Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2007-07-09 Item 3D.1 - Ordinance - SEPA Review Thresholds and Streamline Review COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS o Initials ITEM NO. i iVIeetinn Date Prepar by 1vlayor'r review I Council review F z; 05/14/07 I 7P I 1 07/09/07 1 JP `1 (rvit 1 isoa,�_ I I 1 I J =ITEM INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 07-056 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: MAY 14, 2007 AGENDA ITEM TITLE SEPA Code Amendment CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other Mtg Date 7/9/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date tbltg Date 07/16/07 Alt Date Mtg Date 07/16/07 Mtg Date SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs -1 DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW SPONSOR'S The proposal is to raise certain SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review thresholds SUMMARY and streamline the review process by combining comment periods. REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 4- 10 -07, 6 -26 -07 (CAP), 5 -14 -07 (COW), 5 -24 -07 (PC) RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward PC Recommendation to COW COM IIITEE Approve PC Recommendation; Forward to COW COST- MPACT FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $0 $0 $0 Fund Source: N/A Comments: MTG. DATE- RECORD OF CO=UNCIL ACTION 5 -14 -07 Forward to Planning Commission for a recommendation -MTG DATE ATTACHMENTS 5 -14 -07 1 Information Memo dated 5/9/07 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 4/10/07 7 -9 -07 Information Memo dated 6/28/07 1 Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 6/26/07 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Directo DATE: June 28, 2007 SUBJECT: Code Amendment SEPA BACKGROUND The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions. Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks" and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation. Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State. If a project is exempt in one category but triggers SEPA in another then SEPA is required. For example a three lot short plat on a hillside would be exempt from SEPA review unless the cut and fill required exceeded 500 cubic yards. Type of Action Tukwila's Maximum PC Proposed Threshold Threshold Thresholds Residential 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units Construction Commercial/Industrial 4,000 sf and 20 12,000 sf and 40 12,000 sf and 40 Construction parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces Parking Lots 1 40 parking spaces 1 40 parking spaces 1 No Change 1 Landfills or 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change Excavations Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application comment period for the underlying permit. The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2007 and recommended approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single family construction. At the COW meeting on May 14 the Council opted to send the proposal to NG Page 1 06/28/2007 2:40:00 PM Q: \CODEA IND \SEPAChanges \7- 9COW the Planning Commission and ask for their input on the single family threshold. The PC held a hearing on May 24 and supported raising the threshold to 9 dwelling units for single family construction as well as the changes to the commercial threshold and the optional DNS process. The CAP supported the PC recommendations and forwarded the item to COW. ANALYSIS Tukwila and other agencies with penniitting authority have a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEPA review: 1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, International Building Code, PW Standards) 2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency) 3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water (Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance, King County Surface Water Design Manual) 4. Vegetation and landscaping (Landscape Chapter of the Zoning Code, Tree Ordinance) 5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat (ESA, Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance) 6. Energy and natural resources (Building and Mechanical Codes) 7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise (Tukwila Noise Ordinance, Hazardous Waste Regulations, Department of Ecology) 8. Land and shoreline use (Zoning Code, Shoreline Master Program) 9. Housing (IBC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 10. Aesthetics, design review (Design Review) 11. Light and glare (IMC, Zoning Code, Design Review) 12. Recreation (Parks Department, Zoning Code recreation space requirements) 13. Historic and cultural preservation (No listed structures in Tukwila, Archaeological and Paleontological preservation requirements) 14. Transportation, traffic and parking (Level of Service Standards, PW Concurrency Requirements, Transportation Impact Fees, Capital Improvement Program, Zoning Code Parking requirements) 15. Public services Concurrency Requirements) 16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency (Concurrency Requirements) Because these codes and standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new NG Page 2 06/28/2007 2:40:00 PM Q:\ CODEA, viND\SEPAChanges \7- 9COW_SEPA.DO C dwelling units to 9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is approximately 12,000 sf. Because SEPA triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public notice and raising the SEPA threshold would not change that. 18.104.090 Notice of Application Procedure Notice of Application shall be provided as follows: 1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12. 2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single family residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. For short plats of 5 through 9 lots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to pp p p P TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended. Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non significance (DNS) or a mitigated determination of non significance (MDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist. The City is authorized under WAC 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying permit, saving about two weeks of processing time. PROPOSAL Raise the flexible thresholds for commercial/industrial and residential new construction as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for concurrent SEPA and project comment periods, see Attachment A for a draft ordinance. REQUESTED ACTION Send the PC recommended changes to the City Council for a final hearing and adoption of an ordinance. Attachment A Draft SEPA Ordinance NG Page 3 06/28/2007 2:40:00 PM Q: \CODEA ND \SEPAChanges \7- 9COW_SEPA.DOC DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1331 AND 1344, AS CODIFIED AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 21.04, RAISING CERTAIN THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS THAT INITIATE SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, ADOPTING THE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANT (DNS) PROCESS UNDER WAC 197 -11 -355; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the maximum level allowed by the State; and WHEREAS, raising the flexible thresholds for new construction would streamline permit review for smaller projects; and WHEREAS, very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement to analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, adopting the optional DNS process allows for a more efficient review process; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments, and has recommended the adoption of certain environmental regulation changes; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments July 16, 2007, after proper notice; and WHEREAS, after having received and studied staff analysis, the City Council believes that certain amendments to the City's development regulations are desirable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1331 §10, as codified at TMC 21.04.080, is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold determinations Adoption by reference The City adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -300 Purpose of this part 197 -11 -305 Categorical exemptions 197 -11 -310 Threshold determination required 197 -11 -315 Environmental check list 197 -11 -330 Threshold determination process C:'Documents and Settings \A5 Users Desktop Kelly\MSDATA,Grdinances\SEPA Review.dot NG:ksn 7/5/ Page 1 of 2 197 -11 -335 Additional information 197 -11 -340 Determination of Non Significance (DNS) 197 -11 -350 Mitigated DNS 197 -11 -355 Optional DNS process 197 -11 -360 Determination of Significance (DS) /initiation of scoping 197 -11 -390 Effect of threshold determination Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 1331 §11 and 1344 §6, as codified at TMC 21.04.110, are hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions Flexible thresholds A. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions: 1. For residential dwelling units in WAC 197 11-800 (1)(b)(i) up to four nine dwelling units. 2. For agricultural structures in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(ii) up to 10,000 square feet. 3. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(iii), up to 4,800 12,000 square feet, and up to 20 40 parking spaces. 4. For parking lots in WAC 197 -11- 800 (1)(b)(iv), up to 40 parking spaces. 5. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(v), up to 500 cubic yards. B. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, headquarters office, Olympia, Washington. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007. ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk Filed with the City Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number: C ?Documents and SettingslAll Users Desk top \KellyiMSDATA Ordinances \SEPA Review.doc NG:Fsn 7/5/2607 Page 2 of 2 o y' City of Tukwila q o Community Affairs Parks Committee 4. rsoa COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes June 26, 2007- 5:00 p.m. PRESENT Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson Staff: Jack Pace, Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej Guest: Chuck Parrish CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 4:57 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Sensitive Areas Ordinance The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) amendment is returning to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee since it was first heard on April 24, 2007. On April 24 the Committee suggested some minor language changes, and chose to forward it to the COW for discussion. The COW, in turn, chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the SAO amendment as written. With the exception of minor language changes, this is the same amendment that the Committee reviewed previously. In summary, the amendment addresses off -site mitigation and the amount of mitigation built into the value of a credit in a mitigation bank. The current ordinance, as written, does not address the issue of mitigation banks and is not straightforward on mitigation ratios. The proposed changes will allow the DCD Director to establish a ratio for mitigation acreage in comparison to wetland bank credits for off -site mitigation. The process will allow a certain number of mitigation bank credits to be required for impact at a specific mitigation bank in comparison to the impact made by development of the sensitive area in question. The Committee expressed their concern with mitigations occurring outside of the City when there are some sensitive areas within the City that will require funding in the upcoming years. Staff is aware of these concerns and understands the priority of on and off -site mitigation. Staff reminded the Committee that river areas cannot be utilized for wetland mitigation. The Committee is in favor of forwarding the SAO amendment to the COW for discussion. Additionally, the Committee feels that it would be in the best interest of the full Council for DCD to include a brief summary of the status of Type 2, 3 and 4 projects resulting in administrative decisions in their quarterly report. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. B. Code Amendment SEPA The amendment in question for SEPA was previously heard by the Committee on April 10, 2007. At that time, the Committee was not in consensus of the portion of the proposal which would A.....-- raise the residential construction from Tukwila's current threshold of four dwelling units to nine dwelling units. The proposal was sent to the COW for discussion. The COW chose to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission for review on the residential as well as commercial Communitv Affairs Parks Committee Minutes June 26. 2007 Paae 2 thresholds and an optional DNS process. After the Planning Commission held a public hearing, they recommended approval of the proposed amendment of increasing the residential construction threshold to nine dwelling units from four dwelling units; increasing the commercial/industrial threshold to 12,000 square feet and 40 parking spaces from 4,000 square feet and 20 parking spaces; and exercising the optional determination of non significance (DNS) process to run concurrent comment periods for the project and SEPA. Staff commented that when the City originally implemented SEPA, we did not yet have an SAO in place. The Committee supports the Planning Commission recommendation. UNANIIVIOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. C. Zoning Code Amendments Staff brought forth four proposed Zoning Code amendments. 1. Limitation on single family expansions with non conforming setbacks 2. Retaining wall setback changes 3. Administrative variance for single family lot size 4. Update to Permit Application Table at TMC 18.104.010 These amendments were originally introduced at the April 10, 2007, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. They were then forwarded to COW for discussion, and from there to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and subsequent recommendation. After a lengthy discussion, the Committee agreed to forward Amendments 1 and 4 to the COW for discussion, and they are in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations for those amendments. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FOR AMENDMENTS 1 and 4. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. In regards to Amendment 2, Retaining Wall Setback Changes, Dennis expressed concern with the wording of number four of the setback waiver. His concern is that number four will nullify the parameters set forth in numbers one through three if the applicant can attribute their need for a retaining wall to fire access requirements. Dennis would like to draft a proposed wording change for number four that staff can submit for consideration along with the Planning Commission recommendation when the amendment moves forward to the COW for further discussion. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW. The Committee is not in consensus with Amendment 3, Administrative Variance for Single Family Lot Size. Both Pam Linder and Pam Carter feel that the changes proposed by the amendment do not create provisions that would substantially affect the quality of life for Tukwila's single family home residents; and that the 500 square foot variance will allow for flexibility assisting interested property owners who are minimally under the threshold for subdivision. In contrast, Dennis shared his concern for property owners who bought in a particular location as a result of spatial housing and lot sizes. He does not support this amendment because he feels implementation of such variances for lot subdivisions has the potential to disturb the well -being of neighborhoods with the consideration that the majority of homeowners purchased their home because of the lot size layout and prefer for the lot sizes to be maintained as such. COMMITTEE IS NOT IN CONSENSUS. FORWARD TO JULY 9 COW.