Loading...
Agenda 03/14/2013 sokane Valle Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 14, 2013 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 28, 2013 VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Public Hearing: CTA-02-13 Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. SEPA Categorical Exemptions. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR KEVIN ANDERSON SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MANAGER CHRISTINA CARLSEN LORI BARLOW, SENIOR PLANNER ROBERT MCCASLIN ERIC LAMB, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STEVEN NEILL JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR CART HINSHAW,SECRETARY W W W.SPOKANE VALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March14,2013 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ®new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2013-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing–Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A city initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.20.040 SEPA Categorical Exemptions, to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197-11-800(1)(d). GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; WAC 197-11-800(1) ( c ); SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Study Session on February 28,2013 BACKGROUND: Washington State Department of Ecology was directed by the 2012 Legislature to complete two rounds of updates to the SEPA rules(Chapter 197-11 WAC). The Legislature directed Ecology to modernize the rules that guide state and local agencies in conducting SEPA reviews,in light of the increased environmental protections in place under Growth Management Laws (RCW 36.70A),the Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58) and other laws. The legislation set up two rounds of rule updates: A narrowly-focused initial round(targeted to be complete by December 31,2012 and a broader round of SEPA rule updates during 2013.The initial rule making considered two specific topics: • Increasing the thresholds for SEPA review of minor construction projects under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1) and(23)(c); and • Improving the efficiency of the environmental checklist in WAC 197-11-960 The update became effective January 28,2013, and allows the city to increase the maximum exemption levels requiring environmental review as described in the attached staff report,thereby reducing permit review times and eliminating redundancy in the review process. This proposal would amend the current SEPA rules to reflect the maximum thresholds allowed by State Law. OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented,recommend approval with modifications,recommend the proposal not be adopted,or forward no recommendation to City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of CTA-2013-0002 to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197-011-800(1)(d). STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Staff Report and Findings CTA-2013 –0002 B. Proposed Amendment CTA-2013-0002 RPCA for Study Session ATTACHMENT A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY/O^F� PLANNING DIVISION p0kane STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE alley PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2013-0002 STAFF REPORT DATE: March 7,2013 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: March 14, 2013, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A city initiated text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 21.20.040 SEPA Categorical Exemptions,to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197- 11-800(1)(d). PROPONENT: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,WA 99206 APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment as put forth. STAFF PLANNER:LORI BARLOw,AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 21.20.040 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Pre-Application Meeting: N/A Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Published Notice of Public Hearing: 2/22/2013 and 3/8/2013 2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 21.20 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)to increase the thresholds for specific land use categories that would trigger environmental review under SEPA. SEPA is a Washington State law that requires the majority of land use decisions made by every state and local agency to Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0002 be reviewed for environmental impacts. The Department of Ecology is the state agency responsible for SEPA oversight. Ecology was directed by the 2012 legislature to complete two rounds of updates to the SEPA rules(Chapter 197-11 WAC). The legislature directed Ecology to modernize the rules that guide state and local agencies in conducting SEPA reviews,in light of the increased environmental protections in place under Growth Management Laws(RCW 36.70A),the Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58) and other laws. The legislation set up two rounds of rule updates: A narrowly-focused initial round(targeted to be complete by December 31,2012 and a broader round of SEPA rule updates during 2013.The initial rule making considered two specific topics: • Increasing the thresholds for SEPA review of minor construction projects under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(1) and(23)(c); and • Improving the efficiency of the environmental checklist in WAC 197-11-960. Senate Bill 6406 directed Ecology to convene a SEPA Advisory Committee to assist Ecology in updating the SEPA exemption thresholds and the environmental checklist. Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager,participated in the Advisory Committee representing the only jurisdiction from the east side of the state. The reason to increase the thresholds for SEPA review is to make the process more efficient and reduce redundancy. Each SEPA review process requires agency and public notice, followed by subsequent comment and appeal periods. The purpose of the review is to identify impacts that would not be addressed by city regulations. If impacts are identified,jurisdictions can "condition"projects with special requirements,or mitigation. Traffic impacts generated by new development are commonly mitigated through the SEPA process. However,with the resulting code requirements associated with GMA, SMA,and other laws protecting the environment,most jurisdictions have the codes in place to ensure impacts are addressed and/or prevented. As this is the case with Spokane Valley,the SEPA review for minor construction projects is an exercise in redundancy and does not result in any meaningful project modifications or mitigation. The resulting impact of the review is an increase in the time period necessary to complete project review and issue permits by 4—6 weeks. Reducing the amount of review time is advantageous to the development community in many ways,including financing, facilitating construction windows,maintaining project schedules,etc.. SEPA rules identify default thresholds for"Minor New Construction"that exempt a project from SEPA review. If the project is equal to,or smaller than the exempt level,environmental review is not required. The default thresholds are identified in the table below. The rules,even prior to the recent legislative update, allowed jurisdictions to adopt flexible thresholds and increase the applicable project threshold that would exempt a project from SEPA review. These are the thresholds being modified by the legislative update, as well as the city's code text amendment. The City adopted the flexible thresholds in the 2007 Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The current"Minor New Construction-Flexible Thresholds" adopted by the City and identified in SVMC section 21.20.040 Categorical exemptions are identified in the table below. Minor New Construction— Minor New Construction -Default Thresholds Flexible Thresholds(Current City Regulations) (i)The construction or location of four detached single family residential (i)20 dwelling units. units. Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0002 (ii)The construction or location of four multifamily residential units. (ii) 30,000 square feet. (iii)The construction of a barn, loafing shed,farm equipment storage (iii) 12,000 square feet;40 building, produce storage or packing structure, or similar agricultural automobiles. structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used only by the property owner or his or her agent in the conduct of farming the property. This exemption shall not apply to feed lots. (iv)The construction of an office, school,commercial, recreational, service or storage building with 4,000 square feet of gross floor area, (iv) 40 automobiles. and with associated parking facilities designed for twenty automobiles. This exemption includes stand-alone parking lots. (v)Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards throughout the total (v) 500 cubic yards. lifetime of the fill or excavation not associated with an exempt project in subsection(b)(i), (ii), (iii), or(iv); and any fill or excavation classified as a Class I, II, or III forest practice under RCW 76.09.050 or regulations thereunder. The legislative update to the rules revised and clarified language relating to the "residential","parking lot" and"landfill and excavation"categories of minor new construction by separating thresholds for single family projects from multi-family projects, and eliminating the differentiation between stand alone parking lots and parking lots associated with primary uses.As a result of the new categorization,the changes to the flexible thresholds are not just an increase to the units,area,automobiles,etc. The update became effective January 28,2013, and allows the city to increase the maximum exemption levels requiring environmental review as indicated in the table below. These are the new thresholds proposed for adoption by this amendment. Fully planning GMA counties All other counties Other Incorporated and unincorporated Incorporated and Project types unincorporated UGA areas unincorporated areas Single family residential 30 units 20 units 20 units Multifamily residential 60 units 25 units 25 units Barn, loafing shed, farm 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet 40,000 square feet equipment storage, produce storage or packing structure Office, school, 30,000 square feet and 12,000 square feet 12,000 square feet commercial, recreational, 90 parking spaces and 40 parking and 40 parking service, storage building, spaces spaces parking facilities Landfill or excavation 1,000 cubic yards 1,000 cubic yards 1,000 cubic yards B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria Page 3 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2013-0002 i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan which direct the city to provide effective,predictable,and clear customer service. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Introduction Goal G-1: Create a government that places a premium on providing effective customer service. Introduction Policy IP-1: The City should periodically evaluate programs, procedures,processes and other opportunities of reaching the customer service goal. Economic Goal EDG-7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,predictability and clear direction. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will provide efficient, predictable, and clear customer service while meeting the requirements for environmental review contained in WAC 197-11-800-(1)(d). b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division,after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria,recommends the proposal to adopt the maximum to adopt the maximum exemption levels allowed by WAC 197-11-800- (1)(3). Page 4 of 4 CTA-2013-0002 Proposed Changes increasing the Flexible Thresholds in the Categorical Exemptions Section of SVMC 21.20.040 consistent with WAC 197-11-800 21.20.040 Categorical exemptions. Categorical exemptions are set forth in WAC 197-11-800. A. Application. If a proposal fits within any of the exemptions set forth in this section, the proposal shall be categorically exempt from the threshold determination requirements of WAC 197-11-720, except as follows: 1. The proposal includes an activity that is not exempt under WAC 197-11-908, Critical areas; or 2. The proposal is a segment of a proposal that includes a series of actions, physically or functionally related to each other, some of which are categorically exempt and some of which are not; or 3. The proposal includes, or is a part of, a series of exempt actions that are physically or functionally related to each other and that together may have a probable significant adverse impact in the judgment of an agency with jurisdiction. B. Flexible Thresholds. The City adopts the following exempt levels for new construction pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(c): 1. For single family residential dwelling units, up to 22 30 dwelling units. 2. For multifamily residential dwelling units, up to 60 units 23._For agricultural structures, up to 30,000 square feet. For barn, loafing shed, farm equipment storage, produce storage or packing structure buildings up to 40,000 square feet 43. For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings, up to 12,000 30,000 square feet of • • . • - -_ ••• ilities designed for up to 40- 90 parking spa,- . This exemption includes stand alone parking lots. . . :r.r.r-z 5. For landfills and excavations, up to 5-98 1,000 cubic yards. C. Procedure. The agency or applicant may proceed with the exempt aspects of roposal prior to conducting environmental review of the nonexempt aspects of a proposal; provide that the requirements of WAC 197-11-070 are met. D. Written Findings. The lead agency is not required to document that a proposal is cat orically exempt; however, the lead agency may note on an application that a proposal is categorically exe pt or place such a determination in the agency's files. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). Note: New sentence added to amendment to clarify the intent to be consistent with the WAC. The language replicates the text in the WAC. O ill = N cl cl O I CA t C IT . , ta c5' = cn.iml E ;m1 ® .. lin- cit N .El lin- o '4 -5) 1 i c.) Z ,..' 7 lin- CU = U lin- = "F• 4 I • iml ,—• al. lir = Pi e li•- = .i c% ligP PI-H—' , i g -tc A E°4 •. - : D (-Fr) rl Q 0 O 0 7 a) 0 > u v O M 5 V } N N M 1 X03 M o .0 c ' O O ,_ c 0 0 L V O .. E 6 N y N E u 0 4) E O O` 8 o ." „.. ,,..• ,i- s- 0 E 0 E D E 0 0 0_ N N Ov -0 0 °' E E 8 o E O o V E �' �Q `l- 0 - O � O O V) •- "-1 -C 44- E 9, 0 rz } • 0 -' E 2- N o) O N " . x c — —„'A Q 4O V © O } ,c .`2 - - O O At 'v - N ' 4- •= O : � C3 } E � O O y N U) • - O N .o 5 : 0) 0.S > 0 c„) : u 0:) 0 0 a) _ 1_ ” „, .- • .� ,.) a) , 4_ 1- tr) -0 4 N — O O L •� N 4— E g " >,, 4- 4- A i " 4.2 7:2 o C X N L_ O 4- D D L E . vs A C } NQ N C } s v;c a %-_ ,. N > s t v) s 5 s E s 1 O a = .0 -0•. •� L _ } 3 V 0 0 V V V V a V j N V O u VSO CO V U _ up 0 QV o I , P3'- N CV. N ■ 7 0 r5 .. -. no i• O 0 01-u '- • s la' — 0 c 4L2 g > 0 -LI (,.j. D O O O c t V } } O A O O 4) •� c -0 i g A 2 Q 4) 0 O O ._ © •: >k 6 w O s C 0 4) w 0 Op © 0., •5) S c N •- •- :44 I 0 4- 0- J 442 O < . E to - .O - N O O V w C 0 U 0 a) O 0 •-(,)A c o c O D N D O A /5 au E O E. L. CD V UOgDaal t4Z11 C3 I m 2. 1 and b sl I3a asoda n up j i I N 0 a V s E^` ,P 0) E 1 o a .� E N •N O a ° } ) ••V 0 •v Q 0 V >- Q — Q N N u .. , . < } 0 a o 0 ° 0) E N � :. 0 a a a s } — O • i V - •V V •0 •i V _T)O L V 'al . V Q Q© - Q.-t 0 c 0 E 0 a D >. N -0 y — I — = g, C3 o• a • a O• O O 3 N ?� v • V A 0 N C 0 73 C C 5 V E V O N p . L (/) Q O V = >, O v O .P O N O O 0 C Ag 14 O } O 0 O a O >c O i C V V O) 73 LJJ O i ° .c 45 a5 0 N Q — a) Q = •— W — -0 c;)z -T3 A -1— O 1- C O a O Q O 4— 0 0 0 �� CL } CV. s> . w 0 Q O 0 vs)Up mil Q 0. a)1 s 0_ s O ,0 E w O w P3'- : 01 2 to c c 1 .(6) = 4- a) u) 0 1 0 .><— _°— 2 a cv. .0-) 0 0 0 a 0 `n t 4'% i CD 0 0 0 > 0 0 •— 0 0 } " } a v O 0 •> • C 0 0 t" " } 0 N a g E o 0_ 0 :� E _ 0 CD TD o c 0 > " 0 N — ,TJ 0 ! E 2 -0 0 0 w }0 >a a) ° a) S' 0 c 0 .. L_4 : tn 0 a 45 > .'31 C) -0 c 0 c 0 ' ' *2 0 *— o 1 E : .= 3 a) D C >■ $42 >■ •- 4 42 5 at 73 E 3Ou 0 u 0 V 0- o •-1 % •> } 0 ,� O s 0 0 : O 0 4- mil W (3) .1= j Q u lao '. a) r C :44 cr) D '18. < r .11. , n_A__1 . 0. W co 0 = O ; 1, v) a) .0 6 C 0 0, a) E — ''''' cl- .t/2 g t :? +6 co -2 .0. 2 O O •C L. N 13 >, t 03 0 •IZ S a O 42 M C _ A V\ _ > v 3 a C O a) up W tn 73 } C o E s 0 v 0 O s n O U)o C}e 0 C a) 0 ug " -0 1 01 CD NCO u) 4. O O 1 •v s O I O aJ Q c 0 V V p O o L- .NVcn U . } o 0) o © CI* tw o • D O• = : 0 r L V •- L N W) _• Q O N -0 N .V _Q .O V 5 A • a .V — Q O 0) > L 0 E 0- 5 • o_ V O - > O O O O " O u N LA 0 E U " } } ,_ . ._ }O .... N 40 CD .c N •L� E a) 0- v v v O 7 O O CJJ y L y } D D } D mo C •— e- - �° o 4- L. (D • O (D E x O O O O " O c N al• 0 •O .• > •O a V V V V an A N CL 0_ o o ■ •— 1 O CD N 0 0 •— - D-I— •O N 0 1_ v> V 4-S I O a 4_ i O i } O 4- Eli :>. D E 0 .- 0 (D Q) 70 a) ..," 4P, O °' • V a) 44-W UW QLI- H O D ._ l 0:1)I W W H im i_ , w 2 im to to CL 1 `� O O O O H u _ = O O O% O 0 > D O O a 0 O s O O O O = lc I- M ■O Tr M O H 1— 5 a O H - 0) 0) C14 D ii. CD H A c i `� _ im •P O L O •� 0 : •� O D 0 : V O O• D 0.0 V ta IA- -t2 5 •:H 0 H O H D 1. 1 Ct 73 0 mlm E e% me 0 0 • �" 0 W Tr 1- Tr 0 U s Ag N _ A.. (i 0 A S W •`—' a ~ ._ D •f a) H > I CD v) im ■ O = W 0 N _ V > im N O , ma _ X O = - _ •— O O a O e U O = O v = D O i. .V O m- O O 0 Lq -43 I: Z5 22 * •:( O . 22z 0. J a) ou)--) -0 O e6. I: ■O 6 a) f E N 0 IV_ - CO E N • O }' O cn � U L -0 U L ui 0 o c ca c = , L cu U (a U 5 C14 o O + • p I • 0 to L = • 41 c p 0 cl .l to ° (1) a ., N +2 U) 0 I A •O O V 'E •'^ U ca O CD• 0 • O ♦--• N O 0 �� 0 5 at V O = • a) 0_ 4 0_ a) $1) o c� o 73 5 ' o v; ~ — 4 6 = a) CO 'a2 " O a, rn ca o • o L 4� i3 , c .- , j u) = c co •' 2 cu C14 E _c o 0 (4 41 as a., c H O N N c0 00t3 0 ' N C14 _ i _ 0 0 U) ca .. E 7T2, co E ' N • ca 0.1 < " 4a3— . CB 6 '44-) Lij oc E 1 -0 Lg ,_° 0 tin 4: Luc 'a Qa Cs- L p 0 '� Q (� • O 4. iZe d L:.4,\ s... c., c M O N Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers— City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 28, 2013 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF Bill Bates-Chair John Hohman, Community Development Director Joe Stoy—Vice Chair r Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Steven Neill IT Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Kevin Anderson r r Christina Carlsen . Robert McCaslin p r- r Cari Hinshaw, secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the February 14, 2013 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS There was no Commission Reports. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Community Development Director John Hohman explained that City Hall at the Mall went well with a huge influx of people. He stated it was a good environment. In addition, Mr. Hohman explained that on Tuesday March 5, 2013 he will be doing a report to city Council on the sign code, with an update of the process the City went thru to adopt the new sign regulations. Also, Mr. Hohman will be updating Council on the educational efforts on the new sign regulations & code enforcement process that the city just recently completed. Mr. Hohman stated that the City Council had a workshop on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 and that there were two items that Community Development was involved in: 1. A discussion on manufactured home park zoning. Some residents spoke to Council several times in the fall, looking for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to provide a specific mobile home park zone that would provide protection for them. They are concerned about cases where a property owner would want to do a different type of development on the property. Right now there is a one year notice that the state requires before they can change the use of a mobile home park. 2. Staff is conducting an ongoing study for City Hall, taking a look at how much space City Hall operations require. Mr. Hohman stated they are looking at different options, both on the Sprague/Appleway corridor and elsewhere within the city, to see what's available. This will be brought back to City Council within the next few months. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: Commissioner Stoy made Motion to approve the findings of fact for CTA-01-13. This motion was passed unanimously. B. New Business: Lori Barlow presented a brief overview of CTA-02-13, a proposed amendment to increase the Categorial Exemptions as authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Ms. Barlow covered the following items: 1. Description of the Code Text Amendment. 2. Backgound for the proposed amendment. 3. Purpose of of SEPA: A tool that identifies the impacts that may result from government decisions permits regulations policies or plans. Information provided allows agencies, applicants and public to understand environmental impacts and to identify mitigation that woud lessen the impacts. 4. State and local agencies conduct SEPA reviews. 5. SEPA review process. 6. Environmental Checklist SEPA isused in the decision making process by utilizing information provided on the Environmental Checklist to identify if the project should be conditioned or denied.. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 7. A Categorical Exemption is a Statutory provision that exempts certain projects from SEPA review (RCW 43.21C). 8. Flexible Thresholds. 9. Proposed Amendment: Ms. Barlow stated that in item number four there will be a slight deviation in the language: Up to 30,000 square feet of gross floor area and parking facilities designed for up to 90 parking spaces will be exempt from the environmental review. A sentence will be added that: a standalone parking facility up to 90 parking spaces will also be exempt from environmental review. This is consistent with the WAC. There will be no additional public notice requirements since this revision is just clarifying the intent and not making any substantive changes. Mr. Hohman added that the City has a lot of regulations on the books and SEPA duplicates a lot of efforts. The SEPA process takes six weeks and raising the categorical exemptions will streamline the process by eliminating an unnecessary review step. Increasing the thresholds results in more exempt projects, and reduces staff workload. Commissioner Anderson needed some explanation regarding the SEPA rule and adoption. Ms. Barlow explained that the City is not mandated to increase its thresholds. Ms. Barlow stated that Spokane County, Airway Heights, City of Spokane and Liberty Lake are not going through an amendment process at this time. The other jurisdictions will be waiting for the end of this coming year (2013) to see what other changes may result from the review of the SEPA rules. The City of Spokane Valley may be the first jurisdiction in the State of Washington to increase its flexible thresholds. Commissioner Anderson asked if there would ever be any jurisdictions that would not adopt the rules. Ms. Barlow responded that each jurisdiction has different regulations in place and as part of the process one must establish findings that show they have addressed all of the elements which were noted in the presentation. Ms. Barlow noted that many jurisdictions adopt the minimums. Mr. Hohman explained that Planning Manager Scott Kuhta is participating in a lot of discussions and that there may still be a lot of changes coming in the future. If there are changes, staff will come back and revise them at that time. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know when the new flexible thresholds became available, and if the checklist will be changed. Ms. Barlow stated the new rules were adopted January 28, 2013 and that the checklist will not be changed. Commissioner Stoy asked if all the flexible requirements have been looked at. Ms. Barlow stated yes all of the possible maximum thresholds are being proposed to be increased. .Commissioner McCaslin asked if the thresholds were being loosened because of complaints. Mr. Hohman explained it was not complaints that prompted them; it was a standpoint of some movement in the legislature and would we like to participate. Mr. Hohman further stated that when you look at the economy and fostering economic development the city really wants to be on the forefront of that to eliminate redundancy. Commissioner Stoy stated that in his 30 years doing SEPA's, the biggest complaint was the fees and that there is no standardization. Commissioner Bates asked how the developers will know that new exemptions are in effect. Ms. Barlow stated that with this comes a public hearing, which means publication and noticing would take place Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 and developers will be alerted to the status thru the pre-app meetings and notification through the Department's e-mail list. Mr. Hohman also discussed that this is specific to the development code and once adopted by ordinance it is what they will be working with. He noted that the SEPA checklist can be found on the website under: Community Development/Planning and Zoning/Applications and Forms/State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist. Commissioner Bates asked if there was any way that flexible thresholds can be construed as a developer's agreement like there are with other regulations. Mr. Hohman stated no. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI. ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson Cari Hinshaw, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4