Shoreline Planning Commission Public Hearing on 2021 Development Code Amendments - February 4, 2022

The Shoreline Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 4, 2022, to consider the 2021 Development Code Amendments Batch Two, covering miscellaneous, SEPA, and tree amendments. The commission heard public testimony, deliberated, and voted on three amendment packages. The miscellaneous and SEPA amendments were approved unanimously. The tree amendments were approved after a series of individual votes, including a sub-amendment to lower the landmark tree definition from 30 to 24 inches DBH. The commission also voted to recommend placing four items on the 2022 comprehensive plan docket.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda was approved without changes.
• Minutes from the January 20, 2022 meeting were approved without changes.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Bob Craig (resident of Clinton, WA, developer in Shoreline): Expressed support for the staff recommendation to unbundle parking, citing LEED and ITE standards.
• Susie Good (resident of Seattle, representing a property management company with properties in Shoreline): Supported unbundling parking for environmental reasons and practical management challenges with one-to-one ratios.
• William Turner (resident of Shoreline, speaking for the Tree Preservation Code Team): Argued for lowering the significant tree definition from 8 inches to 6 inches DBH, citing multiple nearby cities using 6 inches.
• Nancy Morris (resident of Shoreline): Urged the commission to recommend protective tree code amendments (2, 6, and 10) as proposed by the Tree Preservation Code Team, referencing past commission actions in 2012.
• Kathleen Russell (resident of Shoreline, speaking for the Tree Preservation Code Team): Questioned why some proposed codes (e.g., 6-inch definition, landmark 24-inch, penalties) were not in staff slides, and listed 575 recently removed trees in Shoreline, asking for all proposed codes to be recommended to council.
• Ann Bates (resident of Shoreline, Ridgecrest neighborhood): Expressed support for amendments 2, 6, and 10 as proposed by the Tree Preservation Code Team, emphasizing climate change urgency.
• Peter Eglick (attorney for Innis Arden Club, representing over 500 lots in Shoreline): Recommended against adopting any tree amendments, advocating for a comprehensive stakeholder process and an environmental impact statement. Raised concerns about impacts on 80% of lots, solar access, and lack of scientific basis for replacement requirements.

Discussion Items

• Miscellaneous Amendments: Staff presented updates on parking setbacks, administrative fixes, and adaptive reuse of commercial buildings. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the staff-recommended miscellaneous amendments.
• SEPA Amendments: Amendments clarifying the State Environmental Policy Act review, approval, and appeal processes. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the staff-recommended SEPA amendments.
• Tree Amendments: Staff recommended approval of several amendments (numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11) but not others (e.g., 6-inch significant tree definition, 24-inch landmark tree). A motion to reject all tree amendments and refer them back for broader stakeholder input failed (Commissioner Malik and Vice Chair Wamishonje in favor, Chair Sager, Commissioners Callahan and Lynn opposed; 2-3). A subsequent motion to approve the staff-recommended tree amendments as the main motion passed. The commission then discussed each tree amendment individually:
  • Amendment 1 (critical root zone definition): Approved unanimously.
  • Amendment 2 (definitions: tree canopy, hazardous tree, landmark tree): Initially voted on as a group, but confusion arose over landmark tree definition. The commission withdrew that vote and then considered a sub-amendment by Commissioner Callahan to change landmark tree from 30 inches DBH to 24 inches DBH. The sub-amendment passed 4-1 (Commissioner Malik opposed). The amended Amendment 2 then passed 4-1 (Commissioner Malik opposed).
  • Amendment 3 (definitions: urban forest, urban tree canopy): Approved 5-0.
  • Amendment 5 (revised tree code purpose section): Approved 4-1 (Commissioner Malik opposed).
  • Amendment 6 (general requirements for trees): Approved 4-1 (Commissioner Malik opposed; he expressed concerns about impacts on density and transit-oriented development).
  • Amendment 8 (increasing significant tree retention from 20% to 25%): Approved 5-0.
  • Amendment 9 (allowing director to waive/reduce minimum retention under criteria): Approved 5-0.
  • Amendment 11 (tree protection standards: taller fencing, arborist observation, etc.): A sub-motion by Commissioner Malik to strike the arborist requirement (part E) lacked a second and failed. The amendment then passed 4-1 (Commissioner Malik opposed). After individual votes, the main motion (staff-recommended tree amendments as amended by the landmark tree change) was put to a final vote and passed 4-1 (Commissioner Malik opposed).
• Annual Comprehensive Plan Docket: Staff recommended placing items 1-4 on the final docket for study: (1) transportation master plan update, (2) major comprehensive plan update (due 2024), (3) King County Park & Ride land use change at Aurora/192nd, (4) private amendment on tree preservation policy. The commission voted 5-0 to recommend these items to council.

Key Outcomes

• Miscellaneous Amendments: Approved 5-0 to forward to city council.
• SEPA Amendments: Approved 5-0 to forward to city council.
• Tree Amendments (staff-recommended, as amended): Approved 4-1 to forward to city council (Commissioner Malik opposed). Key change: landmark tree definition lowered from 30 inches DBH to 24 inches DBH.
• Annual Docket: Approved 5-0 to recommend items 1-4 be placed on the final docket for staff study.
• Staff noted that the recommendation letter to council will include commission comments on further study of the 6-inch vs. 8-inch significant tree definition and other concerns raised during discussion.