Shoreline Planning Commission Meeting on Tree Code and Zoning Amendments - December 2, 2021

The Shoreline Planning Commission met on December 2, 2021, to continue discussions on proposed tree code amendments and to provide direction on potential amendments to the annual (NUR) zoning regulations for light rail station areas. The meeting included public testimony from 11 speakers, primarily advocating for stronger tree preservation measures.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda and minutes from the previous meeting were approved without corrections or changes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Isaac Chair, a Shoreline resident, urged the commission to prioritize tree preservation and health over monetary wealth, citing the climate crisis.
• Rebecca Jones, speaking on behalf of the tree preservation code team, supported amendment C to change the landmark tree definition measurement to 24 inches diameter at standard height, and referenced the city's Comprehensive Plan policies.
• Delinda (name unclear), on behalf of the tree preservation code team, requested that staff work on incentives for retaining more than 25% of significant trees, consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy NE6.
• Mark Adidas (or Martin L.), on behalf of the tree preservation code team, asked the commission to recommend amendments to protect significant trees on development sites, including penalties for tree injury/destruction, and noted that amendment C6 does not apply to certain zones.
• Barbara Johnson spoke on amendment C7, requesting that the allowable removal of significant trees be reduced from the current graduated scale to a stricter limit.
• Kathy Russell, on behalf of the tree preservation code team, expressed concerns about amendment C9 and the term "waive" in the code, requesting clarity and equity for property owners.
• Will Timothy, on behalf of the tree preservation code team, supported amendment C6 concerning the definition of significant trees, recommending a 6-inch diameter measurement.
• Caesar Sony, a Shoreline resident and member of the tree preservation code team, urged timely action on the amendments, noting that the proposed codes only apply to certain zones where major construction is occurring.

Discussion Items

Tree Code Amendments (C6, C7, C9, C10)

• Staff (Mr. Zaffrin) presented the amendments, which had been continued from November 18. The commission discussed each:
  • Amendment C2 (Landmark tree definition): Staff recommended maintaining the 30-inch diameter threshold; the applicant proposed 24 inches. Commissioners questioned whether certain weak-wooded species (e.g., black locust, cottonwood) should be excluded, but no consensus was reached.
  • Amendment C6 (Construction site violations, penalties, financial guarantees): Staff recommended moving forward without sections L (monetary penalties) and M (financial guarantees), citing conflicts with other code sections and the need for additional study. A commissioner noted that the maintenance agreement (part of M) seemed more straightforward, but staff expressed concern about staff resources for monitoring. The commission appeared to lean toward recommending the amendment without L and M.
  • Amendment C7 (Exempt tree removal table): A commissioner proposed changing the exempt removal threshold from 30 inches to 24 inches to preserve more trees. Staff noted a potential increase in administrative burden.
  • Amendment C9 (Director's authority to waive or reduce minimum tree retention): Commissioners debated the need for specific criteria (e.g., utilities, foundation issues) to guide such waivers. Some favored providing more flexibility with clear conditions, while others wanted to avoid excessive use.
  • Amendment C10 (Replacement tree requirements): Staff recommended not adopting this amendment, preferring to retain director flexibility to reduce on-site replacement trees and require fees for off-site replanting. Commissioners did not express strong opposition.
• The commission did not take a formal vote; discussion indicated support for moving forward with most amendments but with staff recommendations on specific sections.

NUR Zoning Amendments (Light Rail Station Areas)

• Mr. Ballard presented a recap of the joint meeting with city council on October 25, 2021. Key topics included parking reductions, height increases, and development agreement requirements.
• Commissioners provided direction to staff:
  • Parking: Strong interest in exploring parking reductions, with conditions to offset impacts. Eliminating parking minimums was not favored.
  • Height: Interest in allowing greater height (beyond 70 feet) without requiring a development agreement, potentially up to 100 feet. One commissioner opposed any height over 70 feet.
  • Other: Consideration of open space, linkage, and design standards.
• Staff will develop draft amendments and conduct outreach before returning to the commission in early 2022.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken on the tree code amendments; the commission indicated general agreement to forward most amendments to the city council with staff recommendations, but requested further study on penalty and financial guarantee sections (L and M) and the exempt tree threshold.
• For the NUR amendments, the commission directed staff to explore parking reduction options and potential height increases beyond 70 feet without a development agreement, with further analysis of construction types and market feasibility.
• A commissioner announced their resignation before the end of the year, thanking the commission for their work.

Note: This summary is based solely on the transcript; no agenda or minutes were available to verify speaker names or exact amendment numbers.