Form revised December 4, 2006

 

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

 

Department:

Contact Person/Phone:

DOF Analyst/Phone:

Planning and Development

Gordon Clowers/684-8375

Karen Grove/684-5805

 

 

Legislation Title:

An ordinance related to land use and zoning, amending Sections 23.41.004, 23.54.015, 23.76.012, 25.05.800, 25.05.908 and 25.08.425 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) and adding a new section 23.42.044, to change environmental review thresholds for minor new construction, expressed as categorical exemptions in Seattle's SEPA ordinance, amending related Land Use Code and other provisions pertaining to design review, construction-related noise, construction worker parking, notice requirements, and correcting errors and omissions. 

 

·       Summary of the Legislation:  The recommendations would increase the threshold levels that determine which development proposals require environmental review.  These thresholds are part of the "categorical exemptions" contained in SMC 25.05.800.  The recommendations set those thresholds differently according to location outside of or within a designated Urban Center, Urban Village, or Station Area Overlay District (higher thresholds within those designated areas).  Some proposed development would therefore be able to forego environmental review while continuing to undergo other required reviews.  This also applies to some situations where a use is changing within an existing structure and with expansions in uses.

 

·       Background:  The recommended actions will adjust the environmental review thresholds in ways that will eliminate unnecessary reviews, where environmental impacts are unlikely to occur.  Environmental review can be a significant cause of delay in permitting that directly leads to higher costs for businesses and housing.  The City's planning policies encourage more efficient review processes and consistency with growth management objectives for efficient growth patterns.

 

Review of permitting data and consultation with senior DPD staff indicate that the reduced volume of environmental reviews (roughly 40 fewer reviews per year) would not have financial implications.  Compared to permitting volumes (over 1,000 Master Use Permits in 2006), this reduction in reviews would be minor.  Any time freed up by less review time spent on one proposal would be taken up by other billable review time for required reviews on other proposals.   

 

·       Please check one of the following:

 

__P__ This legislation does not have any financial implications.  

 

Attachment 1:  Director’s Report and Recommendation

director’s report and recommendation                                       August 1, 2007
Amendments to Thresholds for Environmental Review (SEPA)

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) proposes to raise SEPA thresholds to better align SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) requirements with the City’s Comprehensive Plan growth policies, as contemplated by the State Growth Management Act, and to acknowledge the increasing capability of new and existing City ordinances to address the potential impacts of development, once solely the purview of SEPA.

 

Generally, SEPA thresholds are based on the number of residential dwelling units or the amount of non-residential floor area proposed within a structure.  Development thresholds for environmental review are proposed to be increased the greatest within Urban Centers and Urban Villages (see tables in Proposed Threshold Changes section later in this report).  While residential thresholds vary among zones and other locational factors, non-residential thresholds in most zones would be raised to 12,000 square feet.  The proposed changes will help to streamline permit review for many proposed developments contemplated under existing zoning, and reduce barriers that add delay, cost and risks to the development of new housing and businesses.

 

The proposal is intended to strike a balance between allowing development that can reasonably be expected to contribute to the City’s growth management goals under zoning and development control ordinances in place, and where new development may result in localized impacts that were not contemplated by current ordinances and may result in adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties.  

 

Ø      Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan

Ø      Design Review

Ø      Environmental Critical Areas regulations

Ø      Stormwater, Grading and Drainage Ordinance

Ø      Noise Code

Ø      Right-of-Way Improvement Manual

Ø      Energy Code

Ø      Building Code

Ø      Historic Preservation Ordinance

 

In addition, work is underway on the following:

Ø      New Shoreline Master Program and regulations, including a habitat mitigation program

Ø      Transportation impact mitigation payment programs

Ø      Stronger sidewalk improvement requirements

 

Updates to DPD’s Director’s Rule 15-2007 to incorporate changes in thresholds are also addressed in this proposal.  This Director’s Rule specifies when environmental review is needed in certain circumstances, such as changing from one land use to another in an existing structure.

 

Environmental review will continue to be required for proposals above the thresholds, proposals affecting environmentally critical areas, rezone proposals, and when a proposal requires a license governing discharges to water, or emissions to the air.  Environmentally critical areas (ECAs) are addressed in Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 25.05.305 and 25.05.908, as well as the ECA rules in SMC 25.09. 

 

Currently, Design Review and SEPA thresholds are the same.  Design Review thresholds are proposed to remain unchanged.  Design Review is a public process intended to improve the relationship of new development to surroundings.  The Design Review process provides an effective and flexible process for addressing the impact of bulk, scale and design of new development, which previously had been addressed only through SEPA.  Design Review will continue to provide for public participation in the development review process and will help mitigate many impacts of new development on the urban environment.

 

Not surprisingly, environmental review requirements generate contrasting public opinions about SEPA, most notably among proponents of business and development, and those who must coexist with the development or business activity.  Typically, business owners and development applicants emphasize the effort and time involved in satisfying regulatory requirements. 

 

Neighborhood and resident perspectives typically support protection against traffic, parking, noise and/or aesthetic impacts such as lesser architectural quality and loss of views, and may be concerned about natural features such as slopes, streams, and wetlands.

 

Both perspectives are based on credible concerns about the way in which environmental issues and government regulation of new development intersect with other widely-supported public objectives related to housing, economic growth, and the City’s character and livability.  The challenge is to set thresholds that support growth management objectives and development that is consistent with zoning and other regulatory requirements, while maintaining SEPA’s important role in providing protections against the unanticipated localized consequences of new development.

 

BACKGROUND

More than a century of growth has transformed Seattle's natural environment from a forested landscape to today’s cityscape.  In the 1960s and 1970s, greater public awareness of human impacts on the environment led Washington State to enact laws aimed at identifying and protecting the environment. Among the most influential was the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which required a public process for reviewing new development in order to inform the public and decisionmakers about the potential environmental impacts that could result from development and measures to mitigate those impacts.   Washington first adopted SEPA in 1971 as a regulatory framework to address environmental issues in decisionmaking. Subsequently, the State provided SEPA rules in Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The SEPA process is intended to provide information about the environmental implications of decisions to agencies, applicants, decisionmakers and the public. 

 

SEPA review became an important tool for mitigating environmental impacts when local regulations were deemed inadequate to specifically address many of the issues raised by new development particularly with regard to height, bulk and scale, transportation, parking, and impacts on sensitive natural systems or natural hazard areas.   SEPA was a safety net against the unintended or unanticipated consequences of development as cities and counties began to address the long-range impacts of unrestrained growth on existing systems and people.  Over time, Seattle has employed many new tools to address the impacts of growth.  These tools range from design review to address the effects new development has on the City’s character, to regulations that protect important natural resources like wildlife habitat and shorelines.  Seattle has also implemented measures to prevent damage from geo-technical and drainage-related hazards.

 

Growth management legislation in the 1990s prioritized growth in concentrated urban centers, and in order to facilitate desired growth patterns and infill development in urban areas, State agencies encouraged greater efficiency in SEPA review.  To that end, in 2003 the State adopted HB 1707 (see RCW 43.21C.229), which allows jurisdictions to raise SEPA residential thresholds to encourage infill development in urban areas.  State legislators recognized the importance of SEPA reform when they adopted HB 1707 in 2003.  This bill authorized cities and counties to create new higher categorical exemptions from SEPA review for residential or mixed-use “infill” development in urban growth areas.  This evolution in State policy encourages growth management objectives that also have environmental benefits like reducing the pressure for sprawl.

 

Seattle’s SEPA process is integrated with the Master Use Permit review process for individual development proposals.  “Environmental impacts” encompass natural environment concerns as well as “built environment” issues such as land use compatibility, transportation and utilities.  Impacts may be short-term (due to construction activities) or long-term (due to the operation or activities of a proposed use). Project-specific SEPA review most often results in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), meaning there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  Often, the analyst concludes that compliance with the City’s wide range of requirements, such as grading and drainage rules, means that significant adverse impacts can be avoided.  If adverse impacts of a proposal are identified, SEPA review allows for targeted mitigation through substantive conditioning of new development (in addition to other City requirements) to avoid or reduce those impacts.  In this way, SEPA is a “safety net” that aids in preserving environmental quality when other codes and ordinances don’t provide the desired level of protection.  Where adverse impacts are identified as probable and significant, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required.

 

SEPA review also can occur at a “programmatic” level, to assess the environmental implications of broader actions that are not associated with a single development proposal, such as adoption of plans or regulations.  These reviews assess the potential impacts of policy or regulatory decisions on neighborhoods or areas of a city.  Effective reviews of plans, policies and regulations for environmental impacts may lessen the need for later project-specific SEPA review.

 

Most SEPA decisions are subject to a 14- to 21-day comment and appeal period.  If an appeal is filed, the City’s Hearing Examiner must schedule a hearing.  Proponents of development often criticize the SEPA process because of costly delays related to the length of the review period and the uncertainty of the appeal process.  However, others view SEPA and the appeal process as an opportunity for influencing the outcome of the development review process.

 

SEPA Thresholds

SEPA thresholds vary according to types of use (residential, commercial, industrial) and zoning designation.  In certain zones, higher thresholds reflect the greater development intensity of the zone and the higher level of activity anticipated before which adverse environmental impacts may warrant mitigation.  For example, residential thresholds are currently 20 dwelling units in the Midrise, Highrise and Downtown zones, while in Lowrise multifamily zones the thresholds are between 4 and 8 dwelling units.  Commercial thresholds are similarly highest in the general, auto-oriented Commercial zones (C1 and C2) and in Industrial zones, where 12,000 square feet of non-residential floor area is the threshold.  In pedestrian-oriented Neighborhood Commercial zones (NC1, 2, 3) and Downtown zones, the threshold is 4,000 square feet.   

 

PROPOSED THRESHOLD CHANGES

Proposed changes to SEPA thresholds vary according to zones and their location inside or outside of Urban Centers and Urban Villages (see centers and villages on the attached map).  This approach is consistent with the City’s growth management strategy that directs new growth to Urban Centers and Urban Villages. 

 

Existing and Proposed Residential SEPA Thresholds (Dwelling Units)

 

 

 

Zones

 

 

Existing Thresholds

Proposed Thresholds

Outside of Urban Villages & Centers

Within Urban Villages

Within Urban Centers and SAOD*

Single Family, RSL

4

4

4

4

LDT

4

6

6

6

Lowrise 1, 2, 3 & 4

Neighborhood Commercial 1, 2 & 3

Commercial 1 & 2

4, 6, 8

4

4

 

10

 

20

 

30

Midrise, Highrise, Seattle Mixed

20

20

30

30

Downtown zones

20

NA

80

80

Industrial

4

4

4

4

Notes:  RSL = Residential Small Lot.  LDT = Lowrise Duplex Triplex.  “Lowrise” refers to multifamily zones.  *Thresholds for all zones in designated light rail station area overlay districts (“SAOD”) would be the same as for Urban Centers.  

 

Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Thresholds Where Proposed for Changes (Square Feet)

 

 

 

Zones

 

 

Existing Thresholds

Proposed Thresholds

Outside of Urban Villages & Centers

Within Urban Villages

Within Urban Centers and SAOD*

Neighborhood Commercial 1

4,000

8,000

12,000

12,000

Neighborhood Commercial 2 & 3

4,000

12,000

12,000

12,000

Downtown zones

4,000

NA

12,000

12,000

Midrise, Highrise

4,000

12,000

12,000

12,000

*SAOD = Station Area Overlay Districts

 

Residential Thresholds

The proposal raises SEPA thresholds for residential development in Lowrise multifamily zones, Commercial (C), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Downtown zones that together comprise areas where the majority of multifamily development in the city occurs.  SEPA thresholds are proposed to be set at 30, 20 and 10 dwelling units in those zones within Urban Centers, Urban Villages, and areas outside of centers and villages, respectively.  Downtown, the proposed residential threshold is 80 dwelling units.  Thresholds for other lower-density zones including Single Family zones are left at their existing level of 4 dwelling units, and are similarly unchanged in Industrial zones where housing is not generally allowed.

 

Urban Centers: The proposed residential threshold of 30 dwelling units applies within the South Lake Union, Uptown, First Hill/Capitol Hill, University District and Northgate Urban Centers, and is 80 dwelling units within the Downtown Urban Center.

 

In the Station Area Overlay Districts, including those at South Henderson St., South Othello St. and South McClellan St., the residential threshold would be 30 dwelling units, equivalent to proposed thresholds for Urban Centers, to encourage growth within walking distance of light rail stations.

 

Urban Villages:  The proposed residential threshold is 20 dwelling units for most zones within Urban Villages (except Single Family and similarly low-density zones).

 

Areas Outside of Urban Centers and Villages: The proposed residential thresholds for the Lowrise, Commercial and NC zones outside of Urban Centers and Villages would be set at 10 dwelling units. This would increase thresholds modestly above the current 4, 6 and 8-unit levels in areas where multifamily development will occur over time.  

 

Non-Residential Thresholds

Urban Centers and Villages: Non-residential thresholds are proposed to be raised from 4,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet for NC zones, Downtown zones, Midrise and Highrise zones, and within Station Area Overlay Districts.  For other zones, including Single Family and Lowrise zones, which may have incidental or nonconforming commercial development, existing SEPA thresholds would be retained.

 

Areas Outside of Urban Centers and Villages: The thresholds for non-residential uses outside of Urban Centers and Villages are proposed to be set at 8,000 square feet in NC1 zones and 12,000 square feet in NC2, NC3, Midrise and Highrise zones. These changes would exempt relatively small commercial uses, and some expansions or conversions from one business to another (e.g., changes in land use), from SEPA review.

 

Parking Thresholds

The SEPA parking threshold is proposed to be raised from 20 parking stalls to 40 parking stalls.  This threshold applies to accessory parking as well as principal-use parking facilities, either on open lots or in structures.  The new threshold will be proportional to increases in the other SEPA review thresholds, and is set to avoid unintended circumstances where SEPA review for a project might otherwise occur only due to the amount of parking, or because a few additional spaces are proposed to be added that cause a use to exceed the parking threshold for the first time. 

 

Grading Thresholds

The SEPA grading threshold of 500 cubic yards is not proposed to change. State law does not authorize higher grading thresholds than 500 cubic yards.

 

Public Notice Maintained

For the category of projects directly affected by this SEPA threshold proposal, notice to the public would continue to be provided in the form of a placard sign (or larger sign if design review is required) posted at the property.

 

 

 

 

Other Regulations that Support Environmental Protection

As noted previously, numerous development regulations provide environmental protections, many of which were not in existence at the time SEPA was first implemented.  As these development regulations and processes for addressing issues have become part of the overall development review process, SEPA becomes less necessary.  It was intended that SEPA provide a safety net to address issues unanticipated by development regulations.  As these issues have become familiar, so too have the improved regulatory mechanisms for resolving them.  The following are examples of ways in which the review of new development better and more specifically addresses the issues raised by such development:

Historic Referrals:  SEPA thresholds have served as a means to determine whether a development application is referred to the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) for evaluation of a site’s potential for historic landmark status.  As part of the proposal, DPD will update administrative agreements between DPD and DON that would maintain the current thresholds for historic referrals in all zones, regardless of increases in SEPA thresholds.  This means that proposals exceeding 4 dwelling units in several zones, and exceeding 4,000 square feet for commercial uses in several zones (including Downtown) will continue to be considered for historic referrals, when existing structures are greater than 50 years old, public comment suggests that the building is historic, or a historic building survey or inventory identifies the building.  Within historic districts such as Pioneer Square, historic resources will continue to be analyzed and regulated as dictated by the special review district regulations and DON policies and procedures. This strategy will continue to fully protect historic resources and potential historic resources in these areas even with increases in the SEPA thresholds. 

Design Review:  Design Review thresholds are proposed to remain unchanged.  Design Review is intended to alleviate potential impacts that buildings may have on their immediate surroundings, and supersedes SEPA authority on land use and building height, bulk and scale impacts.

 

Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs).  The proposed threshold changes would not change the City’s rules regarding environmental review for sites within designated environmentally critical areas. When environmentally critical areas (including steep slopes, landslide-prone areas, streams, wetlands and fish/wildlife habitat) are present on a development site, there is often the potential for adverse environmental impacts. SEPA review will continue to be required for development proposals occurring within these critical areas, in addition to the City's ECA regulations, SMC Chapter 25.09.

 

Shorelines, Stormwater and Drainage:  The Stormwater, Grading and Drainage code and Shoreline Master Program are two examples of other policies and regulations that will continue to apply to development, providing enhanced environmental protection and confidence that significant adverse impacts are avoided.

 

Director’s Rule 15-2007.  This rule interprets the way SEPA is applied to various types of permit applications, including additions and alterations of existing structures and above ground storage tanks.  The rule clarifies that SEPA review is required for many expansions or changes in land use.  Examples include expansions of business establishments that may generate increased traffic impacts in a neighborhood.  In order to maintain safeguards that allow for mitigation of potential adverse impacts in such situations, DPD proposes to update this Director’s Rule to reflect any changes to thresholds.

 

Street Use Regulations.  For building construction projects, these regulations require provision of safe pedestrian routes at the property edge, controlled truck access points, proper flagging and signage, time-of-day truck traffic controls and routing restrictions on construction-related trucks.  They also require street use permits when right-of-way space needs to be used for construction-related activities. 

 

Noise Ordinance.  The City’s noise ordinance defines the permissible levels of noise during daytime and night-time hours, including time limits on noisy construction operations.  The proposal includes an amendment to the noise ordinance establishing an earlier weekday and weekend evening time limit on noisy construction operations in certain zones.

 

Relationship to Comprehensive Plan policies

Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year plan establishing a growth management strategy relying upon Urban Centers and Villages to accommodate future growth in a manner that sustains local values. Concentrated growth in Urban Centers and Urban Villages is meant to maintain and enhance Seattle’s character, promote compact, pedestrian oriented development, accommodate additional housing, and provide a more environmentally sustainable land use pattern. It is also intended to minimize growth-related impacts that would otherwise occur through sprawling urban development elsewhere in the region.

 

The proposal to realign SEPA thresholds to reinforce the Comprehensive Plan’s growth strategy is a rare opportunity to significantly improve the relationship between growth management efforts and land use review processes. The current thresholds are not well coordinated within Urban Centers and Villages, with some of the lowest thresholds for review applying in these areas, including Downtown.  The proposed SEPA thresholds would be systematically tied to preferred growth areas in the city, an approach that would be more complementary with the Comprehensive Plan and growth management policy.

 

The proposed thresholds will provide additional incentive for growth within the Urban Centers and Urban Villages. This would benefit the further evolution of Urban Centers and Urban Villages toward the type of character envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.  This should benefit efforts to maintain Seattle’s diverse and unique character in lower-density neighborhoods.

 

Reducing regulatory obstacles and redundant reviews is a common strategy to aid housing affordability that is represented in the Comprehensive Plan:

 

Housing Element 

 

Two other economic development policies support regulatory reform in relation to businesses, developers and the environment.

 

Economic Development

 

 

ANALYSIS

The proposed SEPA thresholds are based on analysis of how development is occurring, how it relates to the urban environment and how the City exercises its legal authority to mitigate impacts.  The logical threshold levels are those above which City policies assert that new development could result in probable significant adverse impacts on the environment—where an environmental review is therefore necessary and where the City should retain its impact-mitigating authority not already embodied in other regulations. 

 

In over twenty years since SEPA thresholds were set, much has changed:  in the breadth of City regulations, in growth trends, in public opinions about growth, and in the City’s growth management strategy.  Yet SEPA thresholds have remained the same, artificially low for several zones in ways that are contrary to the intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan growth management strategies. 

 

DPD analyzed development trends between 1995 and 2004 and reviewed case studies of representative development in different zones.  This analysis, in addition to conversations with the public, including design and development professionals, at forums and focus groups, support the following conclusions about the proposal to change SEPA thresholds:

 

Residential Thresholds

Development trends demonstrate that urban centers and urban villages are attracting more development at increasing density.  For example, since 1995 about 22,600 new residential units have been added inside urban centers and villages compared to 8,900 new units added in other parts of the city.  Densities inside most urban centers and urban villages (at 16 and 9 units per gross acre respectively) are already higher than other non-center/village areas (at 4 units per gross acre), and are progressively gaining density as infill growth occurs.  Increased development density in centers and villages supports the restructuring of SEPA thresholds, to acknowledge locations where existing development is of a scale and intensity that is less likely to be impacted as readily as locations outside of these centers and villages. 

 

The data gathered on development from 1995-2004 suggest two kinds of patterns in development size:

 

Research confirms that SEPA mitigation is rarely necessary for smaller residential projects.  SEPA review is somewhat more likely to be necessary to mitigate for the impacts of larger projects (above 20 dwelling units).  Similarly, mitigation addressing construction activities (such as additional controls on truck movements) was rare in small projects, but more frequent in larger projects, typically when projects occurred along arterials or in busier districts. This supports setting lower thresholds for areas outside urban centers and urban villages generally ranging from 4 to 10 units, and at the higher 20+ unit levels in urban villages and urban centers. 

 

By addressing routine concerns for smaller projects, such as noise or other construction related complaints, including codifying common mitigation measures, DPD would retain the authority to address neighborhood concerns related to construction of small projects (see Common Mitigation below).  In neighborhoods that are already densely developed, new development at comparatively larger scale and density can be accommodated without experiencing the potential adverse impacts that might be anticipated from similarly scaled development in lower-density neighborhoods.

 

Urban Villages, Centers and Beyond.  Urban centers, such as Capitol Hill, are more densely developed with zoning that envisions an even greater scale and density of development over time, and have greater access to transit service (which reduces average daily automobile trips) and goods and services to support a higher population density.  These factors suggest a lesser degree of sensitivity to new development and fewer potential adverse environmental impacts for infill development in a range of up to 30 dwelling units in the urban centers. 

 

In contrast, Urban Villages are somewhat less dense than Urban Centers, and at least moderately more sensitive to new development, given greater proximity to lower-density residential zones, and somewhat lesser transit availability.  In urban villages, the recommendation is to establish a SEPA threshold of up to 20 dwelling units. 

 

The Downtown Urban Center has the highest development density in the city.  Its existing character and development patterns, availability of transit, and the most extensive and the most well-connected utility infrastructure of any area distinguishes Downtown from other parts of the city.  Downtown can support development at higher densities with less risk of significant environmental impacts that are not otherwise addressed by existing development control ordinances.   Research shows that a significant portion of development in the 20-80 dwelling unit range were constructed for affordable and subsidized forms of housing, a type less likely to generate traffic trips, the most common environmental impact.  Therefore, the recommendation is to set the highest SEPA threshold in the city of 80 dwelling units. 

 

Other areas outside of urban centers and villages are more likely to be lower-density multifamily or neighborhood commercial zones in close proximity or adjacent to single-family areas.  These areas also have less frequent transit service than villages or centers.    Some of these areas also may face progressive infill as development occurs via several projects over a period of years.  Thus, these are contexts that are more sensitive to changes from new development than villages or centers.  The proposed threshold is set proportionally lower in these areas.

 

Non-Residential Thresholds

As with residential thresholds, the proposed non-residential thresholds for SEPA review update the low existing threshold for Downtown zones, and reflect the relative difference in impact potential between development proposed in smaller neighborhood-serving business districts and those in areas that accommodate businesses that draw from the city or region. 

 

Outside of Downtown, and within Seattle’s neighborhood commercial areas, development data from 1995-2004 indicate a wide variety of neighborhood-serving commercial uses occurred either in new structures or by locating in existing structures.  These included relatively small and specialized businesses, typically fitting in with the prevailing pattern of pedestrian-oriented shopping districts and located within moderately scaled mixed-use buildings.  Other permits in these areas were for relatively small additions to existing structures, added parking or other facilities or equipment improvements.  About 40% of the permits were for “smaller” spaces, less than one thousand square feet up to approximately 9,000 square feet in size.  The proposed thresholds would exempt several of these actions from SEPA review.  Approximately 43% of permits were for a clearly “larger” size category—above 18,000 square feet in size—typically involving many kinds of uses ranging from offices and retail to other commercial uses that tend to be larger traffic generators.  Given that traffic congestion is the most common environmental issue, the potential for traffic generation is one of the most influential factors in setting the proposed thresholds.

 

Standard traffic generation data based on actual buildings built in the past decade help illustrate the relative traffic impacts of new office development below and above the proposed thresholds:

·        An office building of up to the proposed SEPA threshold of 12,000 square feet, could generate approximately 90-100 vehicle trips daily, including about 15 trips occurring during each of the peak rush hour periods. 

·        An office building at 30,000 square feet could generate approximately 225-250 vehicle trips daily and around 40 trips during each of the peak rush hours. 

 

In most Seattle neighborhoods, traffic volumes generated by a 12,000 square foot office use are relatively unlikely to generate significant impacts at any given location or to result in a mitigating action (such as traffic signal or lane adjustments).  However, the range of uses just above 12,000 square feet does include development types that are more intensive traffic generators, such as retail shopping.  For example, the construction of several in-city chain drug stores during the last decade ranged from around 12,000 to 16,000 square feet.  With the potential for these kinds of higher traffic generating uses in the range just above 12,000 square feet, the threshold is proposed to be set at that level in most zones.   However, in NC1 zones, reflecting the smaller-scale of typical NC1 zoned areas, the proposed threshold is 8,000 square feet. 

 

As the center city grows, the customer base for businesses Downtown will increasingly be from additional center city residents and employees, meaning a lesser proportional generation of automobile traffic by new customers.  Combined with the typical rationale for environmental impact evaluation, as well as the City’s priorities for citywide growth management, the proposed non-residential SEPA threshold in Downtown is 12,000 square feet, consistent with other urban centers.  

 

As with the residential thresholds, the proposed non-residential thresholds represent a reasonable division between the smaller and larger developments—which will continue to require review for the larger projects with potential for significant impacts.

 

Parking Thresholds

The proposed parking threshold of 40 stalls is a proportionally increased threshold that will avoid unnecessary SEPA reviews that might arise only due to parking quantity in new development.  With residential thresholds reaching above 20 dwelling units, the existing 20 stall parking threshold would otherwise represent an overly restrictive threshold.  Small businesses will benefit from the increased parking threshold because there would be fewer instances of exceeding the parking threshold for the first time when adding a few parking spaces—a situation that automatically triggers SEPA review regardless of how many parking spaces are added. For example, adding two spaces to a parking lot that already has 18 spaces currently must undergo SEPA review.   

 

Effect of Proposed Threshold Changes on the Number of Development Projects Subject to SEPA

Analysis of Master Use Permit data indicates there were approximately 817 residential or mixed-use development proposals and approximately 1,440 commercial proposals subject to SEPA review between 1995 and 2004.  The mix of project types and characteristics in this ten-year sample provides a reasonable estimation of probable future development patterns.  If applied to this ten-year set of development data, the proposed thresholds would have reduced the number of permit applications subject to SEPA review by about 40% for residential and mixed-use projects, and 5% for solely non-residential projects. The results are summarized below.

 

Research also indicates that zones such as Lowrise 3 and Neighborhood Commercial 2 and 3 zones, typically in Urban Centers and Villages, would be the most common locations for newly exempted projects.  Outside of Urban Centers and Villages, the Lowrise 1 (L1) zones would be the most common locations for newly exempted projects. 

 

Reduction in SEPA Review Volume

 

Average Number of SEPA reviews per year, 1995-2004

Number of SEPA reviews no longer necessary using Proposed Thresholds

Residential/mixed-use:

82 per year

Approximately 33 per year

Commercial-only:

144 per year

Approximately 7-8 per year

 

Common SEPA Mitigation 

 

Many regulations are already in place to provide environmental protection, as mentioned earlier in this report.  In two instances, amendments are proposed in tandem with raising SEPA thresholds to maintain the strength of regulatory oversight and authority to mitigate impacts.   These two amendments are based on commonly applied SEPA mitigation.   A review of more than 130 SEPA decisions illustrates how impact mitigation measures are typically incorporated into City decisions.  Only rarely are other mitigations required for site-specific environmental impacts, especially for residential developments ranging from 1 to about 18-20 dwelling units in size.  The data demonstrate that three types of mitigation measures were by far the most prevalent:

§        Time restrictions on construction activity to control noise in residential areas;

§        A reminder to obtain a Puget Sound Clean Air Agency demolition-related air quality permit; and

§        Addressing details about construction vehicles’ access and parking-related issues.

 

A closer review of these measures has shown that some of these common mitigations actually refer to existing City or other agency regulations that will continue to be enforced whether or not they are listed as “SEPA mitigation.”  This includes the air quality permit reminder and commonly listed details about ensuring pedestrian routes around construction sites, ensuring construction vehicles use arterial streets (e.g. truck routing), definition of site access points, minimizing or preventing truck access during peak traffic hours, and requiring flagging.  These typical measures help ensure that a project proponent is aware of their responsibilities, but because they are regulations contained in existing street use regulations, they do not need to be listed as SEPA mitigation measures.

 

The other noise-related restrictions on construction times and the limitations related to where construction workers can park their vehicles are proposed to be incorporated into City codes:

§        Noise Ordinance Amendment – amends the current construction period allowance of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM to set an earlier 8 PM weekday and weekend time limit on noisy construction in the Single Family, Residential Small Lot, Lowrise, Midrise, Highrise, Residential-Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial zones, when residential uses are nearby (within 100 feet of the site).

§        Land Use Code (23.42) Amendment - maintains the authority to require measures that direct workers to park on the construction site as soon as possible. For construction worker parking, the most common mitigation is to have workers park their vehicles on the construction site “as soon as possible” (e.g., when on-site space is available, or when garages or other parking areas are built). 

 

These amendments are included in the ordinance that accompanies this report. 

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

 

The proposal will achieve a long-delayed update to the City’s SEPA rules in a manner encouraged by State SEPA rules and Growth Management Act; and several public policy objectives:

§        Better align SEPA thresholds with the City’s comprehensive plan growth policies, encouraging more efficient growth and greater vitality in urban centers and villages;

§        Improve efficiency in review processes and thereby reduce cost, risks and delays in permitting new housing and small businesses;

§        Continue to require SEPA review where there is potential for significant adverse environmental impacts; and

§        Maintain effective protections by codifying typical mitigation measures into codes. 

 

 

 


Note:  Stars on map denote the locations of Station Area Overlay Districts that are outside Urban Centers.