Justice has reviewed these ballot initiatives in
the context of our enforcement priorities.
On August 29, 2013, the Department notified the Governors of Colorado and Washington
that we were not at this time seeking to preempt their states' ballot initiatives. We advised the
Governors that we expected their states to implement strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems to fully protect against the public health and safety harms that are the focus
2
31
of our marijuana enforcement priorities, and that the Department would continue to investigate
and prosecute cases in Colorado and Washington in which the underlying conduct implicated our
federal interests. The Department reserved its right to challenge the state laws at a later time, in
the event any of the stated harms do materialize — either in spite of a strict regulatory scheme, or
because of the lack of one.
That same day, the Department issued a guidance memorandum to all United States
Attorneys directing our prosecutors to continue to fully investigate and prosecute marijuana
cases that implicate any one of our eight federal enforcement priorities. This memorandum
applies to our prosecutors in all 50 states and guides the exercise of prosecutorial discretion
against individuals and organizations who violate any of our stated federal interests, no matter
where they live or what the laws in their states may permit. Outside of these enforcement
priorities, however, the Department will continue to rely on state and local authorities to address
marijuana activity through enforcement of their own drug laws. This updated guidance is
consistent with our efforts to maximize our investigative and prosecutorial resources during this
time of budget challenges, and with the more general message the Attorney General delivered
last month to all federal prosecutors, emphasizing the importance of quality priorities for all
cases we bring, with an eye toward promoting public safety, deterrence, and fairness.
Our updated guidance also makes one overarching point clear: the Department of Justice
expects that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana - related
conduct will implement effective regulatory and enforcement systems to protect federal priorities
and the health and safety of every citizen. As the guidance explains, a jurisdiction's regulatory
scheme must be tough in practice, not just on paper. It must include strong enforcement efforts,
backed by adequate funding.
We are emphasizing comprehensive regulation and well - funded state enforcement
because such a system will complement the continued enforcement of state drug laws by state
and local enforcement officials, in a manner that should allay the threat that a state - sanctioned
marijuana operation might otherwise pose to federal enforcement interests. Indeed, a robust
system may affirmatively address those federal priorities by, for example, implementing
effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other
states, prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that
funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and
accounted for. In those circumstances, consistent with the traditional allocation of federal -state
efforts in this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory
bodies should remain a necessary part of addressing marijuana- related activity.
32
III. Conclusion
The Department of Justice is committed to enforcing the CSA in all states, and we are
grateful for the dedicated work of our Drug Enforcement Administration agents, our federal
prosecutors, and our state and local partners in protecting our communities from the dangers of
illegal drug trafficking. The Administration also remains committed to minimizing the public
health and safety consequences of marijuana use, focusing on prevention, treatment, and support
for recovery.
As our updated guidance reflects, we are continuing our practice of targeting conduct that
implicates federal priorities and causes harm, regardless of state law. We expect our state and
local partners to continue to do so as well. In those jurisdictions that have enacted laws that
legalize and seek to regulate marijuana for some purposes, this means that strong and effective
regulatory and enforcement systems must address the threat those state laws could pose to public
safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests.
I look forward to taking your questions.
2
33
34