HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2024 - Agenda Packet
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Hybrid - Virtual/In-Person
Medina City Hall - Council Chambers
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
Wednesday, September 11, 2024 – 6:00 PM
AGENDA
COMMISSION CHAIR | Laura Bustamante
COMMISSION VICE-CHAIR | Shawn Schubring
COMMISSIONERS | Julie Barrett, Li-Tan Hsu, Evonne Lai, Mark Nelson, Brian Pao
PLANNING MANAGER | Jonathan Kesler
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COORDINATOR | Rebecca Bennett
Hybrid Meeting Participation
The Medina Planning Commission has moved to hybrid meetings, offering both in-person and
online meeting participation. In accordance with the direction from Governor Inslee, masking and
social distancing will be optional for those participating in person. Individuals who are participating
online and wish to speak live can register their request with the Development Services
Coordinator at 425.233.6414 or email rbennett@medina-wa.gov and leave a message before
2PM on the day of the Planning Commission meeting. The Development Services Coordinator
will call on you by name or telephone number when it is your turn to speak. You will be allotted 3
minutes for your comments and will be asked to stop when you reach the 3 minute limit. The city
will also accept written comments. Any written comments must be submitted by 2 PM on the day
of the Planning Commission meeting to the Development Services Coordinator
at rbennett@medina-wa.gov.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://medina-wa.zoom.us/j/82055357397?pwd=CXvqEma9Vz5LFtyrzRqXaZDz8zSp2k.1
Meeting ID: 820 5535 7397
Passcode: 792112
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,82055357397#,,,,*792112# US (Tacoma)
+12532050468,,82055357397#,,,,*792112# US
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
1
2. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2024
Recommendation: Adopt minutes.
Staff Contact: Rebecca Bennett, Development Services Coordinator
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.1 Staff/Commissioners
5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Individuals wishing to speak live during the Virtual Planning Commission meeting will need
to register their request with the Development Services Coordinator, Rebecca Bennett,
via email (rbennett@medina-wa.gov) or by leaving a message at 425.233.6414 by 2pm
the day of the Planning Commission meeting. Please reference Public Comments for the
Planning Commission meeting on your correspondence. The Development Services
Coordinator will call on you by name or telephone number when it is your turn to speak.
You will be allotted 3 minutes for your comment and will be asked to stop when you reach
the 3-minute limit.
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 Concerns of the Commission
6.2 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, Initial Comment Review from PSRC, King County
and Dept. of Commerce
Recommendation: Discussion
Staff Contact: Jonathan Kesler, AICP, Planning Manager; with Dane Jepsen, Associate
Planner, LDC Consultants
Time Estimate: 60 minutes
6.3 2024 Comp Plan Update, Dept. of Commerce Presentation on the Housing Element
Observations
Recommendation: Discussion
Staff Contact: Jonathan Kesler, AICP, Planning Manager; Lexine Long, Dept. of
Commerce
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
6.4 Tree Management Code Amendments
Recommendation: Approve
Staff Contact: Steven R. Wilcox, Development Services Director
6.5 Public Hearing, Amendments to MMC 16.72.030, Non-Admin. Variance Code
Recommendation: Discussion and Approval
Staff Contact: Steve Wilcox, Development Services Director and Jennifer Robertson,
City Attorney
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
2
7. ADJOURNMENT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning Commission meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 6 PM, unless
otherwise specified.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification
or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Clerk’s Office at (425) 233-6410 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 - Regular Meeting
Wednesday, October 9, 2024 - Special Meeting
Tuesday, October 22, 2024 - Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 26, 2024 - Regular Meeting cancelled - Special Meeting Date TBD
Tuesday, December 24, 2024 - Regular Meeting cancelled - Special Meeting Date TBD
3
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Hybrid - Virtual/In-Person
Medina City Hall - Council Chambers
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
Tuesday, June 25, 2024 – 6:00 PM
MINUTES
COMMISSION CHAIR | Laura Bustamante
COMMISSION VICE-CHAIR | Shawn Schubring
COMMISSIONERS | Julie Barrett, Li-Tan Hsu, Evonne Lai, Mark Nelson, Brian Pao
PLANNING MANAGER | Jonathan Kesler
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COORDINATOR | Rebecca Bennett
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Schubring called the meeting to order at 6:03pm.
PRESENT
Chair Laura Bustamante
Vice Chair Shawn Schubring
Commissioner Barrett
Commissioner Li-Tan Hsu
Commissioner Evonne Lai
Commissioner Mark Nelson
ABSENT
Commissioner Brian Pao
STAFF/CONSULTANTS PRESENT
Bennett, Burns, Jepsen, Kesler, Wilcox
2. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
ACTION: Motion to approve agenda as presented. (6-0)
Motion made by Commissioner Nelson, Seconded by Commissioner Barrett.
Voting Yea: Chair Bustamante, Vice Chair Schubring, Commissioner Barrett,
Commissioner Hsu, Commissioner Lai, Commissioner Nelson
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
3.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 29, 2024
Recommendation: Adopt minutes.
Staff Contact: Rebecca Bennett, Development Services Coordinator
ACTION: Motion to approve minutes as presented. (Approved 6-0)
Motion made by Commissioner Nelson, Seconded by Commissioner Hsu.
Voting Yea: Chair Bustamante, Vice Chair Schubring, Commissioner Barrett,
Commissioner Hsu, Commissioner Lai, Commissioner Nelson
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4.1 Staff/Commissioners
Jonathan announced the July 23rd Planning Commission Meeting may be cancelled.
Commissioners discussed the need for the meeting.
ACTION: Motion to cancel July 23rd Planning Commission Meeting. (Approved 6-0)
Motion made by Commissioner Nelson, Seconded by Commissioner Barrett.
Voting Yea: Chair Bustamante, Vice Chair Schubring, Commissioner Barrett,
Commissioner Hsu, Commissioner Lai, Commissioner Nelson
5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
There was no public comment.
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 Concerns of the Commission
None were heard.
6.2 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, 2nd review and approval sought of the Preface,
Introduction and Background and Context Sections.
Recommendation: Second review and approval.
Staff Contact: Jonathan Kesler, AICP, Planning Manager; with Dane Jepsen, Associate
Planner of LDC Consultants
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
Kesler gave brief PowerPoint Presentation. Jepsen went through red-lined document of
the Preface, Introduction and Background and Context Sections.
ACTION: Motion to send to council the Comprehensive Plan Update Preface,
Introduction and Background and Context Sections.
5
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
Motion made by Commissioner Nelson, Seconded by Commissioner Hsu.
Voting Yea: Chair Bustamante, Vice Chair Schubring, Commissioner Barrett,
Commissioner Hsu, Commissioner Lai, Commissioner Nelson
6.3 Report on Completion of the Medina Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Permit Monitoring
Project Grant
Recommendation: Discussion.
Staff Contact: Jonathan Kesler, AICP, Planning Manager, with Alex Capron, AICP,
Senior Planner, Facet Northwest
Alex Capron from Facet Northwest gave PowerPoint Presentation. Commissioners
discussed and asked questions.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:15pm.
ACTION: Motion to adjourn. (Approved 6-0)
Motion made by Commissioner Nelson, Seconded by Commissioner Hsu.
Voting Yea: Chair Bustamante, Vice Chair Schubring, Commissioner Barrett,
Commissioner Hsu, Commissioner Lai, Commissioner Nelson
6
AGENDA ITEM 3.1
CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 6, 2024
TO: Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Dane Jepsen, Planner, LDC Inc.
RE: Item 6.2 - 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, Initial Comment Review
from PSRC, King County and Dept. of Commerce
Executive Summary
The City has received comments from State and Regional Level reviews and should begin
addressing comments through revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations. These revisions are necessary to address issues of compliance with State
regulations and consistency with Regional and county-wide plans. Major issues identified in
preliminary review of the received comments include:
• Planning for Affordable Housing
• Assessment of Racially Disparate Impacts
• Further Incorporation of Climate Change Concerns
Background
On May 31st, 2024, the City finalized the first draft of its 2024 Comprehensive Plan and
submitted it for review by public agencies and the general public. These reviews are then
provided to the City for their consideration in the preparation of the Final Comprehensive Plan
to be adopted before the end of the year.
Note that comments received from public agencies do not require direct responses; rather,
these comments are meant to be provided prior to adoption for consideration/implementation
then most agencies will review the Adopted Comprehensive Plan again when the City submits
the 5-year implementation progress report.
Public reviews of the Draft Comprehensive Plan can be categorized into three levels of review
in reference to the way the City must consider their comments:
• State Level Review
• Regional Level Review
• Local Level Review
7
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
State Level Review
Reviews plan compliance with applicable sections of the Growth Management Act1 (GMA).
This review is conducted by Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce),
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Washington State
Department of Ecology (WADOE).
When reviewing comments from this level of review, pay close attention to matters of plan
compliance.
Regional Level Review
Reviews plan consistency with regional and county-wide plans under RCW 36.70A.100.
This review is conducted by regional planning organizations, like the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC), and King County through the King County Affordable Housing Commission
(KCAHC). Each of these reviews are primarily focused on each body’s associated plan, for
PSRC this is Vision 2050 and the Multi County Planning Policies (MPPs), for KCAHC this is
the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs).
When reviewing comments from this level of review, pay close attention to matters of plan
consistency; reviewing agencies may identify issues of compliance but they are not the final
authority on these issues and their advice should be reviewed for accuracy and applicability.
Local Level Review
Reviews plan coordination with community and neighbors including public participation
(required under RCW 36.70A.035 & RCW 36.70A.140), tribal coordination (required under),
and coordination with other adjacent uses (required under RCW 36.70A.530 & RCW
36.70.547).
This review is conducted by local tribes, community-based organizations, neighboring public
uses, and the general public.
When reviewing comments from this level of review, it is important to pay attention to
concerns and intent; if a valid concern is expressed that is not currently addressed in the plan it
should be considered. Coordination with entities such as Tribes, military installations, and
airports, should be carried out according to their provisions in the GMA.
Review Summary
So far, the City has received public reviews from the following agencies:
• Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) – State Level Review
• Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) – State Level Review
• Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) – Regional Level Review
• King County Affordable Housing Council (KCAHC) – Regional Level Review
• Puget Sound Partnerships (PSP) Ecosystem Coordination Board (ECB)2 – Local
Review
Additional Local Level review from sources such as public comments and the Planning
Commission Public Hearing is forthcoming and will need to be incorporated into the final draft
as well.
1 RCW Chapter 36.70a
2 While PSP is a regional planning program, they do not have published plans to assess consistency
with under RCW 36.70A.100, their review is more akin to a Local Level Review.
8
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
LDC has reviewed and compiled the received comments and identified the below major items
requiring action on the part of the City. Items are broadly described to collect similar review
comments; specific codes or policies are referenced according to the following:
Code or Plan Abbreviation
Revised Code of Washington RCW
Multi-County Planning Policies MPP
Countywide Planning Policies CPP
Local Comp Plan Policies LP
Ch.1 Land Use Element Comments
Commerce noted that the City has not adopted any code nor made any reference to the
Washington Wildland Urban Interface Code. This is required by RCW 36.70A.070(1) and will
need to be incorporated into the Final Comp Plan.
Other comments included subjects of:
• Proposed siting of higher density housing by encouraging infill development and
increased density (MPP-RGS-6)
• Watershed planning
• Climate Change Resilience (MPP-C-7-10, CPP-CC-Action-4, and RCW 19.27.560)
Ch.2 Natural Environment Element Comments
WDFW met with City staff and provided detailed comments on the Natural Environment
Element. The most major comments were requests for an updated Critical Areas map and
updates to critical areas regulations for consistency with Best Available Science.
PSRC had minor policy revision comments relating to habitat preservation and Climate
Change resilience.
Ch.3 Community Design Element Comments
WDFW had minor policy revision comments relating to habitat preservation and Climate
Change resilience. The following subjects and policies were included in these comments:
• Planning for pedestrian connection of natural and open spaces (LP-CD-P3, LP-CD-
P14)
• Implement community engagement within the City’s vegetation and tree preservation
practices (LP-CD-P18, LD-CD-P20, LD-CD-P27)
Ch.4 Housing Element Comments
Multiple public agencies submitted review comments regarding the Housing Element of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan. Issues identified in comments range from suggestions to issues of
compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Some major items that will need to be addressed in the Final Comprehensive Plan include:
• Affordable Housing
PSRC recommended the incorporation of policy MPP-H-Action-4.
MPP-H-Action-4 is a local policy that requires jurisdictions to conduct a housing needs
analysis and evaluate the effectiveness of local housing policies and strategies to
achieve housing targets and affordability goals to support updates to local
comprehensive plans.
A Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) had not been included with the Draft Comp Plan to
identify capacity for affordable housing. LDC has performed a LCA and identified a
capacity deficit for affordable housing. To demonstrate capacity for affordable housing, 9
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
the City must adopt development regulations that will support affordable housing
development as outlined in Commerce guidance.
LDC has reviewed options for demonstration of affordable housing capacity, the City
will either need to adopt higher density zoning or utilize creative solutions to plan for
the City’s housing targets.
• Moderate Density Housing
RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b) specifically requires the Housing Element to include policies
related to Moderate Density Housing. Commerce, PSRC, and KCAHC all requested
revisions to include these provisions in the Final Comprehensive Plan.
MPP-H-9 refers to a jurisdiction expanding their housing capacity for moderate density
housing to bridge the gap between single-family and more intensive multi-family
housing that would provide opportunities for more affordable ownership and rental
housing that would allow more people to live in neighborhoods across the region.
• Racially Disparate Impacts (RDI)
RCW.70A.070(2)(e) and several MPPs and CPPs require the City to incorporate the
consideration of Racially Disparate Impacts (RDI) in its Housing Element. The City
has included language referencing RDI, but Commerce, PSRC, and KCAHC have
requested the City include future analysis of RDI within the City’s history and current
regulations & policies.
There were additional minor comments received that will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Ch.5 Transportation & Circulation Element Comments
Multiple public agencies submitted review comments regarding the Transportation &
Circulation Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Commerce and PSRC identified the City needs to adopt WSDOT Level-of-Service Standards
for SR-520.
Additionally, PSRC indicated the City needed to provide a 10-year forecast of travel needs
based on the adopted land use plan. This is a requirement under RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(E)
that the City will need to take into consideration.
Other comments included subjects of:
• Habitat connectivity and safety (LP-T-G9, LP-T-P3, LP-T-P8)
• Climate Change resilience
• Mobility for Special Needs
Ch.6 Parks Element Comments
At this time, the City has not received any comments on the Parks Element in the Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
Ch.7 Capital Facilities Element Comments
Few comments were made on the Capital Facilities Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Commerce stated that the City needed to add an inventory of existing “Green Infrastructure”
per RCW 36.70A.030(3)(a).
Additionally, WDFW had minor policy revision and general policy suggestion comments.
• Designing and protecting essential public facilities and services
• Provide inventory of existing green infrastructure
10
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
Ch.8 Utilities Element Comments
Few comments were made on the Utilities Element of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. WDFW
had minor policy revision and general policy suggestion comments.
Conclusion
The City has received comments from State and Regional Level reviews and should begin
addressing comments through revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations. These revisions are necessary to address issues of compliance with State
regulations and consistency with Regional and county-wide plans. Major issues identified in
preliminary review of the received comments include:
• Planning for Affordable Housing
• Assessment of Racially Disparate Impacts
• Further Incorporation of Climate Change Concerns
11
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4
Region 4 information: 16018 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98012 | phone: (425)-775-1311
1
July 3, 2024
Mr. Jonathan Kesler, Planning Manager
501 Evergreen Point Rd.
Medina, WA 98039
Jkesler@medina-wa.gov
RE: WDFW’s comments in relation to the draft elements of Medina’s Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Kesler,
On behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), thank you for the
opportunity to submit our comments on the proposed draft policy language of Medina’s
Comprehensive Plan as part of the current periodic update. Within the State of Washington’s
land use decision-making framework, WDFW’s role is that of technical advisor with respect to
the habitat needs of fish and wildlife and the likely implications of various land use decisions on
those resources over time. We provide these comments and recommendations in keeping with
our legislative mandate to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife and their habitats
for the benefit of future generations – a mission we can only accomplish in partnership with
local jurisdictions.
Table 1. Recommended changes to proposed policy language.
Policy Number Policy Language
(with WDFW suggestions in red) WDFW Comment
Land Use
LU-P7
Page 9
The City should work with WSDOT
and City residents to develop
mitigation measures that it seeks
to be implemented as part of
regional facilities development or
improvement projects, such as SR
520 and related structures and
improvements, and are designed
to promote and improve physical,
environmental, mental, and social
health and reduce the impacts of
climate change and fish passage
We suggest the inclusion of environmental health
and fish passage within this policy. For example, it
is important to plan and prioritize culvert upgrades
to ensure not only fish passage benefits, but
adequate projected stormwater passage, as well
as wildlife habitat corridor and pedestrian trail
linkages. We suggest this element (and future
amendments to the City of Medina’s Capital
Improvement Plan) include this goal, targeting
areas where terrestrial species and pedestrian
connectivity can be restored simultaneously (i.e.,
replacing culverts with wide bridges and
12
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
2
barriers on the natural and built
environments. Coordination
between the City, King County, and
WSDOT should reflect
opportunities to promote or
improve public health and safety
of regional trail systems.
underpasses). Current fish passage barrier
locations can be found on WDFW’s website.
Further resources include WDFW’s “Incorporating
Climate Change into the Design of Water Crossing
Structures: Final Project Report,” as well as
WSDOT’s “Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
Consideration in Fish Barrier Removal Projects.”
Combining stormwater maintenance (or any
maintenance) with multi-benefit goals (such as
climate change resiliency or salmon recovery)
opens up these projects for diverse funding
opportunities.
LU-P13
Page 10
The process to site proposed new
or expansions to existing essential
public facilities should consist of
the following:
i. An analysis of current and
future climate-related
environmental impacts
and mitigation; and
Protecting essential public facilities and the
services they provide from future climate-related
impacts helps ensure community resilience for the
entire operational lifespan of the facility. We
suggest updating zoning to allow essential or
hazardous uses only in low-risk areas and assess
risk when new facilities are proposed. For
assessing future conditions, see Climate Mapping
for a Resilient Washington, as well as FEMA’s
Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT) for
resources in visualizing these hazard areas.
LU-P15
Page 11
To promote adequate stormwater
management within the
community, the City should
consider land use development
standards and other local
regulations that could be revised,
as appropriate, to better
accommodate site drainage and
encourage the practice of low-
impact development. Where
feasible, the City will make low
impact development (LID) the
preferred and most commonly
used approach to site
development.
We support the adjacent policy, and suggest
Medina go even further by adding the proposed
language in order to make this policy more
actionable. Policies that support salmon recovery
within this Comprehensive Plan are crucial.
Medina’s shorelines are considered tier 1 critical
areas for protection and conservation as it relates
to Endangered chinook salmon recovery (Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA
8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan). This tier 1
status underscores the unique geographic location
and distinctive obligation (interlocal agreement)
Medina has to preserve, rehabilitate, and re-
establish salmon habitat. Especially in an urban
setting such as Medina, LID can provide far-
reaching support in attaining salmon recovery-
related goals. Additionally, utilizing LID techniques
can help the city address Federal Policy Priorities,
such as, “Chemicals from decaying tires,
specifically 6PPD-quinone affect coho, Chinook,
sockeye and steelhead. In particular, coho have
been shown to be most sensitive and succumb to
“urban runoff mortality syndrome” within hours of
13
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
3
exposure. Federal funding is needed to support
local governments in implementing critical
stormwater retrofit projects to capture and treat
toxic runoff.”
Resources for LID include King County’s Regional
Stormwater Action Goals (which includes Planning
Stormwater Parks), the Sustainable Development
Code website and the VISION 2050 Planning
Resources Guidance on Integrating Stormwater
Solutions into Comprehensive Plans.
Natural Environment
General
Comment
Page 1-2
The 2014 Critical Areas Map
identifies and describes known
regulated critical areas and
sensitive areas within Medina (see
Figure 4). These critical areas
include:
We suggest this map illustrate the important tier 1
salmon habitat along the shoreline of Medina. A
map depiction of this can be found in the Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA
8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan.
NE-P1
Page 2
The City should maintain and
update critical areas regulations as
required by the GMA utilizing the
best available science. Approaches
and standards for defining and
protecting critical areas should be
coordinated with neighboring
jurisdictions where such areas and
impacts to critical areas cross
jurisdictional boundaries.
We appreciate this policy and recommend Medina
specifically reference WDFW best available science
as it relates to the protection of riparian areas.
This science synthesis can be found in Riparian
Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and
Management Implications (2020), while our
management recommendations can be found in
Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management
Recommendations.
NE-P2
Page 3
The City should shall preserve and
enhance where possible the
functions and values of Medina’s
critical areas and natural resources
in a manner consistent with best
available science, and preserve
and restore its native vegetation,
native biodiversity, and tree
canopy, especially where it
protects habitat and contributes to
overall ecological function. Natural
resources in Medina include
forests, wetlands, estuaries,
riparian areas, and urban tree
canopy, all of which are valuable
and should be protected.
We suggest this policy include mention of riparian
areas. Riparian areas that are able to perform all
riparian functions and values are instrumental in
safeguarding the health of aquatic species and
habitat, bolstering climate resiliency, attenuating
water, combatting drought conditions, and so
much more. Riparian areas “are disproportionately
important, relative to area, for aquatic species
(e.g., salmon) and terrestrial wildlife,” as stated in
WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2:
Management Recommendations and supported by
WDFW’s BAS. Additionally, protecting these areas
is instrumental in pursuing successful salmon
recovery efforts.
NE-P5 The City should work to protect,
preserve and, where possible,
Thank you for including the mention of WRIA 8
specific plans above in policy NE-P3. From the
14
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
4
Page 3 enhance water quality in Lake
Washington, Medina Creek, and
other streams. The City should
ensure that public and private
projects incorporate locally
appropriate, low-impact
development approaches
developed using a watershed
planning framework for managing
stormwater, prioritizes shoreline
restoration and removal of hard
armoring, protecting water quality,
minimizing flooding and erosion,
protecting habitat, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
information provided in these plans, hard
armoring should also be addressed, possibly within
the adjacent policy (NE-P5). As stated in chapter
11 page 10 of the Lake
Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA
8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (2005),
“Reduce predation to outmigrating juvenile
Chinook by: reducing bank hardening, restoring
overhanging riparian vegetation, replacing
bulkheads and rip-rap with sandy beaches with
gentle slopes, and use of mesh dock surfaces
and/or community docks.” Each policy suggestion
within this chapter is followed by implementation
suggestions to accomplish policy goals. Chapter 13
is similar, only specifically for nearshore
environments. We highly encourage Medina look
at some of these policies and implementation
methods to incorporate them into Comprehensive
Plan language.
NE-P6
Page 3
The City should develop a
mitigation incentives program and
streamline permitting for projects
that promotes improved water
quality. Incentives should be
monitored to determine
effectiveness.
We suggest streamlined permitting for restoration
and water quality related projects be a top priority
for future municipal code amendments.
NE-P7
Page 3
The City should work to preserve
stream corridors wide enough to
maintain and enhance existing
stream and habitat functions in all
development proposals by
designation of native growth
protection areas or other
appropriate mechanisms.
See comments related to NE-P1 above. Our best
available science outlines methodologies to help
achieve this policy’s goals.
NE-P9
Page 3
The City should prohibit the
introduction of invasive plant
species and encourage
enhancement of native plant
communities in natural areas,
which include, but are not limited
to, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas and their
buffers. The City should also
encourage protection or
enhancement of the urban tree
canopy to provide wildlife habitat,
We strongly encourage the city of Medina to
prioritize heat mitigation, ecosystem health, and
citizen health by implementing an urban tree
canopy plan. We recommend this plan assess
current conditions and benchmark progress
towards tree canopy goals, while annually
releasing a progress report. This plan should also
measure how well the City’s tree-related
ordinances are functioning in retaining trees on
the landscape. It may not be enough to rely on
15
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
5
support community resilience,
mitigate urban heat, manage
stormwater, conserve energy,
protect and improve mental and
physical health,...
ordinances if there is not a system in place to track
cumulative impacts over time.
Some examples of tree management plans include
the City of Tacoma, the City of Snoqualmie, the
City of Redmond, and the City of Renton. The
Puget Sound Urban Tree Canopy and Stormwater
Management Handbook provides additional
guidance.
NE-P13
Page 4
The City should plan for
development patterns that
minimize air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions,
including:
We greatly appreciate the goals outlined within
this policy. Some helpful resources in
accomplishing these goals include the Sustainable
Development Code website, which provides
specific resources for removing code barriers,
creating incentives, and filling regulatory gaps in
pursuit of green building goals, as well as the
Georgetown Climate Center's Green Infrastructure
Toolkit, which provides funding models and
approaches from U.S. municipalities, including Los
Angeles County's Safe Clean Water Program and
Boulder, Colorado's Greenways Program.
Additionally, see how the city of Boston is
identifying priority blocks that could yield the
greatest benefits to residents in pursuit of a “cool”
roof goal. Similarly, "green" roofs covered with
sedum, native flowers, and other low-maintenance
vegetation help insulate buildings from solar heat
and provide pollinator habitat. Such rooftops help
reduce building cooling costs and heat-related
illnesses and deaths. Additionally, with the help of
Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol: Criteria
for High-Performance Schools, additional public or
private infrastructure can be modeled after this
example. See the LEED rating system for further
resources aimed at all building types.
Community Design
CD-P1
Page 5
Preserve and enhance trees as a
component of Medina’s distinctive
sylvan character.
See comments related to NE-P9 above.
CD-P3
Page 5
Create a safe, attractive, and
connected pedestrian
environment for all ages and
abilities throughout the city.
Ensure these spaces incorporate
wildlife habitat corridor linkages as
It is important to additionally plan for the
connection and linkage of parks, open spaces, and
critical areas to provide multi-benefit options, such
as recreational trail opportunities as well as
wildlife habitat corridor linkages. For information
on implementing wildlife habitat attributes in
16
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
6
well to achieve multi-benefit
solutions.
public spaces, see WDFW’s Habitat at Home
resource as well as WDFW’s Landscape Planning
for Washington’s Wildlife for further resources,
especially “Chapter 6: Implementation through
Comprehensive Plans, Development Regulations,
and Incentive Programs,” page 6-1.
Some additional resources include the Trust for
Public Lands, the NRPA Safe Routes to Parks Action
Framework (which provides professionals with a
“how-to” guide to implement Safe Routes to Parks
strategies), and the Sustainable Development
Code website.
CD-P14
Page 6
Preserve, encourage, connect, and
enhance open space as a key
element of the community’s
character through parks, trails, and
other significant properties that
provide public benefit.
Connection between these spaces is key for the
purpose of recreational enjoyment and wildlife
habitat corridors (see comment above).
CD-P18
Page 7
Residents should shall consult with
the City and with their neighbors
on both removal and replacement
of trees and tree groupings to help
to protect views and to prevent
potential problems (e.g., removal
of an important tree or planting a
living fence).
Municipal tree ordinances should define the
mandatory process for consulting with the City in
order to remove any significant tree. We suggest
should be replaced by shall to more accurately
represent this process.
CD-P20
Page 7
Preserve vegetation with special
consideration given to the
protection of groups of trees and
associated undergrowth, specimen
trees, and evergreen trees. Special
preservation consideration will
also be given to protect trees
within shoreline and riparian
areas.
Trees offer tremendous benefits to salmonids and
all aquatic (as well as terrestrial) species within
riparian areas (see WDFW BAS in comments
related to NE-P2 above).
CD-P27
Page 7
Consider creating a voluntary
program to inventory the City’s
trees in order to measure existing
tree canopy and track canopy loss
or growth.
See comments related to NE-P9 above.
Housing
H-P2
Page 6
Maintain the informal, sylvan
residential character of
neighborhoods. Encourage
We greatly appreciate Medina’s commitment to
tree canopy protection. As mentioned in previous
comments, a tree canopy management plan would
17
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
7
residential site development and
redevelopment to plan for the
retention or preservation of
existing trees.
help accomplish this goal. A plan that uses the
sequential process below is what we have
commonly seen utilized by jurisdictions in similar
positions as Medina:
1. Inventory and assess current conditions;
2. Decide on goals, actions to achieve goals,
and how these actions can be
implemented;
3. Track progress towards these goals
annually, considering adaptive
management in order to pivot if goals are
not being met.
General Policy
Suggestion
For all new development, require
parks and open space retention,
creation, and connection to
promote healthy and climate-
resilient communities locally and
regionally.
We suggest including the adjacent policy within
this element. Open spaces can act as climate-
resilient assets that can serve as community
spaces. All new development should retain open
space for the benefit of people and the
environment. Many jurisdictions achieve this
through requiring set-asides for open space within
all new development projects. We also
recommend site plans demonstrate an effort to
site open space adjacent to and connected to
other open spaces for recreational and wildlife
corridor connection opportunities.
Transportation and Circulation
T-G9
Page 8
To increase pedestrian and wildlife
safety and explore traffic calming
techniques to improve safety of all
community members using the
transportation network.
Transporation planning that considers wildlife
movement is crucial for the safety and betterment
of people and wildlife across the landscape. We
recommend considering habitat attributes, wider
vegetated areas, and other methods that could tie
wildlife habitat corridor linkage planning into
transportation planning. For additional resources,
see The Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity
Working Group, WSDOT’s Reducing the risk of
wildlife collisions website as well as Wildlife
Habitat Connectivity Consideration in Fish Barrier
Removal Projects, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks’ How to Build Fence with Wildlife in Mind,
and WDFW’s website.
T-P3
Page 8
The City should seek to provide
pedestrian and wildlife movement
improvements in conjunction with
stormwater drainage
improvements, when desirable.
See comment above.
18
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
8
T-P8
Page 9
The City should work with WSDOT,
city residents and other groups,
stakeholders, and agencies to
develop mitigation measures that
may be implemented as part of
any SR 520
improvement/expansion project.
The City should seek an overall
reduction of impacts, including
measures such as:
Wildlife movement should also be considered in
this policy, as described above in comments
related to T-G9.
General Policy
Suggestion
Identify road locations that are
known for high levels of wildlife
road mortality or wildlife-vehicle
collisions. Conduct a wildlife road
mortality study at suspected
problem areas. Look for areas
where there could be large
mammals, pond breeding
amphibians near wetlands, etc.
As described in previous comments related to this
element, wildlife mortality and vehicle collisions
should be prioritized for further action. This
suggestion comes from WDFW’s Landscape
Planning for Washington's Wildlife: Managing for
Biodiversity in Developing Areas (A Priority
Habitats and Species Guidance Document).
General Policy
Suggestion
Design and site new and expanded
roads and railroads to have the
least possible adverse effect on
the shoreline, account for sea-level
rise projections, not result in a net
loss of shoreline ecological
functions, or adversely impact
existing or planned water-oriented
uses, public access, and habitat
restoration and enhancement
projects.
New roadways and railroads within shoreline
jurisdictions should be avoided. This policy also
aligns with the Department of Ecology's shoreline
guidelines.
General Policy
Suggestion
Eliminate parking minimum
requirements and establish
parking maximums.
This policy, which could be implemented in a
development code, could help reduce impervious
surfaces that exacerbate stormwater runoff and
the urban heat island effect. This policy also could
encourage active-transportation (walking, biking,
riding transit) alternatives to driving automobiles;
this reduces emissions, improves community
health, and supports other co-benefits.
General Policy
Suggestion
Encourage use of Low Impact
Development techniques during
the site planning and layout phase
of a project, particularly in areas of
high aquatic species diversity,
salmonid‐bearing streams, or
The importance of this policy is described in LU-
P15 above.
19
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
9
shoreline habitat utilized by
salmonids.
Parks
General
Comment
General comment. We greatly appreciate Medina’s commitment to
their parks and open spaces, as well as cultural
identity expression within these spaces. We
particularly applaud the language used in PO-P9
with regard to habitat connectivity.
Capital Facilities
CF-P1
Page 4
The Six-Year Capital Improvement
Plan should be periodically
updated to reflect the projected
needs of the community.
We highly recommend including a prioritization list
for culvert upgrades within this Six-Year Capital
Improvement Plan. Please see comments in
relation to LU-P7 above. This point may be better
included in CF-P8.
General Policy
Suggestion
Ensure that buildings are designed
and built sustainably to reduce
environmental impacts and remain
resilient to extreme weather and
other hazards worsened by climate
change.
As mentioned in comments related to LU-P13
above, designing and protecting essential public
facilities and the services they provide from future
climate-related impacts helps ensure community
resilience for the entire operational lifespan of the
facility.
Utilities
General Policy
Suggestion
To the greatest extent feasible,
avoid siting sewer system facilities
within shoreline or riparian areas,
or areas predicted to experience
greater frequencies of climate-
related flooding into the future.
The State Department of Health adopted rules
establishing public health standards for location,
design, installation, operation, maintenance, and
monitoring of onsite sewage systems (OSS),
including requiring setbacks from waterbodies
(WAC 246-272A) which modern OSS systems, using
pump systems, can support. Some OSS may meet
public health standards even if located within
RMZs; nevertheless, jurisdictions should exercise
authority to ensure project proponents protect
habitat functions of riparian critical areas.
General Policy
Suggestion
Educate community on the
importance of only discharging
stormwater to the stormwater
system while providing incentives
to install rain gardens and other
low impact development BMPs on
private and public land.
Resources related to the adjacent policy
suggestion include Olympia Rain Garden Incentive
Program, Shoreline Soak It Up Rebate Program,
Puget Sound Green Stormwater Infrastructure
Incentives Programs, Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Assistance Programs Guidebook,
and the Rain Garden Handbook for Western
Washington.
While these are generally small-scale projects, the
cumulative impact of widespread implementation
20
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
10
can be significant, especially with regard to
watershed-wide salmon recovery goals.
Thank you for taking time to consider our recommendations to better reflect the best available
science for fish and wildlife habitat and ecosystems. We value the relationship we have with
your jurisdiction and the opportunity to work collaboratively with y ou throughout this periodic
update cycle. If you have any questions or need our technical assistance or resources at any
time during this process, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Morgan Krueger
Regional Land Use Lead, WDFW Region 4
425-537-1354
Morgan.Krueger@dfw.wa.gov
CC:
Kara Whittaker, Land Use Conservation and Policy Section Manager (Kara.Whittaker@dfw.wa.gov)
Marian Berejikian, Environmental Planner (Marian.Berejikian@dfw.wa.gov )
Timothy Stapleton, Regional Habitat Program Manager (Timothy.Stapleton@dfw.wa.gov)
Stewart Reinbold, Assistant Regional Habitat Program Manager (stewart.reinbold@dfw.wa.gov)
Ryan Shaw, Habitat Biologist (ryan.shaw@dfw.wa.gov)
Region 4 Southern District (R4SPlanning@dfw.wa.gov)
Lexine Long, WA Department of Commerce (lexine.long@commerce.wa.gov)
21
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
July 18, 2024
Jonathan Kesler, Planning Manager
City of Medina
PO Box 144
Medina, WA 98039
Subject: PSRC Comments on City of Medina Draft Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Kesler,
Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
to review the City of Medina draft comprehensive plan. We appreciate that the city
has invested a substantial amount of time and effort in developing the draft plan
and, given that Medina is a small city, the effort is particularly commendable. We
appreciate the chance to review the plan while in draft form. This timely
collaboration provides an opportunity to review plan elements for the 2024
comprehensive plan and prepares the city well for certification by PSRC once the full
plan has been adopted.
We suggest the city consider the following comments as further work is completed
for the comprehensive plan update to align with VISION 2050 and the Growth
Management Act. Importantly, we encourage the city to work towards a final plan
that documents housing capacity consistent with the city’s adopted growth targets
and allocated housing need. We will look forward to continuing to work with you as
you prepare the final comprehensive plan.
We reviewed the draft plan using the PSRC VISION 2050 Consistency Tool. Key
sections of the consistency tool are listed below on the left along with relevant
comments on the draft plan on the right:
22
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
PSRC Comments on City of Medina Draft Comprehensive Plan
July 2024
Page 2
Housing
Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Medina Plan
Expand the diversity of housing types for
all income levels and demographic
groups, including low, very low,
extremely low, and moderate-income
households (MPP-H-2-6, H-9)
Demonstrate sufficient zoned
development capacity to
accommodate targets (RCW 36.70A.115)
The draft plan does not currently
demonstrate how the city will meet its
housing target or housing need
allocations. Medina’s housing target of
19 units, including permanent supportive
housing, is entirely allocated to units
under 80% AMI, and the city needs to
provide appropriate capacity to
accommodate housing needs. The city
should clearly document housing
capacity to meet various income levels,
including emergency housing.
Commerce offers guidance on how
jurisdictions can calculate housing
capacity. Capacity should be available
when the plan is adopted. Please note
that, per guidance from Commerce,
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are
generally expected to serve as
moderate income housing needs (>80-
120% AMI) in higher-cost communities.
In addition, please review Policy LU-P1 to
ensure it supports the intent to
implement zoning changes required
under state law and accommodate the
city’s housing needs.
Address affordable housing needs by
developing a housing needs
assessment and evaluating the
effectiveness of existing housing
policies, and documenting strategies to
achieve housing targets and
affordability goals. This includes
documenting programs and actions
The city must document barriers and
actions needed to achieve housing
affordability for all income brackets,
including findings on existing barriers,
documentation of housing tools to
meaningful address gaps, and direction
on meeting needs for all income levels.
Commerce's adequate provisions
23
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
PSRC Comments on City of Medina Draft Comprehensive Plan
July 2024
Page 3
Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Medina Plan
needed to achieve housing availability
including gaps in local funding, barriers
such as development regulations, and
other limitations (H-Action-4)
guidance is available to help document
this work.
Expand housing capacity for moderate
density housing, i.e., “missing middle”
(MPP-H-9)
The city should include a more specific
policy addressing moderate density
housing consistent with regional policy
and state law. Under HB 1110, cities must
adopt compliant development
regulations by June 30, 2025. Additional
policies to support middle housing
would be beneficial to the plan. Refer to
Commerce guidance on Planning for
Middle Housing.
Identify and begin to undo local policies
and regulations that result in racially
disparate impacts, displacement, and
exclusion in housing, including zoning
that may have a discriminatory effect
and areas of disinvestment and
infrastructure availability
Analysis and policies addressing racially
disparate impacts, exclusion, and
displacement should be included in the
draft plan or accompanying housing
analysis. Commerce’s Racially Disparate
Impact Guidance provides additional
information on how to approach
analysis of exclusion and racially
disparate impacts. PSRC’s Community
Profiles also include data measures to
assess racially disparate impacts in
housing.
Land Use
Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Medina Plan
Encourage infill development and
increased density in locations
consistent with the Regional Growth
Strategy (MPP-RGS-6)
The draft plan states that “consideration
of denser housing along transit
corridors” would support transportation
objectives, but transit corridors are not
identified. The city should discuss where
this denser housing may be
appropriate.
24
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
PSRC Comments on City of Medina Draft Comprehensive Plan
July 2024
Page 4
Transportation
Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Medina Plan
Include a 20-year financing plan, as well
as an analysis of funding capability for
all transportation modes (RCW
36.70A.070(3), RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iv),
WAC 365-196-415, WAC 365-196-430,
MPP-RC-11-12, T-6, T-15)
PSRC recognizes the limited scale and
scope of transportation needs in a small
city like Medina and the plan addresses
many of these requirements through
the 6-year Transportation Improvement
Program. The city is encouraged to
identify projects and programs
necessary to meet demands through
2044. For more information, see
Commerce’s Transportation Element
Guidebook.
Provide travel demand forecasts and
identify state and local system projects,
programs, and management necessary
to meet current and future demands
and to improve safety and human
health (RCW 36.70A.070, MPP-T-4-5)
The city should include travel forecasts
for at least ten years based on the
adopted land use plan. The Department
of Commerce’s Transportation
Guidebook discusses how smaller
jurisdictions can address analysis
requirements, including travel impacts
on state-owned facilities. The future
conditions section should be revised to
include a more thorough traffic analysis
using a methodology such as one
suggested in Commerce’s
Transportation Guidebook
Include state facilities and reflect
related (regional/state) level-of-service
standards (RCW 36.70A.070, RCW
36.70A.108)
Cities and counties are required to
include the LOS standards for all state
routes in the transportation element of
their local comprehensive plans. The
adopted LOS standard for SR 520 should
be included in the draft plan. More
information on LOS for state facilities is
available on PSRC’s website.
25
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
PSRC Comments on City of Medina Draft Comprehensive Plan
July 2024
Page 5
Ensure mobility choices for people with
special needs (MPP-T-10)
People with mobility and accessibility
needs/priority populations:
• Youth
• Older adults
• People with low incomes
• People with disabilities
The draft plan notes Medina’s aging
population. The city should include
policy and analysis of transportation
planning for people with mobility and
accessibility needs, including older
adults.
Climate Change
Plan Review Consistency Tool PSRC Comment on Draft Medina Plan
Identify and address the impacts of
climate change and natural hazards on
the region to increase resilience (MPP-
CC-7-10, CC-Action-4)
The city should consider identifying
specific hazards to the community
related to climate change. The Puget
Sound Hazard map provides
information for individual jurisdictions.
This identification may be required by
HB 1181 in 2029.
PSRC has resources available to assist the city in addressing these comments and
inform development of the draft plan. We have provided links to online documents in
this letter, and additional resources related to the plan review process can also be
found at https://www.psrc.org/planning-2050/vision/vision-2050-planning-
resources.
We appreciate all the work the city of Medina is doing and the opportunity to review
and provide comments. We are happy to continue working with you as the draft
progresses through the adoption process. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact me at 206-464-6174 or LUnderwood-
Bultmann@psrc.org.
Sincerely,
Liz Underwood-Bultmann, Growth Management
Puget Sound Regional Council
cc: Review Team, Growth Management Services, Department of Commerce
26
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1011 Plum Street SE PO Box 42525 Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 360-725-4000
www.commerce.wa.gov
August 1, 2024
City Council
City of Medina
c/o Jonathan Kesler
Senior Planner
Sent via electronic mail: jkesler@medina-wa.gov
Re: Review of City of Medina Draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Medina’s draft 2024 comprehensive
plan. Growth Management Services received the proposed amendments on June 4, 2024, and
processed them with material identification number 2024-S-7118.
Your submission represents a great deal of work and substantial progress towards the 2024
periodic update of your comprehensive plan due December 31, 2024. We especially appreciate
the work the City of Medina has done to begin incorporating many of the required Housing
Element changes, and recognize these changes differ from how the city has historically planned
for housing.
Our review is focused on the specific comprehensive plan elements listed below, and we have
included some line items and corresponding citations from the periodic update checklist (in
italics) as support for our comments and recommendations that follow.
1. Land Use Element
The land use element must reduce and mitigate the risk to lives and property posed
by wildfires by using land use planning tools and through wildfire preparedness and
fire adaptation measures. RCW 36.70A.070(1) amended in 2023.
Our review did not find language concerning wildfire risk and mitigation in the land
use element. Commerce recommends the addition of wildfire preparedness and fire
adaptation measures in the land use element with identification of specific
procedures as required by RCW 36.70A.070(1). We recommend adding community
wildfire preparedness and fire adaptation measures to your land use element and
27
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
Department of Commerce: Submittal ID 2024-S-7118
Page 2 of 5
look forward to seeing these updates as required in your final comprehensive plan
update. You may wish to reference the Wildland Urban Interface Code (RCW
19.27.560), developed and adopted by the Washington State Building Code Council,
as an example of development regulations intended to separate human
development from wildfire prone landscapes and protect existing residential
development and infrastructure through community wildfire preparedness and fire
adaptation measures.
2. Housing Element
a. Goals, policies and objectives for:
the preservation, improvement and development of housing, RCW
36.70A.070(2)(b), and
moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes,
triplexes, and townhomes, within an urban growth area boundary. RCW
36.70A.070(2)(b) amended in 2021
In our review we did not identify proposed policies addressing moderate density
housing options. With the new mandatory provisions from the state for moderate
density housing options, RCW 36.70A.070(2)(b) requires jurisdictions to have policies
for moderate density housing options including, but not limited to, duplexes. We
recommend adding or adjusting a policy to incorporate these new statewide
mandatory provisions.
b. Identification of capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to,
government-assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely
low-income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes,
foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive
housing. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c) amended in 2021.
Thank you for identifying that the city has a capacity deficit. In your final housing
element, please include and identify policy and regulatory changes that will allow for
sufficient capacity to meet the city’s housing needs.
Please note that if the city chooses to use accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the
land capacity analysis, the affordability levels must reflect existing market prices. At
this time, ADUs in Medina are likely unable to meet affordability levels under 80% or
even 120% of AMI (see page 33 of Housing Element Book 2). Therefore, we
encourage the city to look for other ways to demonstrate sufficient land capacity of
housing below 80% AMI. Per Commerce’s Housing Element Book 2, only multifamily
housing that receives subsidies is likely to reach this affordability level (see tables on
page 33 and “Step 3.2 Identify zone categories that can support feasible subsidized
affordable and supportive housing” on pages 35-36). If the city chooses to deviate
28
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
Department of Commerce: Submittal ID 2024-S-7118
Page 3 of 5
from this guidance, the city must show its work and provide supporting information
to document land capacity in an alternative way.
The city must also conduct an emergency housing land capacity analysis. Per RCW
36.70A.070.(2)(c), jurisdictions must demonstrate sufficient capacity for all housing
types, including emergency housing and emergency shelter. See page 44 of Housing
Element Book 2 for a recommended approach to conduct this analysis.
c. Adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs for all economic
segments of the community. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d) amended in 2021.
In our review we did not find a section that identified barriers to housing production
and adequate provisions to accommodate all housing needs. Please include a list of
barriers to developing affordable housing (e.g. infrastructure limitations,
development regulations, process obstacles) and actions to address those barriers,
including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing, in your next
submission (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)). See Chapter 4. Adequate Provisions and
Appendix B in Housing Element Book 2 for more information and examples of
specific barriers and actions to develop affordable housing, including ADUs,
permanent supportive housing and emergency housing (pg. 48 and pg. 114).
Appendix B includes completed example checklists (pg. 122).
d. Review and identify policies that may have led to racially disparate impacts,
displacement, or exclusion in housing (RCW 36.70A.070(e)).
The housing element is missing a review of local housing policies that may have led
to racially disparate impacts (RDI), displacement, and exclusion in housing (RCW
36.70A.070(e)). Please include a policy evaluation in the housing element or as an
appendix to the plan. See Step 3: Evaluate policies in Commerce Guidance Book 3:
Guidance to Address Racially Disparate Impacts for more information on this process
(pgs. 33-40); this section includes an example policy evaluation and framework,
which you may use to complete this review. We have additional examples of these
evaluations on our EZView site. Commerce also provides cities with RDI data which
may be helpful in further analyzing racially disparate impacts in Medina. We look
forward to seeing these updates in your final draft submitted for adoption.
e. Establish policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially disparate
impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and
actions. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(f)
While Medina encourages a variety of housing types through their draft policies, the
racially disparate impacts data includes indications of racial exclusion in the
community. We recommend, in concert with King County Countywide Planning
Policy (CPP) requirements, the city consider additional policies to address and begin
29
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
Department of Commerce: Submittal ID 2024-S-7118
Page 4 of 5
to undo this exclusion. For guidance on how to revise and update housing goals and
policies to address the identified racially disparate impacts, displacement, and
exclusion in housing and establish anti-displacement policies, please see pages 36-39
of Commerce Guidance Book 3: Guidance to Address Racially Disparate Impacts and
Appendix C of Housing Element Book 2.
3. Transportation Element
a. Adopted multimodal levels of service standards for all locally owned arterials,
locally and regionally operated transit routes that serve UGAs, state-owned or
operated transit routes that serve urban areas if the department of
transportation has prepared such standards, and active transportation facilities
to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system and success in helping to
achieve environmental justice. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B) and (C) amended in
2023
During our review we did not see multimodal level of service standards (MMLOS)
present in the draft transportation element. While adoption of MMLOS are not
required for 2024 jurisdictions until the 5-year implementation progress report
per RCW 36.70A.130(9)(a), we recommend and encourage jurisdictions begin the
process of working with regional partners and establishing a regional approach
to the multimodal level of service standards.
b. A transition plan for transportation as required in Title II of ADA. Perform self-
evaluations of current facilities and develop a program access plan to address
deficiencies and achieve the identification of physical obstacles, establish
methods, perform modifications and identify leadership roles. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(G).
Transportation element updates associated with HB 1181 are not required until
the 5 year implementation progress report for 2024 jurisdictions (RCW
36.70A.130(9) and (10)). However, it is advisable that jurisdictions begin this
planning process as early as possible. ADA transition plans are an important
component of a multimodal transportation system.
4. Capital Facilities Element
a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, including green
infrastructure. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a) amended in 2023
During our review we did not find green infrastructure included in the inventory of
capital facilities. If the city has existing green infrastructure or is planning for the
installation of green infrastructure, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(21), please
30
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
Department of Commerce: Submittal ID 2024-S-7118
Page 5 of 5
update the capital facilities element to include reflect the inventory and/or plans in
accordance with RCW 36.70A.070(3)(a).
As a friendly reminder, copies of adopted plans shall be submitted to Commerce within ten
days after final adoption (RCW 36.70A.106(2)).
Again, we appreciate the work your proposed amendments represent and we wish you success
in meeting the goals of the Growth Management Act. We are available for technical assistance
and, if requested, can attend upcoming meetings with your Planning Commission and/or
Council. If you wish to discuss these comments, you may reach me at
Lexine.long@commerce.wa.gov or 360-480-4498.
Sincerely,
Lexine Long
Senior Planner, AICP
Growth Management Services
cc:
David Andersen, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Valerie Smith, AICP, Deputy Managing Director, Growth Management Services
Carol Holman, MUP, Western Washington Regional Manager, Growth Management Services
Anne Fritzel, AICP, Housing Section Manager, Growth Management Services
Laura Hodgson, Housing Planning and Data Manager, Growth Management Services
Liz Underwood-Bultmann, AICP, Principal Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council
31
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
August 14, 2024
Jonathon Kesler
Planning Manager
City of Medina
501 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039
RE: CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE and/or COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PERIODIC UPDATE
Dear Jonathon Kesler,
On behalf of the Puget Sound Partnership’s (PSP) Ecosystem Coordination Board (ECB), we
submit this letter with respect to your jurisdiction's current periodic update process, and
associated updates to development regulations. The Puget Sound Partnership’s Ecosystem
Coordination Board supports the Leadership Council in carrying out its duties, including
the development and implementation of the Action Agenda. The ECB is made up of 33
members, representing local, state, federal, and tribal governments, environmental and
business interests. This broad representation supports the ECB to provide cross-caucus
reporting and dialogue on priority issues, such as how to ensure the protection and
restoration of habitat for ecologically sustainable watersheds for the future of all species
through local periodic updates. This letter provides background on the priorities described
in the Action Agenda and the resources available to support Comprehensive Plans and
Critical Areas Ordinances to align with those priorities. While this letter does not respond
to materials produced as part of your comprehensive plan update, it does offer many
specific recommendations and resources that we believe will support the protection and
recovery of the Puget Sound.
The recovery of Puget Sound is vital to human wellbeing in the region, to sustain
threatened salmon, orcas, and numerous other species, and to preserve Puget Sound’s
ecosystem functions and values for current and future generations. But the Puget Sound
ecosystem is under increasing threats from the development of ecologically important
habitats, forests, farmlands, and other working lands, especially outside of urban growth
areas. The smart growth strategy in the 2022-2026 Action Agenda identifies a key
opportunity to “improve the implementation of the Growth Management Act within local
jurisdictions land use planning and decisions, and across jurisdictions to include the
protection of natural areas and working lands.”
New planning requirements, updated science, and learning from the past ~8 years of
Growth Management Act (GMA) implementation make this round of Comprehensive Plan
updates a critical juncture and inspiring opportunity in our region’s collective work to
recover Puget Sound. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan sets the stage for development
activities and decisions which all have an impact on how well we achieve our goals to
protect and restore Puget Sound. To support recovery of the Puget Sound, we recommend
32
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
that jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region make use of the many science-based resources
available to support development of Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area Ordinance
(CAO) amendments that protect natural areas and working lands.
Our collective understanding of the complex relationships between land cover,
development, and ecosystem health improves over time, and this is why cities and counties
must include current, best available science and information in their local land use
planning amendments during the periodic update. Fortunately, our state Departments of
Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, Natural Resources, and Commerce have been busy updating and
distributing science-based guidance to support local governments in this process. Cities
and counties should leverage these resources below, and other science-based resources, to
effectively amend their Comprehensive Plans and Critical Areas Ordinances:
• Local Integrating Organizations (LIOs) and LIO Ecosystem Recovery Plans
• Local Salmon Recovery Watershed Chapters
• Department of Fish and Wildlife’s current Priority Habitats and Species information
o Riparian Management Zone Checklist for Critical Areas Ordinances
• Ecology’s Wetland Guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Updates
• Ecology’s Climate Resilience and Shoreline Management webpage
• Commerce’s Critical Areas Handbook and Checklist
To ensure smart growth in the Puget Sound region, the ECB recommends that jurisdictions
consider and take action on the following:
1) At key points in the Comprehensive Plan update process, review and apply the
Sound Choices Implementation Checklist. The checklist was developed by the
Puget Sound recovery community and is intended to help local jurisdictions make
updates to their comprehensive plans that align with Puget Sound recovery
strategies and actions.
2) Ensure your local planning department takes advantage of funding for
additional staff resources to incorporate salmon and Puget Sound recovery
into local planning by applying for the Salmon Recovery through Local
Planning Grant Program. Depending on funding availability, Washington State
Department of Commerce will hold a fall 2024 round of funding. For more
information contact angela.sanfilippo@commerce.wa.gov.
3) Understand how your local land use decisions will support region-wide efforts
to achieve positive trends in Regional Land Use Indicators. The Puget Sound
Partnership assesses the status and trends of threats through a set of regional land
use indicators.
4) Reach out to and involve local experts in Puget Sound recovery including Local
Integrating Organization members, Salmon Recovery Lead Entities, as well as your
local representative on the Ecosystem Coordination Board. For additional support in
facilitating connections with these local experts please reach out to
Laura.Rivas@psp.wa.gov.
33
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
As you help shape the future of the City of Medina at this pivotal moment in time, the ECB
requests that you take advantage of the valuable tools and resources included in this letter
to ensure we are doing all we can to support our local communities and Puget Sound
recovery. Thank you for considering our recommendations, tools, and resources.
Sincerely,
Julie Watson, Chair
Cc:
Bill Dewey, co-Vice Chair Ecosystem Coordination Board
Ellen Southard, co-Vice Chair Ecosystem Coordination Board
Dow Constantine, King County Executive and South Central representative
Megan Smith, King County, South Central representative
Mary Ann Rozance, South Central LIO Coordinator
34
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
Insert date
Jonathan Kesler
Planning Manager
City of Medina
501 Evergreen Point Rd.
PO Box 144
Medina, WA 98039
Dear Mr. Kesler,
Thank you for submitting the City of Medina’s draft comprehensive plan to the Affordable
Housing Committee’s (AHC) Housing-focused Draft Comprehensive Plan Review Program
for review on July 5, 2024. On behalf of the AHC, I am sending you this summary of our
review and recommendations.
Background
The AHC is a subcommittee of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC),
consisting of representatives of King County and its cities, housing providers, area
employers, and others. By direction of the GMPC, the AHC now conducts a housing-
focused review of all King County jurisdictions’ draft periodic comprehensive plan
updates, assessing the draft plans for alignment with the King County Countywide
Planning Policies (CPP) Housing Chapter goals and policies prior to plan adoption.
As you know, our county is experiencing a deep and persistent housing shortage. In
2021 the State of Washington adopted House Bill 1220, which amended the Growth
Management Act, requiring local governments to plan for and accommodate housing
that is affordable to all income levels, including emergency housing. In response to this
state mandate and local interest in improving the effectiveness of local housing plans
and policies, the AHC led a two-year process to amend the King County CPPs.
The result was a significant update to the CPP Housing Chapter, which was
recommended by the GMPC, adopted by the King County Council, and ratified by the
cities in 2023. The goals of both the statute and this implementation work are to
encourage cities and King County to work together to provide a full range of affordable,
accessible, healthy, and safe housing choices to every resident in King County.
This review is guided by Housing-focused Comprehensive Plan Review Standards, as
adopted by GMPC Motion 23-2. In summary, the AHC review seeks to determine whether
each jurisdiction’s draft plan and submission materials:
1. address all CPP Housing Chapter policies;
2. articulate implementation strategies for relevant CPP Housing Chapter Policies;
and
3. lay out meaningful policies that, taken together, support the jurisdiction’s ability to
equitably meet housing needs.
This program is still relatively new and evolving, and your engagement helps the AHC
understand how jurisdictions are seeking to address their housing needs while aligning
with the recent changes at the state, regional, and county levels.
Affordable
Housing
Committee
KING COUNTY
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING COUNCIL
CHAIR
Claudia Balducci
King County
Councilmember
VICE CHAIR
Alex Brennan
Futurewise
MEMBERS
Susan Boyd
Bellwether Housing
Jane Broom
Microsoft Philanthropies
Kelly Coughlin
SnoValley Chamber of
Commerce
Amy Falcone
Kirkland Councilmember,
Sound Cities Association
Nigel Herbig
Kenmore Mayor, Sound
Cities Association
Thatcher Imboden
Sound Transit
Ryan Makinster
Washington Multi-Family
Housing Association
Sunaree Marshall
On behalf of King County
Executive Dow
Constantine
Ryan McIrvin
Renton Councilmember,
Sound Cities Association
Cathy Moore
City of Seattle
Councilmember
Teresa Mosqueda
King County
Councilmember
Lynne Robinson
Bellevue Mayor, Sound
Cities Association
Veronica Shakotko
Master Builders
Association of King and
Snohomish Counties
Robin Walls
King County Housing
Authority
Maiko Winkler-Chin
On behalf of Seattle
Mayor Bruce Harrell
35
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
2
The AHC acknowledges the substantial amount of time and effort that went into Medina’s draft
comprehensive plan. During review, the AHC noted that several of Medina’s policies, analyses, and
implementation strategies align with CPP Housing Chapter policies. In particular, the AHC celebrates
Medina’s ongoing membership to A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) and the City’s regular
contributions to ARCH’s Housing Trust Fund, which can fund affordable housing projects throughout
member cities in East King County.
Below, the AHC includes recommendations necessary for Medina to align with the CPP Housing
Chapter policies.
Recommendations to Align with the CPP Housing Chapter
The AHC recommends Medina take the following actions to align its draft comprehensive plan with
CPP Housing Chapter goals and policies.
1. Demonstrate sufficient capacity and meaningfully plan for and accommodate allocated housing
needs (CPPs H-1 and H-11)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-1 requires Medina plan for and accommodate 19 net new housing units, including:
• three units of permanent supportive housing;
• five non-permanent supportive housing units affordable to extremely low-income households
(incomes at or below 30 percent of area median income (AMI));
• three housing units affordable to very low-income households (30 to 50 percent AMI); and
• eight housing units affordable to low-income households (50 to 80 percent AMI).
CPP H-1 requires Medina plan for and accommodate four emergency housing beds. CPP H-11
requires jurisdictions to identify sufficient capacity of land for housing, including housing for low-,
very low-, and extremely low-income households.
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Medina’s draft Housing Element narrative includes Medina’s housing needs allocation and discusses
the need for the City to plan for and accommodate its allocated emergency housing and permanent
supportive housing (page 6). However, Medina did not submit a land capacity analysis as part of the
draft comprehensive plan as required by CPP H-11. Without this, the AHC cannot determine if
Medina has sufficient residential land capacity for its allocated housing needs, which makes it
difficult to assess the plan’s alignment with CPPs H-1 and H-11. Additionally, Medina’s draft Housing
Element does not include a policy that explicitly states Medina’s intent to plan for and accommodate
their share of countywide housing needs. Per Table H-1 in CPP Housing Chapter policy H-1, Medina
must plan for and accommodate 19 permanent housing units total, all of which are meant to be
affordable to households at 80 percent of AMI and below, as well as four emergency housing beds.
The absence of a land capacity analysis and a clear commitment to planning for and accommodating
housing needs is concerning given Medina’s restrictive low-density residential zoning and high
median home prices. According to Medina’s Housing Needs Assessment, 99 percent of its housing
units are single-family homes (page 22), and the city has minimum lot sizes ranging from 16,000 to
30,000 square feet.1 Additionally, the median home value from 2015 to 2019 was $2,858,012,
1 Municode Library. (2023, December 22). Subtitle 16.2 – Land Use. [link]
36
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
3
affordable only to households at 524 percent of AMI and above (Housing Needs Assessment, page
26).
The AHC recognizes that Medina’s total housing need is relatively small in comparison to other
jurisdictions in the county and that high home values complicate efforts to accommodate affordable
housing. Nonetheless, these complicating factors don’t negate the fact that Medina must plan for
and accommodate its housing needs and identify sufficient capacity of land for its allocated housing
needs to be consistent with the CPPs H-1 and H-11.
2. Adjust affordability assumptions for accessory dwelling units (CPP H-11)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-11 requires jurisdictions identify sufficient capacity of land for housing, including housing for
low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households.
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
In the draft Housing Element, Medina identifies allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in
residential zones as a strategy to address housing needs for households below 80 percent of AMI.
The AHC appreciates Medina’s proposal to allow more ADUs to increase housing diversity and
options within traditionally single-family areas. However, the AHC does not consider ADUs a
meaningful strategy to address housing needs below 80 percent of AMI in King County communities,
which have relatively higher housing costs compared to the rest of Washington State.
Recommendation 1: To align with CPP H-1, Medina should include a policy that clearly
states its intent to plan for and accommodate its allocated share of countywide future
housing needs for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households.
To align with CPPs H-1 and H-11, Medina should demonstrate that it is providing
sufficient residential capacity for its allocated permanent and emergency housing needs
through a land capacity analysis. If the analysis reveals a deficit, Medina should propose
changes and demonstrate that it will provide sufficient capacity for all income levels.
Please see Washington State Department of Commerce’s Guidance for Updating Your
Housing Element as a guide for how to complete a land capacity analysis.
As discussed during Medina’s initial review meeting, AHC staff recognize the unique
challenges Medina faces but also see numerous, creative ways that Medina could
demonstrate an intent to plan for, accommodate, and provide capacity for its housing
needs. This includes, but is not limited to, rezoning parcels suitable for affordable
development, exploring the use of faith-based property within Medina for affordable
housing, or the creation of local subsidy programs for small-scale affordable projects
within the city.
37
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
4
2
3. Prioritize extremely low-income households (CPP H-2)3
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-2 requires jurisdictions to prioritize the need for housing affordable to households less than or
equal to 30 percent of AMI.
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Medina’s submission to the AHC identifies multiple policies and implementation strategies as
responsive to CPP H-2, such as its membership and contributions to ARCH and its draft Housing
Element policy H-P11 which directs Medina to “encourage the construction of housing types that are
available to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households” (page 7).
While these policies and strategies could serve and benefit households with incomes less than 30
percent of AMI, the AHC did not identify a policy or implementation strategy that explicitly prioritizes
housing needs of these households. Furthermore, the AHC does not find that Medina’s membership
to ARCH alone is a meaningful strategy to accommodate extremely low-income housing needs.
Contributions to ARCH may not necessarily go to fund housing units within Medina, particularly when
Medina has not demonstrated land capacity for housing types typically affordable to low-income
households, as mentioned in recommendation one of this letter.
2 Washington State Department of Commerce (2023 August). Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element.
Page 33. [link]
3 King County Countywide Planning Policies Appendix 4: Housing Technical Appendix, page 82. [link]
Recommendation 2: In compiling a land capacity analysis in alignment with CPP H-11,
Medina should:
• assume ADUs will provide capacity for households at or above 80 percent of AMI,
in alignment with Exhibit 13 in the Department of Commerce’s land capacity
analysis guidance;2
• provide evidence in a detailed market analysis that ADUs are affordable to low-
income households; or
• propose subsidies or development incentives that set a reasonable expectation
that ADUs would be affordable to low-income households.
This update should inform and be consistent throughout Medina’s Housing Needs
Assessment and Land Use Element.
Recommendation 3: To align with CPP H-2, Medina should amend Housing Element
policy H-P11 to include “extremely low-income households” and identify a strategy that
prioritizes the need for housing affordable to this income group. For examples of
strategies Medina could use to align with CPP H-2, see the CPP Housing Chapter
Technical Appendix.3
38
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
5
4. Complete the housing inventory and analysis to inform policies and strategies (CPP H-3)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-3 directs jurisdictions to conduct a housing inventory and analysis to help identify and address
the greatest needs as well as summarize the findings in the housing element.
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
While Medina’s submission includes many data points and substantive analysis, the AHC could not
find specific information on tenure by race/ethnicity and age by race/ethnicity as required by CPP H-
3(f) and (g). This further analysis should guide the development of more comprehensive plan policies
and strategies.
5. Document racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices and adopt
intentional, targeted actions to repair harm (CPPs H-5 and H-9)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-5 requires jurisdictions to:
• document the local history and impact of racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and
housing practices;
• explain the extent to which that history is still reflected in current development patterns,
housing conditions, tenure, and access to opportunity;
• identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement,
and exclusion in housing, including zoning that may have a discriminatory effect,
disinvestment, and infrastructure availability; and
• demonstrate how current strategies are addressing impacts of those racially exclusive and
discriminatory policies and practices.
CPP H-9 requires jurisdictions to adopt intentional, targeted actions that repair harms to Black,
Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) households from identified past and current racially
exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices (generally identified through CPP H-5).
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Medina’s submission includes some local history and demographic data and analysis disaggregated
by race and ethnicity (Housing Needs Assessment, pp. 3, 6, and 12). However, Medina’s submission
does not include clear documentation of the local history of racially exclusive or discriminatory land
use and housing practices, or an analysis of racially disparate impacts required by CPP H-5. Without
this analysis, the AHC cannot determine if Medina is taking targeted actions to repair harm to BIPOC
households from past and current racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing
practices in alignment with CPP H-9.
The AHC is concerned about the lack of a racially disparate impact analysis and historical
documentation due to information that Medina’s draft plan provides on experiences of cost burden,
Recommendation 4: Medina should include data as required by CPP H-3(f) and (g) in the
draft comprehensive plan and summarize the findings in the Housing Element. This
additional analysis should inform additional comprehensive plan policy responses and
strategies.
39
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
6
the city’s demographics, and an economically exclusive land use pattern. Medina’s Housing Needs
Assessment reports that Hispanic or Latino households are more likely to be housing cost burdened
than any other racial group in Medina (page 12), and that their overall population only includes 4
percent Hispanic and just 1 percent Black or African American residents, both of which are below the
countywide percentage (Housing Needs Assessment, page 6). The Housing Needs Assessment also
reports that the median home value in Medina was $2,858,012 between 2015 and 2019, which is
affordable to households at 524 percent of AMI and above (page 26). This high value is significantly
out of reach for households earning 80 percent of AMI or below, who, in King County, are also
disproportionately BIPOC.
Likewise, the Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project has reported on the historical use of racially
restrictive covenants in Medina, a racially exclusive housing practice. Medina should discuss and
document such practices in their draft plan consistent with CPP H-5 and use that information to
inform policies and targeted actions that repair harms to BIPOC households from past and current
racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and housing practices, being sure to promote equitable
outcomes in partnership with communities most impacted.4
6. Clarify community engagement findings (CPP H-8)
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-8 requires all jurisdictions to collaborate with and prioritize the needs of populations most
disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden.
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
According to Medina’s Housing Needs Assessment, Hispanic or Latino households are more likely to
be housing cost burdened than any other racial group (page 12). In developing the draft plan,
Medina engaged community stakeholders and technical stakeholders on key housing topics,
distributed a survey, and hosted an open house. The findings from this engagement are summarized
in Medina’s Housing Action Plan. While the AHC commends Medina for conducting this thorough
4 Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project (2004-2020). Racial Restrictive Covenants Map Seattle/King
County. [link]
Recommendation 5: To align with CPP H-5, Medina should:
• document the history of racially exclusive and discriminatory land use and
housing practices within their jurisdiction;
• explain the extent to which the history is still reflected in current development
patterns, housing conditions, tenure, and access to opportunity;
• identify local policies and regulations that result in racially disparate impacts,
displacement, and exclusion in housing, including zoning that may have a
discriminatory effect, disinvestment, and infrastructure availability; and
• demonstrate how current strategies are addressing impacts of those racially
exclusive and discriminatory policies and practices.
See the Resources for Documenting the Local History of Racially Exclusive and
Discriminatory Land Use and Housing Practices document for assistance.
To align with CPP H-9, Medina should adopt or clarify how proposed actions are targeted
to repair harms identified in their racially disparate impacts analysis.
40
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
7
community engagement, the input from communities most disproportionately impacted by housing
cost burden are not disaggregated from the findings. As such, the AHC cannot determine if the needs
of populations most disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden are prioritized in the draft
plan.
7. Plan for and prioritize income-restricted housing (CPPs H-4, H-10, H-12, H-13, H-14, and H-18(c))
Relevant Countywide Planning Policies
CPP H-4 requires jurisdictions to evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing policies and
strategies to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs and identify gaps in existing partnerships,
policies, and dedicated resources for meeting housing needs and eliminating racial and other
disparities in access to housing and neighborhoods of choice. CPP H-10 requires jurisdictions to
adopt policies, incentives, strategies, actions, and regulations that increase the supply of long-term
income-restricted housing for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households and households
with special needs. CPP H-12 requires jurisdictions to adopt and implement policies that improve the
effectiveness of existing housing policies and strategies and address gaps in partnerships, policies,
and dedicated resources to meet the jurisdiction’s housing needs. CPP H-13 requires jurisdictions to
implement strategies to overcome cost barriers to housing affordability. CPP H-14 requires
jurisdictions to prioritize resources for income-restricted housing, particularly for extremely low-
income households, populations with special needs, and others with disproportionately greater
housing needs. CPP H-18(c) requires jurisdictions evaluate the feasibility of, and implement, where
appropriate, inclusionary and incentive zoning to provide affordable housing.
Medina’s Proposal and AHC Findings
Medina’s Housing Needs Assessment identifies that the city currently has no income-restricted units
(page 30), demonstrating that Medina’s existing housing policies and strategies are ineffective at
promoting income-restricted housing production and thus serve as barriers to planning for and
accommodating housing needs for households below 80 percent of AMI.
Medina identified their current zoning and development regulations as a gap to meeting their
allocated housing needs, as required by CPP H-4 (Housing Action Plan, page 28). Medina’s Housing
Action Plan also underscores the importance of increasing density and supporting infill development
to “provide more housing at potentially more affordable rates” (page 28). However, Medina did not
address this gap by incorporating either strategy into its comprehensive plan. Medina also does not
address the restrictiveness of its development regulations, including large minimum lot sizes.
The AHC finds, therefore, that Medina’s draft plan does not set reasonable expectations that the City
will implement policies that increase the supply of and prioritize resources for income-restricted
housing, as required by CPPs H-10 and H-14, overcome cost barriers to affordability, as required by
CPP H-13, or address identified gaps in policy effectiveness, as required by CPP H-12.
In order to increase and promote income-restricted housing in the city, Medina must demonstrate
sufficient land capacity for housing needs below 80 percent of AMI and remove significant barriers to
income-restricted housing production. The AHC also finds that evaluating the feasibility of and
Recommendation 6: To align with CPP H-8, Medina should disaggregate input from the
community engagement process and clarify how the draft plan prioritizes the needs of
populations most disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden.
41
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
8
adopting an inclusionary housing policy concurrent with middle-housing density increases required
by HB 1110 presents an opportunity for Medina to fill the gaps in policies and dedicated resources
to meet its housing needs, as required by CPP H-12 and H-18(c). Implementing an inclusionary
program with in-lieu fees could also provide Medina the opportunity to fund the production of
income-restricted units within the city and as well as throughout East King County through Medina’s
housing capital contributions to ARCH.
Conclusion and AHC Resources
Thank you again for your submission to the Committee’s Housing-focused Draft Comprehensive Plan
Review Program. AHC members valued the opportunity to review Medina’s draft Comprehensive Plan
Elements for Public Review and related submission materials. Medina’s participation in the plan
review program is instrumental in the broader work of the Committee to empower local jurisdictions
to address the affordable housing crisis in King County.
AHC staff are happy to assist Medina in addressing these recommendations. For immediate
resources and guidance on aligning with the CPP Housing Chapter, refer to the:
• Engrossed 2021 King County CPPs;
• AHC Housing-focused Draft Comprehensive Plan Review Program Guide; and
• King County Resources for Documenting the Local History of Racially Exclusive and
Discriminatory Land Use and Housing Practices.
If you have questions or need additional information regarding aligning with the CPP Housing
Chapter, please contact lead staff for the AHC plan review program, Carson Hartmann, at
AHCplanreview@kingcounty.gov or at 206-477-7813.
Sincerely,
Recommendation 7: To align with CPPs H-10, H-12, H-13, and H-14, Medina should
include policies, incentives, strategies, actions, and regulations in its draft plan that
increase the supply of long-term income-restricted housing in Medina, overcome cost
barriers to affordability, fill gaps in the effectiveness of policies and dedicated resources
for affordable housing, and prioritize resources for income-restricted housing.
One way Medina can address CPP H-10 and CPP H-14, while also aligning with CPP H-
18(c), is to evaluate the feasibility of, and implement, where appropriate, inclusionary
and incentive zoning to provide affordable housing. In developing this program, Medina
should review recommendations in ARCH’s 2024 Middle Housing Affordability
Opportunities in East King County, particularly those related to prioritizing on-site
production of affordable homes when feasible and allowing fee-in-lieu payments when
not. Medina should consider ways that in-lieu fees could fund both income-restricted
housing within the city and in East King County, in the form of contributions to ARCH.
42
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
9
Claudia Balducci
Affordable Housing Committee Chair
King County Councilmember, District 6
CC Dow Constantine
Growth Management Planning Council Chair
King County Executive
Laura Hodgson
Senior Planner
Washington State Department of Commerce
Plan Review Team
Puget Sound Regional Council
Plan Review Team
King County Affordable Housing Committee
43
AGENDA ITEM 6.2
CITY OF MEDINA
501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD | PO BOX 144 | MEDINA WA 98039-0144
TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 | www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 11, 2024
TO: Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Jonathan Kesler, AICP, Planning Manager
RE: Item 6.3: Comp Plan Update – Dept. of Commerce Presentation on the
Housing Element Observations
As noted by Dane Jepsen, our consultant with LDC, Inc:
On May 31, 2024, the City finalized the first draft of its 2024 Comprehensive Plan and
submitted it for review by public agencies and the general public. The City has received
comments from State and Regional Level reviews and should begin addressing
comments through revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Plan and development
regulations. These revisions are necessary to address issues of compliance with State
regulations and consistency with Regional and county -wide plans. Major issues
identified in the preliminary review of the received comments include:
Planning for Affordable Housing
Assessment of Racially Disparate Impacts
Further Incorporation of Climate Change Concerns
At this meeting, he will go over all the comments received from agencies. In addition,
we are fortunate to have in attendance, Senior Planner Lexine Long, AICP, from the
Growth Management Services Division of the Washington Department of Commerce.
She will discuss Housing, but also the Land Use, Transportation and Capital Facilities
Elements of the Medina Comp Plan Draft as they pertain to state law and mandates
under the legislation passed since the last Medina Comprehensive Plan was adopted
in 2015. Please refer to Item 6.2, 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update, Initial Comment
Review from PSRC, King County and Dept. of Commerce for a copy of her specific
letter.
44
AGENDA ITEM 6.3
1
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Wednesday September 11, 20234
Subject: Tree Management Code Amendment Proposal
Planning Commission Action: Discussion, and Council Recommendation
Public Hearing Required - Noticed
Staff Contact: Steven Wilcox, Development Services Director
A. Background - 2024 Council Workplan
There are two parts to this topic of amending Medina Municipal Code Chapter 16.52.
First, there are proposed amendments within various existing sections of MMC 16.52
which were requested by Council and are intended so solve some existing issues
discovered by our arborists. Second, is the proposed addition of a completely new
violations section, also requested by Council, which would be placed within MMC 16.52
where there was previously none.
Our Tree Management Code was amended in 2015. Since 2015 there have been few
amendments to 16.52. The 2015 amendments were significant and as with new codes,
it needed to be used to see how it performed.
This code amendment proposal before you combines the completely new MMC 16.52
violations section with the additional amendments intended to solve some existing issues.
I apologize in advance if this is confusing.
Part 1. In 2022 Medina had two new consulting arborists. Our two arborists are very
experienced in local government work and were able to compare our Tree Management
Code with other jurisdiction’s similar codes. After working several months with our code,
our arborists expressed several concerns. As concerns arose while using our code, we
would work through them one by one and record potential solutions. On January 23,
2023 our two arborists presented their findings on the use of MMC 16.52 to City Council.
The result of the January 23, 2023 presentation was direction by Council to amend the
tree code with six short-term solutions. These solutions were never implemented, but
they are now included in this proposal. The Agenda Bill for the January 23, 2023 Council
meeting is provided to you for background as Exhibit 7.
45
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
2
Part 2. Our 2015 Tree Management Code MMC 16.52 amendments did not include a
separate violations section. Currently MMC 16.52 relies on a consolidated MMC Ch. 1.15
to address violations. MMC 1.15 has basic process defined, but very little fines for
violating the code. You will find MMC Table 1.15.330 within the draft ordinance provided
under Exhibits provided. The question about applicable tree fines became a Council topic
in late March 2023 when there was a significant public tree removal violation. Council
directed staff to create a new approach to tree code violations which is th e proposed MMC
16.52.250 you have in the Exhibits.
B. Part 1 – “Short-Term Solutions”
Short-term solutions implies that our MMC 16.52 Tree Management Code may need to
have a more advanced review in the future, but until that time there are amendments that
can be made to improve the existing code according to the stated purposes and intent
within MMC 16.52.010. Six short-term solutions were proposed by our two consulting
arborists to Council in January 2023. These six short-term solutions will improve the
effectiveness of the code considering MMC 16.52.010. Council directed that these six
short-term solutions be drafted into ordinance which did not happen until now.
These additional amendments are intended to correct and update certain areas of the
existing tree code that our arborists had identified as important. On January 23, 2023 our
two city arborists presented to Council concepts for quick improvements to our Tree
Management Code. The concepts could be drafted into ordinance and implemented
without a complete review of the entirety of our existing MMC 16.52. There were six
“Short-Term Solutions” suggested by our arborists as part of an overall discussion on the
effectiveness of our Tree Management Code.
Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 are draft ordinance produced by our city attorney depicted in two
ways for you. Exhibit 2 is the draft with our city attorney’s underlined changes and
highlighted by me. Exhibit 3 is the same as Exhibit 2, but with no highlights. Exhibit 3 is
exactly how our city attorney drafted the language.
Proposed code amendments found within Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 associated with the six
short-term solutions are:
16.52.060 Designation of significant tree species
16.52.080 Legacy and landmark tree protection measures
16.52.090 Minimum preservation standards for land under development
16.52.170 Tree preservation plan
You will see the six Tree Management Code short-term solutions listed within Exhibit 4.
The list is the first draft text taken from the January 2023 Council meeting. These six
items were then taken by our city attorney and drafted into ordinance language which you
now have in Exhibits provided to you.
46
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
3
Exhibit 5 is the PowerPoint presentation given by our two arborists to Council on January
23, 2023 which was the basis for the six short-term solutions now in the draft ordinance.
C. Part 2 New Violations Section MMC 16.65.250
Currently, violations of MMC 16.52 are processed through MMC Chapter 1.15. This
proposal involves eliminating the tree removal process and fines within MMC 1.15, and
then replacing that with an entirely new section within existing MMC 16.52. The new
violations section is proposed as “16.52.250. – Violations”.
Prompting the need for this new approach to Tree Management Code violations was a
significant removal of publicly owned trees in early 2023. The investigation of this
violation caused Council to direct a change be made to our code enforcement fines
associated with illegal tree removals.
Because the new proposed MMC 16.52.250 is comprehensive and specific to the Tree
Management Code, it was determined that it is best to be separated from the general
provisions of our existing code enforcement Chapter 1.15.
A comparison of methods and fine amounts was performed with a look at Medina vs.
other local jurisdictions. A summary of this comparison is in Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 8 is a September 2023 PowerPoint presentation by me to Council with examples
of application of the fine proposal. There were no changes to this required by Council.
Summary
Fines for Tree Management Code violations would now be among the highest in
our local area as compared to currently being among the lowest.
Fines are considered separately in two parts. Private property and City owned
(public property and ROW).
Private property owners may qualify for a one-time exemption from fines.
Private property owners may petition the hearing examiner for a hardship which
could potentially reduce fines. ‘Hardship’ is now defined by our city attorney.
Hearing examiner discretion and procedures involving hardship petitions are
defined.
Public tree removals are not given exemptions or ability to petition for a hardsh ip.
All city costs of the code enforcement action are reimbursed.
Public tree canopy is to be restored.
47
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
4
Development project tree protection is now defined as a code violation.
D. Next Steps
Council supports the MMC 16.52 Tree Management Code amendment proposal detailed
in draft ordinance Exhibit 3.
Council directed that the MMC 16.52 Tree Management Code amendment proposal be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Currently, the draft ordinance is under review by the Department of Commerce.
Our planning consultant, LDC, is also evaluating the draft ordinance for SEPA compliance,
with Jonathan Kesler providing final confirmation.
A notice of the public hearing scheduled for September 11, 2024, regarding this proposed
code amendment was published. The comment period has closed with no feedback
received.
The Planning Commission will need to consider any comments from the public notice or
the public hearing.
Planning Commission is requested to approve the proposed amendments to the Medina
Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Tree Management Code as described within Exhibit 3. Upon
receiving the Planning Commission's approval, the proposal will be presented to the Council for
final approval.
Attachments
Exhibit 1. MMC Ch. 16.52 Tree Management Code. These are the sections within the existing
code for you to use in comparison with proposed changes.
Exhibit 2. Draft Ordinance with City Attorneys underlined changes highlighted by me.
Exhibit 3. Draft Ordinance with City Attorneys underlined changes. No changes by me.
Exhibit 4. Six “Short-Term Solutions” (initial draft) Council directed to be drafted into Ordinance.
Exhibit 5. Arborist’s presentation to Council January 23, 2023 regarding the proposed six short-
term solutions.
Exhibit 6. An example comparison of existing Tree Management Code violations vs. other local
jurisdictions.
Exhibit 7. Agenda Bill from January 23, 2023 Council presentation. This is intended to give yo u
additional background into the six short-term amendments.
Exhibit 8. PowerPoint presentation to Council in September 2024 giving examples of the
proposed fine amounts.
48
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
5
Proposed Planning Commission Motion:
“I move to direct staff to forward the Medina Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Tree Management
Code draft ordinance, as detailed in Exhibit 3, to the City Council for their review and approval.”
49
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 1
Title 16 - UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 16.52. TREE MANAGEMENT CODE
Medina, Washington, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 1 of 11
CHAPTER 16.52. TREE MANAGEMENT CODE
16.52.060. Designation of significant tree species.
A. A list of suitable tree species consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees is set forth in the document
entitled "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species," adopted by Ordinance No. 923 and on fi le with the city
for the purpose of establishing significant tree species on private property, public property, and city rights-of-
way; and tree species that are eligible for credits in this chapter.
B. The director shall maintain the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" document at Medina City Hall
and may administratively modify the list consistent with the following criteria:
1. The designation of coniferous trees should include all species excluding tree species known to have
invasive root structures and to be fast growing such as Leyland cypress and should also exclude trees
planted, clipped or sheared to be used as a hedge;
2. The designation of deciduous trees should include those suitable to United States Department of
Agriculture Plant Hardiness Zones 8 and 9, excluding those trees with crown diameter of ten feet or
less at maturity;
3. Plantings of the following tree species within the city's rights-of-way shall be prohibited: London plane,
quaking aspen, Lombardy poplar, bolleana poplar, cottonwood, and bigleaf maple.
C. The director shall submit proposals to modify the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" to the city
council for their consideration. The city council may approve, modify or deny the proposed modifications.
The city council may also decline to take action on the proposed modifications, in which case the
modifications shall be incorporated into the list and take effect five days after the date the city council
declines to take action.
D. The "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" is used in conjunction with the definition of significant tree
set forth in MMC 16.12.200 to denote the term significant tree as used in this chapter.
(Code 1988 § 20.52.050; Ord. No. 1012 , § 2, 7-11-2022; Ord. No. 923 § 14, 2015; Ord. No. 909 § 2 (Att. A), 2014)
Note(s)—Former § 16.52.050. See editor's note, § 16.52.020.
16.52.080. Legacy and landmark tree protection measures.
This section applies to trees designated as legacy and landmark trees, which are native trees that because of
their age, size and condition are recognized as having outstanding value in contributing to the character of the
community. Legacy and landmark trees within the shoreline jurisdiction are regulated in MMC 16.66.050.
A. A legacy or landmark tree shall be designated by meeting the following criteria:
1. Legacy tree:
50
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 2 of 11
a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree
Species"; and
b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 36 inches or larger but less than 50 inches; and
c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a likelihood of surviving more than
ten years based on assumptions that:
i. The tree is properly cared for; and
ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is unenhanced by any
proposed development.
2. Landmark tree:
a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree
Species"; and
b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 50 inches or larger; and
c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a likelihood of surviving more than
ten years based on assumptions that:
i. The tree is properly cared for; and
ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is unenhanced by any
proposed development.
B. Legacy and landmark trees shall be preserved and retained unless replacement trees are planted in
accordance with the following:
1. Legacy tree:
a. The quantity of replacement trees is calculated by multiplying the diameter breast height
of each subject legacy tree by the required percentage standards in Table 16.52.080(B) to
establish the number of replacement inches; and
b. All fractions of this section shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
Table 16.52.080(B) Legacy Tree Replacement
Requirements
Square Footage of the Lot Area Required number of
replacement inches
Less than 10,001 10% removed DBH
From 10,001 to 13,000 15% removed DBH
From 13,001 to 15,000 25% removed DBH
From 15,001 to 20,000 35% removed DBH
Greater than 20,000 50% removed DBH
The following example illustrates how to calculate legacy tree replacement units on a lot that is less than 10,001
square feet:
Lot size: 8,120 square feet.
Required tree units: 8,120 / 1,000 x 0.4 (tree density ratio) = 3.2 (rounded up to the next whole number) = 4
Total existing tree units on site: 6.5 units
51
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 3 of 11
Eight 10-inch DBH trees - 4 units (.5 units per tree)
Two 24-inch DBH trees - 1.5 units (.75 units per tree)
One 44-inch DBH Tree - 1 unit (1 unit per tree)
Total tree units removed: 3
Four 10-inch DBH trees = 2 units removed
One 44-inch DBH tree = 1 unit removed
Net tree units: 3.5
Supplemental units required: Yes (4 required tree units - 3.5 net tree units) = .5 or 1 tree
Legacy tree removed: Yes - One 44-inch DHB tree
Legacy tree supplemental units: 10 percent x 44 = 4.4 (rounded up to the next whole number) = 5 legacy
replacement inches
Landmark tree removed: No
Total supplemental requirements = 1 tree plus 5 inches = 4 2-inch trees
2. Landmark tree:
a. The quantity of replacement inches is calculated by multiplying the diameter breast height
of each subject landmark tree by 100 percent to establish the minimum number of
replacement inches; and
b. All fractions of this section shall be rounded up to the next whole number.
C. In lieu of planting the replacement trees prescribed in subsection (B) of this section, an applicant may
satisfy the tree replacement requirements by meeting the criteria set forth in MMC 16.52.180.
D. Other provisions.
1. Each replacement tree shall meet the standards prescribed in MMC 16.52.090;
2. The tree replacement requirements set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this section shall apply
to the removal of legacy and landmark trees in lieu of and in addition to requirement s for
removing nonlegacy trees;
3. The tree replacement requirements set forth in this section for a legacy and landmark tree shall
not be used to satisfy requirements for removing nonlegacy trees or a pre-existing tree unit gap;
4. If the minimum preservation standards in MMC 16.52.090 are used, and if supplemental tree
units are required, the tree replacement requirements set forth in subsections (B) and (C) of this
section shall together count as one supplemental tree unit;
5. Off-site tree planting as described in MMC 16.52.100 (C)(2) are acceptable alternatives to on-site
replacement tree planting provided the director or designee approves of the off -site location in
writing.
(Code 1988 § 20.52.120; Ord. No. 1012 , § 2, 7-11-2022; Ord. No. 923 § 18, 2015; Ord. No. 909 § 2 (Att. A), 2014)
52
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 4 of 11
16.52.090. Minimum preservation standards for land under development.
A. The requirements and procedures set forth in this section shall apply to lands that are designated as under
development pursuant to MMC 16.52.070. Figure 16.52.090 outlines the primary steps prescribed by this
section in establishing requirements and determining compliance with this chapter.
B. Lots with land under development shall contain a sufficient number of significant trees to meet the minimum
required tree units established by the following procedures:
1. The lot area is divided by 1,000 square feet; and
2. The quotient is multiplied by the corresponding tree density ratio applicable to the lot as set forth in
Table 16.52.090(B); and
3. The resulting product is rounded up to the next whole number to establish the minimum number of
required tree units.
Table 16.52.090(B) Tree Density Ratio
Zoning District Category of Land Use Tree Density
Ratio
R-16, R-20, R-30 & SR-
30
Residential 0.40
Golf course 0.15
Nonresidential other than
specifically listed
0.25
Public Schools 0.15
53
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 5 of 11
Parks 0.42
Residential 0.40
Nonresidential other than
specifically listed
0.25
N-A All 0.25
State highway All 0.12
C. To determine compliance with the required tree units applicable to the lot, apply the following procedures:
1. Inventory all existing significant trees on the subject lot; and
2. Assign a tree unit to each significant tree using the corresponding tree unit set forth in Table
16.52.090(C); and
3. Add the tree units together to compute the total existing tree units and subtract the tree units of those
significant trees removed to determine the net existing tree units (do not round fractions); and
4. Subtract the net existing tree units from the required tree units determined in this subsection (C) to
establish:
If the net existing tree units equal or exceed the required tree units then no supplemental trees
are required; or
If the net existing tree units are less than the required tree units then supplemental trees are
required pursuant to subsection (D) of this section.
Table 16.52.090(C) Existing Tree Unit
Tree Type Diameter Breast Height
of Existing Tree
Tree Unit
Deciduous 6 to 10 inches 0.5
Greater than 10 inches 0.75
Coniferous 6 to 10 inches 0.5
Greater than 10 inches, but less than 36 inches 0.75
36 inches and greater 1.0
D. If supplemental trees are required, the quantity of trees is determined by applying the following procedures:
1. Determine if a pre-existing tree unit gap exists by subtracting the total existing tree units from the
required tree units:
If the difference is less than zero round to zero;
A difference of zero means no pre-existing tree unit gap is present;
If the difference is greater than zero, the difference is the pre-existing tree unit gap;
2. To calculate the quantity of supplemental trees required, apply the provisions in subsection (D)(3) of
this section first to those supplemental trees replacing an existing significant tree starting in order with
the largest tree to the smallest tree, and then, if applicable, apply subsection (D)(3) of this section to
those filling a pre-existing tree unit gap;
3. The quantity of supplemental trees is determined by:
54
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 6 of 11
Assigning a tree unit to each supplemental tree using Table 16.52.090(D);
Two supplemental trees shall be required for replacing each existing significant tree having a
diameter breast height of 24 inches and larger subject to the limitation in subsection (D)(3)(d) of
this section, and consistent with subsection (D)(2) of this section these shall be counted first;
The quantity of supplemental trees shall be of a sufficient number that their total assigned tree
units added to the net existing tree units shall equal or exceed the minimum required tree units
established in subsection (B) of this section; and
Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum required tree units shall not
be required.
See Diagram 16.52.090 for an example of calculating supplemental trees.
Table 16.52.090(D) Supplemental Tree Unit
Purpose of
Supplemental Tree
Diameter Breast
Height of
Removed Tree
Tree Unit for
Supplemental
Trees
Replace an existing significant
tree
6 inches to less than 24 inches 1.0
24 inches and larger 0.5
Fill a pre-existing tree unit gap Not applicable 1.0
(Code 1988 § 20.52.130; Ord. No. 1012 , § 2, 7-11-2022; Ord. No. 923 § 19, 2015; Ord. No. 909 § 2 (Att. A), 2014
55
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 7 of 11
16.52.170. Tree preservation plan.
A. Permits for lands under development and permits for removing city trees in city rights-of-way shall include a
tree preservation plan containing the following information:
1. A survey plan prepared by a state licensed surveyor that includes the following:
a. Topography of the site at two-foot contour intervals;
b. Critical areas as defined in Chapters 16.50 and 16.67 MMC.
2. A site plan drawing showing the following:
a. Proposed improvements, alterations or adjustments to the subject property including, but not
limited to, buildings, driveways, walkways, patios, decks, utilities, and proposed contours.
b. Existing structures, whether proposed to remain or proposed for removal.
c. The shoreline jurisdiction as defined in RCW 90.58.030, if applicable to the property.
3. A tree-planting plan that includes:
a. The location, genus, species, common name, and size of all significant trees located within the
boundaries of the property and within any adjoining city rights-of-way and notation of which
significant trees will be retained and which are proposed to be removed.
b. If existing trees that are less than six inches diameter breast height are to be counted as
supplemental trees, the location, genus, common name, and size of such tree.
c. Compliance with the following objectives:
i. Trees shall be incorporated as a site amenity with strong emphasis on tree protection. To
the extent possible, forested sites should retain their forested look, value, and function
after development.
ii. Trees should be preserved as vegetated islands and stands rather than as individual,
isolated trees scattered throughout the site.
iii. Trees to be preserved shall be healthy and wind -firm as identified by a qualified arborist.
iv. Preservation of significant trees as follows:
(A) Significant trees which form a continuous canopy.
(B) Significant trees located adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers.
(C) Significant trees located within the first 15 feet adjacent to a property line.
(D) Significant trees which will be used as part of a low impact development (LID)
storm water facility.
(E) Significant trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 24 inches diameter
breast height.
d. For lots larger than 20,000 square feet, excluding lots within the shoreline jurisdiction as defined
by MMC 16.66.050, the tree density ratio shall be achieved as follows:
i. At least 20 percent of the required significant trees as determined by MMC 16.52.090 shall
be retained equally within the site perimeter as follows:
(A) Ten percent within the first 15-feet of the front property line.
56
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 8 of 11
(B) Ten percent within the first 15-feet of the rear property line.
b. At least 20 percent of the required significant trees as determined by MMC 16.52.090 shall be
retained within the site interior.
c. In the event there are not enough existing significant trees to meet the requirements of this
section, the applicant shall work with the city arborist to ensure, to the greatest extent possible,
tree retention occurs throughout the site and is not concentrated in one area (e.g., only along the
back property line).
d. Compliance with the required tree density ratio pursuant to MMC Table 16.52.090(B).
e. If applicable, a list of supplemental trees to be planted consistent with the requirements of this
chapter.
f. If right-of-way trees are proposed for removal, an analysis of the tree mitigation and a list of
replacement trees to be planted.
g. The list of required tree plantings shall include the size, genus, species and common names.
h. As applicable, a proposed landscaping plan that includes the required tree plantings and other
vegetation being planted, as appropriate, for determining compliance with other provisions of
the Medina Municipal Code (i.e., grading and drainage and shoreline master program
regulations).
B. The director may authorize modifications to the tree preservation plan on a case-by-case basis that reduce
submittal requirements if the director concludes such information to be unnecessary.
C. The director may require additional information to be included with the tree preservation plan, such as tree
protection measures, where the director concludes the information is necessary to determine compliance
with this chapter.
D. The applicant may combine the survey, site plan drawing, and/or tree preservation plan into a single
document, or may combine the required information with other documents, provided the city determines
the submitted information is reasonably easy to understand. All plans shall be drawn to a scale acceptable by
the director.
E. Permits not involving land under development do not require a tree preservation plan. However, this shall
not preclude the director from requiring such information as necessary to determine compliance with this
chapter.
(Code 1988 § 20.52.320; Ord. No. 1012 , § 2, 7-11-2022; Ord. No. 923 § 27, 2015)
16.52.200. City tree removals.
A. This section sets forth the requirements applicable to all trees located on city -owned property and city
rights-of-way.
B. General provisions.
1. This section is intended to be of general application for the benefit of the public at large; it is not
intended for the particular benefit of any individual person or group of persons other than the general
public;
2. In addition to the limits set forth in MMC 16.52.030, no city tree shall be broken, injured, mutilated,
killed, destroyed, pruned or removed unless authorized by the provisions of this section; and
57
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 9 of 11
3. The exemptions in MMC 16.52.040 apply to this section.
C. Pruning and trimming of city trees is permitted provided ANSI standards in their most recent form are
followed and the trimming and pruning comply with the requirements for tree activity permits set forth in
MMC 16.52.160.
D. Removal of a city tree located within an open or closed city right-of-way may be allowed for the following:
1. Hazard trees designated pursuant to MMC 16.52.120;
2. Nuisance trees designated pursuant to MMC16.52.130;
3. Trees not suitable under utility lines, or in the city right-of-way, as prescribed in the "City of Medina List
of Suitable Tree Species";
4. Any tree having less than a ten-inch diameter breast height size; and any trees not included on the
"City of Medina Suitable Tree Species List" for the right -of-way having less than a 36-inch diameter
breast height size;
5. Trees where pruning and trimming for utilities caused significant defects to the primary stem of the
tree resulting in significant abnormal growth;
6. Trees where removal is necessary to allow vehicle access to a property;
7. Trees where removal is necessary to restore a view significantly obstructed by the tree provided all of
the following criteria are satisfied:
a. The owner of the adjoining property to the subject tree and the city both accept allowance to
have the tree removed;
b. The person claiming the view obstruction establishes the tree causes an unreasonable view
obstruction using the provisions established in MMC 14.08.040 through 14.08.080; and
c. The approval of a nonadministrative right-of-way activity permit is obtained pursuant to MMC
16.72.090.
E. Where subsection (D) of this section allows removal of a city tree, the following shall apply:
1. Removal of city trees, including hazard and nuisance trees, is permitted only if replacement trees are
planted in accordance with the requirements in Table 16.52.200(E)(1), except as allowed otherwise by
this section;
Table 16.52.200(E)(1) Replacement City Trees
Diameter Breast
Height
of Removed Tree
Significant/Nonsignificant
Tree Species
Tree Replacement
Each Tree (Include
Nuisance Trees)
Less than 6 inches All None
6 to 10 inches All Plant one tree
Greater than 10
inches, but less than
24 inches
Nonsignificant Plant one tree
Significant Plant two trees
24 inches and larger Nonsignificant Plant two trees
Significant Plant three trees
Each Hazard Tree 6 to 10 inches All None
Greater than 10 inches All Plant one tree
58
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 10 of 11
2. Replacement trees shall meet the following standards:
a. To be eligible as a replacement tree, the tree species must be selected from the appropriate list
in the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" established in MMC 16.52.060;
b. Replacement trees shall be planted within the city right-of-way adjoining the subject lot;
c. Each replacement tree shall have a minimum caliper of two inches or, if the tree is coniferous, it
shall have a minimum height of six feet at the time of final inspection by the city;
d. Replacement trees shall be planted in a manner of proper spacing and lighting that allows them
to grow to maturity;
e. At least one replacement city tree shall be of the same plant division (coniferous or deciduous) as
the city tree removed;
f. Approval to remove a city tree shall include conditions to make certain that replacement trees
remain healthy and viable for at least five years after inspection by the city, including measures
to replace those replacement trees that do not remain healthy and viable;
3. In addition to the requirement for replacement trees in subsections (E)(1) and (2) of this section, the
public benefits lost due to the removal of the city tree shall be mitigated by paying a contribution to
the Medina tree fund in accordance with the following:
a. The contribution shall be determined by multiplying the diameter breast height inches of the tree
removed (significant and nonsignificant tree species) by a rate of $25.00;
b. Where more than one city tree is removed, the contribution for each removed tree shall be
added together to produce the total payment to the Medina tree fund;
c. The contribution rate for a city tree designated a hazard pursuant to MMC 16.52.120 is zero;
d. If removal of the city tree was not authorized by the city at the time of its removal, the
contribution rates shall triple and be in addition to any other penalties that might apply;
e. Unless a city tree qualifies for the emergency exemption pursuant to MMC 16.52.040(C), city
trees removed before a hazard or nuisance determination is made by the city shall be presumed
not to be a hazard or a nuisance.
F. The following planting requirements apply within the city right-of-way when a city tree is removed:
1. The maximum number of trees in the city right-of-way shall be one tree for each 17 feet of linear public
street frontage, or one tree for each 300 square feet of plantable area within the city right -of-way,
whichever is greater, adjoining the subject lot;
2. The director may increase the maximum number of city trees prescribed in subsection (F)(1) of this
section, provided there is sufficient space in the city right -of-way adjoining the lot to accommodate the
increase in city trees;
3. If the tree replacement requirements prescribed in subsection (E) of this section would result in the
total number of city trees in the right-of-way to exceed the maximum prescribed in subsection (F)(1) or
(2) of this section, an applicant shall contribute $290.00 to the Med ina tree fund for each replacement
tree above the maximum in lieu of planting replacement trees above the maximum;
4. If the tree replacement requirements prescribed in subsection (E) of this section would result in the
total number of city trees in the right-of-way to be below the maximum prescribed in subsection (F)(1)
or (2) of this section, an applicant may plant additional trees in the right -of-way, subject to the limits in
subsection (F)(1) or (2) of this section, and reduce contributions to the Medina tree fund by:
a. Six hundred dollars for each coniferous tree planted;
59
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:17 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 11 of 11
b. Five hundred dollars for each deciduous tree planted; and
5. New trees shall not be planted within three feet of the edge of any paved roadway.
G. The requirements of this section may be used to satisfy the requirements set forth in MMC 16.52.210.
H. Where a proposal includes application of this section and application of MMC 16.52.090 and/or 16.52.1100,
the requirements for supplemental trees and restoration trees shall be applied independent of the
requirements in this section for replacement trees.
(Code 1988 § 20.52.400; Ord. No. 1012 , § 2, 7-11-2022; Ord. No. 958 § 3, 2018; Ord. No. 923 § 29, 2015)
Note(s)—Former § 16.52.190. See editor's note, § 16.52.180.
60
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1
CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON
Ordinance No. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MEDINA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE MEDINA TREE
MANAGEMENT CODE, CHAPTER 16.52, AMENDING
SECTIONS 16.52.060, 16.52.080.A, 16.52.090.D.3,
16.52.170.A.3, 16.52.200.E.2 TO CREATE CLARITY IN THE
CODE AND ADMINISTRATION THEREOF, ADDING A NEW
SECTION 16.52.250 REGARDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS, AMENDING 1.15.030 AND 1.15.330 TO
MAKE CODE ENFORCEMENT CHAPTER CONSISTENT
WITH CHAPTER 16.52, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Medina values its tree canopy for the beauty that trees provide, as
well as for the benefits in absorbing stormwater and making the environment cleaner; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the Tree Management Chapter are recommended for
clarity and consistency as well as to adopt a clear penalty provision with grounds for
waiver of the same; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was submitted to the Department of Commerce for 60-
day expedited review on , 2024; and
WHEREAS, on , 2024, the City’s SEPA official issued a
determination of nonsignificance for the proposed amendments, which was published and
provided to the public in accordance with WAC 197-11-510, and there have been no
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed code
amendment at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the City’s Planning
Commission which was published in the City’s official newspaper and provided to the
public in accordance with Title 16 MMC; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of this Ordinance to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this Ordinance along with the
recommendation from the Planning Commission during its regularly meeting on
, 2024; and
61
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that it is in the public interest, safety and
welfare to clarify when non-administrative variances are appropriate and the scope of
such approvals; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 16.52.060 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
16.52.060 Designation of significant tree species.
A. A list of suitable tree species consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees
is set forth in the document entitled "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree
Species," adopted by Ordinance No. 923 and on file with the city for the
purpose of establishing significant tree species on private property, public
property, and city rights-of-way; and tree species that are eligible for
credits in this chapter.
B. The director shall maintain the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree
Species" document at Medina City Hall and may administratively modify
the list consistent with the following criteria:
1. The designation of coniferous trees should include all species
excluding tree species known to have invasive root structures and to
be fast growing such as Leyland cypress and should also exclude
trees planted, clipped or sheared to be used as a hedge;
2. The designation of deciduous trees should include those suitable to
United States Department of Agriculture Plant Hardiness Zones 8
and 9, excluding those trees with crown diameter of ten feet or less
at maturity;
3. Addition of non-native deciduous trees to expand the selection of
suitable deciduous trees for supplemental and restoration planting
options when those trees will add to the beauty of Medina provided
such species are not unsuitable for other reasons, like excessive
shallow root growth; and
4. Plantings of the following tree species within the city's rights -of-way
shall be prohibited: London plane, quaking aspen, Lombardy poplar,
bolleana poplar, cottonwood, and bigleaf maple.
C. The director shall submit proposals to modify the "City of Medina List of
Suitable Tree Species" to the city council for their consideration. The city
council may approve, modify or deny the proposed modifications. The city
council may also decline to take action on the proposed modifications, in
which case the modifications shall be incorporated into the list and take
effect five days after the date the city council declines to take action.
62
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 3
D. The "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" is used in conjunction
with the definition of significant tree set forth in MMC 16.12.200 to denote
the term significant tree as used in this chapter.
Section 2. Section 16.52.080.A of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
16.52.080 Legacy and landmark tree protection measures.
This section applies to trees designated as legacy and landmark trees,
which are native trees that because of their age, size and condition are
recognized as having outstanding value in contributing to the character of the
community. Legacy and landmark trees within the shoreline jurisdiction are
regulated in MMC 16.66.050.
A. A legacy or landmark tree shall be designated by meeting the
following criteria:
1. Legacy tree:
a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the "City of
Medina List of Suitable Tree Species"; and
b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 36 inches or larger but
less than 50 inches; and
c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a
likelihood of surviving more than ten years based on
assumptions that: i. Tthe tree is properly cared for.; and
ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is
unenhanced by any proposed development.
2. Landmark tree:
a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the "City of
Medina List of Suitable Tree Species"; and
b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 50 inches or larger; and
c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a
likelihood of surviving more than ten years based on
assumptions that: i. Tthe tree is properly cared for.; and
ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is
unenhanced by any proposed development.
* * * * *
Section 3. Section 16.52.090.D.3 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
63
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 4
16.52.090 Minimum preservation standards for land under development.
* * * * *
D.
* * * * *
3. The quantity of supplemental trees is determined by:
Assigning a tree unit to each supplemental tree using Table
16.52.090(D);
Two supplemental trees shall be required for replacing each existing
significant tree having a diameter breast height of 24 inches and
larger subject to the limitation in subsection (D)(3)(d) of this section,
and consistent with subsection (D)(2) of this section these shall be
counted first;
The quantity of supplemental trees shall be of a sufficient number
that their total assigned tree units added to the net existing tree units
shall equal or exceed the minimum required tree units established in
subsection (B) of this section; and
Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum
required tree units shall not be required.
* * * * *
Section 4. Section 16.52.170.A.3 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
16.52.170 Tree preservation plan.
A. Permits for lands under development and permits for removing city trees
in city rights-of-way shall include a tree preservation plan containing the
following information:
1. A survey plan prepared by a state licensed surveyor that includes the
following:
a. Topography of the site at two-foot contour intervals;
b. Critical areas as defined in Chapters 16.50 and 16.67 MMC.
2. A site plan drawing showing the following:
a. Proposed improvements, alterations or adjustments to the subject
property including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways,
walkways, patios, decks, utilities, and proposed contours.
b. Existing structures, whether proposed to remain or proposed for
removal.
c. The shoreline jurisdiction as defined in RCW 90.58.030, if
applicable to the property.
64
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 5
3. A tree-planting plan prepared by a professional arborist that
includes:
* * * * *
Section 5. Section 16.52.200.E.2 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
16.52.200. City tree removals.
* * * * *
E.
* * * * *
2. Replacement trees shall meet the following standards:
a. To be eligible as a replacement tree, the tree species must be
selected from the appropriate list in the "City of Medina List of
Suitable Tree Species" established in MMC 16.52.060;
b. Replacement trees shall be planted within the city right-of-way
adjoining the subject lot;
c. Each replacement tree shall have a minimum caliper of two
inches or, if the tree is coniferous, it shall have a minimum
height of six feet at the time of final inspection by the city;
d. Replacement trees shall be planted in a manner of proper
spacing and lighting that allows them to grow to maturity;
e. At least one replacement city tree shall be of the same plant
division (coniferous or deciduous) as the city tree removed;
f. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a type that will achieve the
same or similar canopy coverage at maturity as the tree(s)
which were removed; and
g. Approval to remove a city tree shall include conditions to make
certain that replacement trees remain healthy and viable for
at least five years after inspection by the city, including
measures to replace those replacement trees that do not
remain healthy and viable;.
* * * * *
Section 6. A new section 16.52.250 is hereby added to the Medina Municipal Code
to read as follows:
16.52.250. - Violations.
A. Application and Scope.
65
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 6
1. This section establishes fines, penalties, violation procedures,
and information relative to trees and tree canopy that are removed or
damaged in the City of Medina without prior or proper authorization from the
City and/or without compliance with the regulations in MMC Chapter 16.52-
Tree Management Code.
B. Definitions.
The following definitions apply for the purposes of implementing this
chapter.
1. “Private property” or “parcel” means all land and property not
included within the definitions of “right of way”, “ROW ”, or “public property”
as set forth in Section B.2 below.
2. “Right of way”, “ROW ”, and “public property” each mean and
include any and all land and/or property rights held by the City of Medina
whether for the benefit of the City and/or for the public.
3. “Tree activity permit” means a permit issued with or without
conditions by the City of Medina permitting the removal of one or more
trees.
4. “Tree damage” means a tree found to have its health and/or
viability substantially or permanently degraded due to improper
implementation of or failed maintenance of tree protection requirements.
“Tree damage” also includes damage resulting from other unnatural causes.
5. “Tree removal” means the act of physically removing a tree by
any means, or damaging a tree to a point it is no longer healthy or viable.
6. “Viable” means capable of surviving or living successfully.
7. “Violator” means the person, persons, and/or entity(s)
determined by the Director to be responsible for or having c ommitted any
improper or unpermitted tree removal or tree damage.
C. Tree Removals Occurring on Private Property. Each tree removed
from private property is subject to all of the following:
1. Fines. Fines shall be assessed for each tree removed as
follows; each fine is cumulative:
a. $1,000 per tree; and
b. $1,000 per inch DBH; and
c. $25,000 maximum per tree; and
66
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 7
d. The fine for legacy or landmark tree removal shall be
three times the maximum calculated fine per tree; and
e. The fine for tree removal occurring within a critical area
or a critical area buffer shall be three times the calculated fine per tree.
2. One time exemption. The owner of a single-family parcel not
under a pending or issued development permit may seek a one -time
exemption from all or a portion of the foregoing fines in Section C.1 above
for a maximum of one tree removal if the Director finds that all of the
following apply:
i. The removed tree is not a legacy or landmark
tree.
ii. The removed tree is not within a critical area or
its buffer.
iii. No more than one tree is removed.
iv. There has been no prior exemption granted for
a tree removal on the single-family property during the period of a
continuous ownership.
2. Reimbursement and Recovery of City Costs. The following
City costs and expenses incurred for or related to each tree removal shall
be tabulated by the Director and periodic invoices therefore shall be
presented to the violator, who shall reimburse the City in the full amount
thereof within 30 days of presentation of such invoice.
a. All costs and expenses of enforcement or remediation
incurred by the City shall be recovered, including:
i. Professional consultant and contract costs,
including without limitation arborists, technicians, City Hearing Examiner,
City Attorney, and any other consultant or contractor performing work or
activities related to the tree removal.
ii. Hourly City staff costs.
3. Tree Activity Permit Requirements.
a. Permit fees for work performed without benefit of an
issued tree activity permit shall be doubled.
4. Hardships. The owner of a private single-family residential
property who is determined by the City to have committed an unpermitted
tree removal on such property, or on City property, and to whom the City
has assessed fines for violations of this section, may petition the Hearing
Examiner for a reduction of the City's assessed fines and penalties pursuant
67
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 8
to this subsection C.4, and may seek reduction of any enforcement costs
assessed. The City's intent is to recognize individuals who have limited
financial assets, such that the assessed fines or costs represent a
significant and substantial financial burden on the owner.
a. The owner of private single-family residential property
who wishes to petition the Hearing Examiner due to financial hardship shall:
i. File a petition to the Hearing Examiner no later
than the date of the appeal deadline to a City-issued Notice of Violation or
other Order issued by the City regarding the unpermitted tree removal in
accordance with MMC 1.15.220.
ii. The petition shall be delivered to the City of
Medina Development Services Director via certif ied mail or by hand-delivery
to City Staff at Medina City Hall "to the attention of the Development
Services Director" and shall include full payment of the Hearing Examiner's
fee as listed within the current Medina Fee Resolution.
iii. The City shall provide the petitioner with a notice
of receipt via regular mail.
iv. The petitioner shall provide substantial credible
evidence of monetary burden, personal and household impact, and
hardship due to the City's assessed fines and/or costs imposed, i ncluding
evidence provided under penalty of perjury of household income, assets,
size of household, and other extenuating circumstances. Documents that
may be used to establish income for the purposes of applying for the
hardship exception include, but are not limited to:
Salary/wages/tips, etc. (W-2)
Interest/dividends (1099-INT/1099-DIV)
Alimony/spousal maintenance (State/DSHS
stmts.)
Business income, include rental property
income and/or rental payments, co-tenant
(1040 + Schedule C)
Capital gains/losses (1040 + schedule D)
IRA withdrawals (1099-R)
Pension/veteran's/annuities (1099-R)
Railroad retirement benefits (RRB-1099)
Unemployment/labor and industries (1099-
G)
Social Security statement (SSA, SSI, SSDI
1099)
Gifts/cash
Work study earnings
68
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 9
Military pay/benefits
v. Financial hardship may be deemed to exist by the
Hearing Examiner when the petitioner’s household needs substantially all
of his/her/their current and anticipated income and liquid assets to meet
current and anticipated ordinary and necessary living expenses during the
projected period of collection. Financial hardship will not be found to exist
when the petitioner merely establishes that the repayment causes a
financial burden, i.e., when it is inconvenient to pay the penalties or costs.
If there are anticipated changes in income or expenses that would allow for
the recovery of the overpayment at a later date, or over time, the Hearing
Examiner may defer the collection of the penalties and/or costs until a future
date or may allow payment over time.
A. Considerations. Pertinent considerations in
determining whether full and prompt payment of the
penalties and/or costs would cause financial hardship
include the following:
(1) The petitioner does not have the ability to
pay the penalties and/or costs when due, or
(2) The petitioner provides evidence that
he/she/they has/have a household income that
is equal to or less than 80 percent of King
County Area Median Income (AMI), or
(3) There is an immediate and heavy financial
need of one or more a members of the
petitioner’s household that is due to no fault of
the petitioner or household member, such as
medical needs, which makes it very difficult for
the petitioner to timely and fully pay the
penalties and/or costs.
B. For purposes of determining financial hardship
“ordinary and necessary living expenses” include rent,
mortgage payments, utilities, maintenance, food,
clothing, insurance (life, health and accident), taxes,
installment payments, medical expenses, support
expenses when the individual is legally responsible,
and other miscellaneous expenses which the individual
can establish as being ordinary and necessary,
provided, however, that expenses that are in excess of
69
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 10
200 percent of the then-applicable “National Standards
for food, clothing, and other items” established
annually by the Internal Revenue Service, shall not be
considered “ordinary and necessary living expenses”
for purposes of determining financial hardship.
vi. Hearing Examiner Discretion; Burden of Proof.
The Hearing Examiner shall have discretion over the petition and may grant
(in whole or in part) or deny the petition, provided, however, that the petition
may only be granted if the petitioner has provided evidence of household
income and assets under penalty of perjury and such evidence proves that
the full and prompt payment of the penalties or/or costs would be a financial
hardship to the petitioner. The Hearing Examiner shall consider the
petitioner’s ability to pay, based on both household income and assets and
make a determination whether the prompt and full payment of the penalties
and/or costs will create an undue hardship for the petitioner. If payment over
time will reduce the financial hardship, the Hearing Examiner may allow
payment of the penalties and/or costs to be made over time so as to reduce
the financial hardship for the petitioner. The burden of proof shall be on the
petitioner to establish that full and prompt payment of the penalties and/or
costs would be a financial hardship and will be based on the considerations
and information set forth in subsections iv and v above.
viii. Hearing Procedure. The Hearing Examiner shall
consult with the parties and set the date for the hearing no later tha n 90-
days following receipt of the complete petition and shall set dates for the
submission of an answer by the City to the petition and a response thereto
by the petitioner. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the
Hearing Examiner's Rules of Procedure. The Hearing Examiner shall issue
a Notice of Decision to the petitioner and the Director within 30 days of the
close of the hearing, which Notice shall briefly explain the Examiner's
decision and either grant, in whole or in part, or deny the petition.
D. Tree Removals Occurring on Public Property or City ROW. Each
tree regulated by MMC Ch. 16.52 which is removed from City or public
property or ROW is subject to all of the following:
1. Fines. Fines shall be assessed for each tree removed as
follows; each fine is cumulative.
a. There is no minimum diameter of tree limitation.
b. $1,000 per tree; and
c. $1,000 per inch DBH; and
70
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 11
d. The fine for each tree removed shall be three times that
calculated per subsections D.1.a, .b and .c.
2. Reimbursement of City Costs. The following City costs and
expenses incurred for or related to each tree removal shall be tabulated by
the Director and periodic invoices therefore shall be presented to the
violator, who shall reimburse the City in the full ament thereof within 30 days
of presentation of such invoice.
a. All costs and expenses of enforcement and
remediation incurred by the City shall be recovered, including:
i. Professional consultant and contract costs,
including without limitation arborists, technicians, City Hearing Examiner,
City Attorney, and any other consultant or contractor performing work or
activities related to the tree removal.
ii. Hourly City staff costs.
iii. All site restoration activities, including debris,
tree material and stump removal; grading; clean-up; infrastructure repair
and replacement; site and public protective actions.
iv. All subsequent remedial and implementation
activities, including estimated or anticipated costs to assure health, viability
and protection of each remediation tree, including advance deposits
therefor as periodically determined by the Director. Such amounts shall
minimally include the estimated costs for three years of watering and other
maintenance by City staff, and for five consecutive years to cover health
and viability observation and/or response by the City Arborist.
3. Remediation of Tree Removal and Denigration of Tree
Canopy. Immediate steps to replace and restore the total area of removed
tree canopy are required, including the following:
a. The area of canopy remediation shall be based upon
the City Arborists estimation of canopy area lost.
b. Utilize tree species listed within the Medina Lists of
Suitable Trees.
c. Tree sizes as necessary to reduce the quantity of
replacement trees.
d. Replant within the immediate area of the tree and
canopy removal.
71
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 12
e. Utilize additional replanting in locations determined
appropriate by the City Arborist.
f. Recovery of the City's expenses of remediation,
including replacement trees, professional planting, delivery, and sales tax,
and ongoing maintenance thereof, as set forth in Section C.2 above.
g. Contribution(s) to the Medina Tree Fund shall comply
with Section 16.52.200.E.3.
h. At its discretion the City may perform the remediation
work required or the City may use preferred consultants of its choice.
i. Modifications may be applied to remediation
requirements as determined appropriate by the Director.
4. Tree Activity and Right of Way Use Permit Requirements.
a. Fees for work performed without benefit of an issued
tree activity and right of way use permit shall be doubled.
E. Tree Protection Requirements and Standards During Development.
1. Failure to Implement or Maintain Tree Protection. Failure to
implement or maintain tree protection as required during development
projects shall result in a minimum fine of $1,000 per tree.
2. Damaged Trees. Trees found to have their health and/or
viability substantially or permanently damaged due to improper or failed
implementation or maintenance of tree protection requirements shall be
subject to fines, fees, cost reimbursement, and remediation as though the
tree had been removed without benefit of permit.
F. Financial Guarantees and Supplemental Provisions. The following
provisions apply to all actions occurring under this Section:
1. A financial guarantee acceptable to the City, including a bond,
cash, or bank cash set-aside account (collectively Guarantee) is required
for all time deposits under this Section.
2. A minimum Guarantee in the amount of $4,000 is required per
remediation tree. Said Guarantee shall be held for 5 -years beginning with
the date of replanting.
3. Guarantees shall be replenished within 60 days of written
notice from the City that the current deposit amount is at 25% or less of the
original deposit.
72
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 13
4. All or portions of a Guarantee may be used by the City to
cover total cost to replant if needed.
5. A portion of a Guarantee may be used for assuring a new 3-
year watering and maintenance program, and concurrent 5 -year period of
City arborist observations.
Section 7. Section 1.15.030 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1.15.030 Applicability.
This chapter applies to any violations of:
A. MMC Title 16, Unified Development Code;
B. Chapter 8.04 MMC, Nuisances;
C. Chapter 8.06 MMC, Noise;
D. Chapter 12.08 MMC, Construction in Streets;
E. Chapter 12.32 MMC, Structures in Unimproved Portions of Public Rights-of-
Way;
F. Chapter 13.06 MMC, Stormwater;
G. Chapter 16.75 MMC, Construction Activity Permit;
H. Chapter 16.50 MMC, Critical Areas; and
I. Chapter 16.52 MMC, Tree Management Code; and
J. Other Medina Municipal Code sections that make reference to this chapter.
Section 8. Section 1.15.330 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1.15.330. Monetary penalties.
A. Monetary penalties for a citation, other than as set forth in subsection C
and D below, shall be in accordance with Table 1.15.330:
Table 1.15.330
Code Provision First
Violation
Second
Violation
Third and
Subsequent
Violations
73
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 14
Exceeding noise
standards
$100.00 $200.00 $500.00
Failure to comply
with code of
conduct or
construction
mitigation plan
$100.00 $400.00 $750.00
Failure to comply
with erosion
control measures
and best
management
practices
$100.00 $200.00 $500.00
Illicit discharges of
or into
stormwater, illegal
dumping of or into
stormwater and/or
illicit connections
to a stormwater
facility
$300.00 $600.00 $900.00
Failure to comply
with a stop work
order
$300.00 $750.00 $1,500.00
Failure to obtain a
tree removal
permit
$300.00 $500.00 $750.00
Failure to obtain
and/or comply
with a right-of-way
permit
$100.00 $400.00 $750.00
Placement of a
prohibited
structure or object
in city right-of-way
$50.00 $100.00 $300.00
B. Monetary penalties for a notice of violation shall be as follows:
1. First day of each violation, $100.00;
2. Second day of each violation, $200.00;
3. Third day of each violation, $300.00;
4. Fourth day of each violation, $400.00;
5. Each additional day of violation beyond four days, $500.00 per day.
74
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 2
Page 15
C. Violations involving the tree regulations set forth in Chapter 16.52 MMC
shall be as set forth in MMC 16.52.250.
D. Violations involving and the shoreline master program set forth in
Chapters 16.60 through 16.67 MMC shall have the monetary penalties
prescribed by this section assessed on a per tree basis.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 10. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved
summary consisting of the title.
Section 11 . Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk,
and/or the code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to
this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener ’s/clerical errors,
references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference
thereto.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after
publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS XX DAY OF , 2024
BY A VOTE OF X FOR, X AGAINST, AND X ABSTAINING, AND IS SIGNED IN
AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE ON THE XX DAY OF ,
2024.
_________________________
Jessica Rossman, Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
________________________________ _____________________________
Jennifer S. Robertson, City Attorney Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.: / AB
75
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1
CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON
Ordinance No. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MEDINA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE MEDINA TREE
MANAGEMENT CODE, CHAPTER 16.52, AMENDING
SECTIONS 16.52.060, 16.52.080.A, 16.52.090.D.3,
16.52.170.A.3, 16.52.200.E.2 TO CREATE CLARITY IN THE
CODE AND ADMINISTRATION THEREOF, ADDING A NEW
SECTION 16.52.250 REGARDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS, AMENDING 1.15.030 AND 1.15.330 TO
MAKE CODE ENFORCEMENT CHAPTER CONSISTENT
WITH CHAPTER 16.52, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND CORRECTIONS, AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Medina values its tree canopy for the beauty that trees provide, as
well as for the benefits in absorbing stormwater and making the environment cleaner; and
WHEREAS, revisions to the Tree Management Chapter are recommended for
clarity and consistency as well as to adopt a clear penalty provision with grounds for
waiver of the same; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was submitted to the Department of Commerce for 60-
day expedited review on , 2024; and
WHEREAS, on , 2024, the City’s SEPA official issued a
determination of nonsignificance for the proposed amendments, which was published and
provided to the public in accordance with WAC 197-11-510, and there have been no
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed code
amendment at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the City’s Planning
Commission which was published in the City’s official newspaper and provided to the
public in accordance with Title 16 MMC; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of this Ordinance to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this Ordinance along with the
recommendation from the Planning Commission during its regularly meeting on
, 2024; and
76
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that it is in the public interest, safety and
welfare to clarify when non-administrative variances are appropriate and the scope of
such approvals; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 16.52.060 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
16.52.060 Designation of significant tree species.
A. A list of suitable tree species consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees
is set forth in the document entitled "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree
Species," adopted by Ordinance No. 923 and on file with the city for the
purpose of establishing significant tree species on private property, public
property, and city rights-of-way; and tree species that are eligible for
credits in this chapter.
B. The director shall maintain the "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree
Species" document at Medina City Hall and may administratively modify
the list consistent with the following criteria:
1. The designation of coniferous trees should include all species
excluding tree species known to have invasive root structures and to
be fast growing such as Leyland cypress and should also exclude
trees planted, clipped or sheared to be used as a hedge;
2. The designation of deciduous trees should include those suitable to
United States Department of Agriculture Plant Hardiness Zones 8
and 9, excluding those trees with crown diameter of ten feet or less
at maturity;
3. Addition of non-native deciduous trees to expand the selection of
suitable deciduous trees for supplemental and restoration planting
options when those trees will add to the beauty of Medina provided
such species are not unsuitable for other reasons, like excessive
shallow root growth; and
4. Plantings of the following tree species within the city's rights -of-way
shall be prohibited: London plane, quaking aspen, Lombardy poplar,
bolleana poplar, cottonwood, and bigleaf maple.
C. The director shall submit proposals to modify the "City of Medina List of
Suitable Tree Species" to the city council for their consideration. The city
council may approve, modify or deny the proposed modifications. The city
council may also decline to take action on the proposed modifications, in
which case the modifications shall be incorporated into the list and take
effect five days after the date the city council declines to take action.
77
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 3
D. The "City of Medina List of Suitable Tree Species" is used in conjunction
with the definition of significant tree set forth in MMC 16.12.200 to denote
the term significant tree as used in this chapter.
Section 2. Section 16.52.080.A of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
16.52.080 Legacy and landmark tree protection measures.
This section applies to trees designated as legacy and landmark trees,
which are native trees that because of their age, size and condition are
recognized as having outstanding value in contributing to the character of the
community. Legacy and landmark trees within the shoreline jurisdiction are
regulated in MMC 16.66.050.
A. A legacy or landmark tree shall be designated by meeting the
following criteria:
1. Legacy tree:
a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the "City of
Medina List of Suitable Tree Species"; and
b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 36 inches or larger but
less than 50 inches; and
c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a
likelihood of surviving more than ten years based on
assumptions that: i. Tthe tree is properly cared for.; and
ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is
unenhanced by any proposed development.
2. Landmark tree:
a. The tree species is denoted as a legacy tree on the "City of
Medina List of Suitable Tree Species"; and
b. The diameter breast height of the tree is 50 inches or larger; and
c. The city arborist determines the tree to be healthy with a
likelihood of surviving more than ten years based on
assumptions that: i. Tthe tree is properly cared for.; and
ii. The risk of the tree declining or becoming a nuisance is
unenhanced by any proposed development.
* * * * *
Section 3. Section 16.52.090.D.3 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
78
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 4
16.52.090 Minimum preservation standards for land under development.
* * * * *
D.
* * * * *
3. The quantity of supplemental trees is determined by:
Assigning a tree unit to each supplemental tree using Table
16.52.090(D);
Two supplemental trees shall be required for replacing each existing
significant tree having a diameter breast height of 24 inches and
larger subject to the limitation in subsection (D)(3)(d) of this section,
and consistent with subsection (D)(2) of this section these shall be
counted first;
The quantity of supplemental trees shall be of a sufficient number
that their total assigned tree units added to the net existing tree units
shall equal or exceed the minimum required tree units established in
subsection (B) of this section; and
Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum
required tree units shall not be required.
* * * * *
Section 4. Section 16.52.170.A.3 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
16.52.170 Tree preservation plan.
A. Permits for lands under development and permits for removing city trees
in city rights-of-way shall include a tree preservation plan containing the
following information:
1. A survey plan prepared by a state licensed surveyor that includes the
following:
a. Topography of the site at two-foot contour intervals;
b. Critical areas as defined in Chapters 16.50 and 16.67 MMC.
2. A site plan drawing showing the following:
a. Proposed improvements, alterations or adjustments to the subject
property including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways,
walkways, patios, decks, utilities, and proposed contours.
b. Existing structures, whether proposed to remain or proposed for
removal.
c. The shoreline jurisdiction as defined in RCW 90.58.030, if
applicable to the property.
79
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 5
3. A tree-planting plan prepared by a professional arborist that
includes:
* * * * *
Section 5. Section 16.52.200.E.2 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
16.52.200. City tree removals.
* * * * *
E.
* * * * *
2. Replacement trees shall meet the following standards:
a. To be eligible as a replacement tree, the tree species must be
selected from the appropriate list in the "City of Medina List of
Suitable Tree Species" established in MMC 16.52.060;
b. Replacement trees shall be planted within the city right-of-way
adjoining the subject lot;
c. Each replacement tree shall have a minimum caliper of two
inches or, if the tree is coniferous, it shall have a minimum
height of six feet at the time of final inspection by the city;
d. Replacement trees shall be planted in a man ner of proper
spacing and lighting that allows them to grow to maturity;
e. At least one replacement city tree shall be of the same plant
division (coniferous or deciduous) as the city tree removed;
f. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a type that will achieve the
same or similar canopy coverage at maturity as the tree(s)
which were removed; and
g. Approval to remove a city tree shall include conditions to make
certain that replacement trees remain healthy and viable for
at least five years after inspection by the city, including
measures to replace those replacement trees that do not
remain healthy and viable;.
* * * * *
Section 6. A new section 16.52.250 is hereby added to the Medina Municipal Code
to read as follows:
16.52.250. - Violations.
A. Application and Scope.
80
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 6
1. This section establishes fines, penalties, violation procedures,
and information relative to trees and tree canopy that are removed or
damaged in the City of Medina without prior or proper authorization from the
City and/or without compliance with the regulations in MMC Chapter 16.52-
Tree Management Code.
B. Definitions.
The following definitions apply for the purposes of implementing this
chapter.
1. “Private property” or “parcel” means all land and property not
included within the definitions of “right of way”, “ROW ”, or “public property”
as set forth in Section B.2 below.
2. “Right of way”, “ROW ”, and “public property” each mean and
include any and all land and/or property rights held by the City of Medina
whether for the benefit of the City and/or for the public.
3. “Tree activity permit” means a permit issued with or without
conditions by the City of Medina permitting the removal of one or more
trees.
4. “Tree damage” means a tree found to have its health and/or
viability substantially or permanently degraded due to improper
implementation of or failed maintenance of tree protection requirements.
“Tree damage” also includes damage resulting from other unnatural causes.
5. “Tree removal” means the act of physically removing a tree by
any means, or damaging a tree to a point it is no longer healthy or viable.
6. “Viable” means capable of surviving or living successfully.
7. “Violator” means the person, persons, and/or entity(s)
determined by the Director to be responsible for or having committed any
improper or unpermitted tree removal or tree damage.
C. Tree Removals Occurring on Private Property. Each tree removed
from private property is subject to all of the following:
1. Fines. Fines shall be assessed for each tree removed as
follows; each fine is cumulative:
a. $1,000 per tree; and
b. $1,000 per inch DBH; and
c. $25,000 maximum per tree; and
81
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 7
d. The fine for legacy or landmark tree removal shall be
three times the maximum calculated fine per tree; and
e. The fine for tree removal occurring within a critical area
or a critical area buffer shall be three times the calculated fine per tree.
2. One time exemption. The owner of a single-family parcel not
under a pending or issued development permit may seek a one -time
exemption from all or a portion of the foregoing fines in Section C.1 above
for a maximum of one tree removal if the Director finds that all of the
following apply:
i. The removed tree is not a legacy or landmark
tree.
ii. The removed tree is not within a critical area or
its buffer.
iii. No more than one tree is removed.
iv. There has been no prior exemption granted for
a tree removal on the single-family property during the period of a
continuous ownership.
2. Reimbursement and Recovery of City Costs. The following
City costs and expenses incurred for or related to each tree removal shall
be tabulated by the Director and periodic invoices therefore shall be
presented to the violator, who shall reimburse the City in the full amount
thereof within 30 days of presentation of such invoice.
a. All costs and expenses of enforcement or remediation
incurred by the City shall be recovered, including:
i. Professional consultant and contract costs,
including without limitation arborists, technicians, City Hearing Examiner,
City Attorney, and any other consultant or contractor performing work or
activities related to the tree removal.
ii. Hourly City staff costs.
3. Tree Activity Permit Requirements.
a. Permit fees for work performed without benefit of an
issued tree activity permit shall be doubled.
4. Hardships. The owner of a private single-family residential
property who is determined by the City to have committed an unpermitted
tree removal on such property, or on City property, and to whom the City
has assessed fines for violations of this section, may petition the Hearing
Examiner for a reduction of the City's assessed fines and penalties pursuant
82
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 8
to this subsection C.4, and may seek reduction of any enforcement costs
assessed. The City's intent is to recognize individuals who have limited
financial assets, such that the assessed fines or costs represent a
significant and substantial financial burden on the owner.
a. The owner of private single-family residential property
who wishes to petition the Hearing Examiner due to financial hardship shall:
i. File a petition to the Hearing Examiner no later
than the date of the appeal deadline to a City-issued Notice of Violation or
other Order issued by the City regarding the unpermitted tree removal in
accordance with MMC 1.15.220.
ii. The petition shall be delivered to the City of
Medina Development Services Director via certif ied mail or by hand-delivery
to City Staff at Medina City Hall "to the attention of the Development
Services Director" and shall include full payment of the Hearing Examiner's
fee as listed within the current Medina Fee Resolution.
iii. The City shall provide the petitioner with a notice
of receipt via regular mail.
iv. The petitioner shall provide substantial credible
evidence of monetary burden, personal and household impact, and
hardship due to the City's assessed fines and/or costs imposed, i ncluding
evidence provided under penalty of perjury of household income, assets,
size of household, and other extenuating circumstances. Documents that
may be used to establish income for the purposes of applying for the
hardship exception include, but are not limited to:
Salary/wages/tips, etc. (W-2)
Interest/dividends (1099-INT/1099-DIV)
Alimony/spousal maintenance (State/DSHS
stmts.)
Business income, include rental property
income and/or rental payments, co-tenant
(1040 + Schedule C)
Capital gains/losses (1040 + schedule D)
IRA withdrawals (1099-R)
Pension/veteran's/annuities (1099-R)
Railroad retirement benefits (RRB-1099)
Unemployment/labor and industries (1099-
G)
Social Security statement (SSA, SSI, SSDI
1099)
Gifts/cash
Work study earnings
83
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 9
Military pay/benefits
v. Financial hardship may be deemed to exist by the
Hearing Examiner when the petitioner’s household needs substantially all
of his/her/their current and anticipated income and liquid assets to meet
current and anticipated ordinary and necessary living expenses during the
projected period of collection. Financial hardship will not be found to exist
when the petitioner merely establishes that the repayment causes a
financial burden, i.e., when it is inconvenient to pay the penalties or costs.
If there are anticipated changes in income or expenses that would allow for
the recovery of the overpayment at a later date, or over time, the Hearing
Examiner may defer the collection of the penalties and/or costs until a future
date or may allow payment over time.
A. Considerations. Pertinent considerations in
determining whether full and prompt payment of the
penalties and/or costs would cause financial hardship
include the following:
(1) The petitioner does not have the ability to
pay the penalties and/or costs when due, or
(2) The petitioner provides evidence that
he/she/they has/have a household income that
is equal to or less than 80 percent of King
County Area Median Income (AMI), or
(3) There is an immediate and heavy financial
need of one or more a members of the
petitioner’s household that is due to no fault of
the petitioner or household member, such as
medical needs, which makes it very difficult for
the petitioner to timely and fully pay the
penalties and/or costs.
B. For purposes of determining financial hardship
“ordinary and necessary living expenses” include rent,
mortgage payments, utilities, maintenance, food,
clothing, insurance (life, health and accident), taxes,
installment payments, medical expenses, support
expenses when the individual is legally responsible,
and other miscellaneous expenses which the individual
can establish as being ordinary and necessary,
provided, however, that expenses that are in excess of
84
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 10
200 percent of the then-applicable “National Standards
for food, clothing, and other items” established
annually by the Internal Revenue Service, shall not be
considered “ordinary and necessary living expenses”
for purposes of determining financial hardship.
vi. Hearing Examiner Discretion; Burden of Proof.
The Hearing Examiner shall have discretion over the petition and may grant
(in whole or in part) or deny the petition, provided, however, that the petition
may only be granted if the petitioner has provided evidence of household
income and assets under penalty of perjury and such evidence proves that
the full and prompt payment of the penalties or/or costs would be a financial
hardship to the petitioner. The Hearing Examiner shall consider the
petitioner’s ability to pay, based on both household income and assets and
make a determination whether the prompt and full payment of the penalties
and/or costs will create an undue hardship for the petitioner. If payment over
time will reduce the financial hardship, the Hearing Examiner may allow
payment of the penalties and/or costs to be made over time so as to reduce
the financial hardship for the petitioner. The burden of proof shall be on the
petitioner to establish that full and prompt payment of the penalties and/or
costs would be a financial hardship and will be based on the considerations
and information set forth in subsections iv and v above.
viii. Hearing Procedure. The Hearing Examiner shall
consult with the parties and set the date for the hearing no later tha n 90-
days following receipt of the complete petition and shall set dates for the
submission of an answer by the City to the petition and a response thereto
by the petitioner. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the
Hearing Examiner's Rules of Procedure. The Hearing Examiner shall issue
a Notice of Decision to the petitioner and the Director within 30 days of the
close of the hearing, which Notice shall briefly explain the Examiner's
decision and either grant, in whole or in part, or deny the petition.
D. Tree Removals Occurring on Public Property or City ROW. Each
tree regulated by MMC Ch. 16.52 which is removed from City or public
property or ROW is subject to all of the following:
1. Fines. Fines shall be assessed for each tree removed as
follows; each fine is cumulative.
a. There is no minimum diameter of tree limitation.
b. $1,000 per tree; and
c. $1,000 per inch DBH; and
85
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 11
d. The fine for each tree removed shall be three times that
calculated per subsections D.1.a, .b and .c.
2. Reimbursement of City Costs. The following City costs and
expenses incurred for or related to each tree removal shall be tabulated by
the Director and periodic invoices therefore shall be presented to the
violator, who shall reimburse the City in the full ament thereof within 30 days
of presentation of such invoice.
a. All costs and expenses of enforcement and
remediation incurred by the City shall be recovered, including:
i. Professional consultant and contract costs,
including without limitation arborists, technicians, City Hearing Examiner,
City Attorney, and any other consultant or contractor performing work or
activities related to the tree removal.
ii. Hourly City staff costs.
iii. All site restoration activities, including debris,
tree material and stump removal; grading; clean-up; infrastructure repair
and replacement; site and public protective actions.
iv. All subsequent remedial and implementation
activities, including estimated or anticipated costs to assure health, viability
and protection of each remediation tree, including advance deposits
therefor as periodically determined by the Director. Such amounts shall
minimally include the estimated costs for three years of watering and other
maintenance by City staff, and for five consecutive years to cover health
and viability observation and/or response by the City Arborist.
3. Remediation of Tree Removal and Denigration of Tree
Canopy. Immediate steps to replace and restore the total area of removed
tree canopy are required, including the following:
a. The area of canopy remediation shall be based upon
the City Arborists estimation of canopy area lost.
b. Utilize tree species listed within the Medina Lists of
Suitable Trees.
c. Tree sizes as necessary to reduce the quantity of
replacement trees.
d. Replant within the immediate area of the tree and
canopy removal.
86
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 12
e. Utilize additional replanting in locations determined
appropriate by the City Arborist.
f. Recovery of the City's expenses of remediation,
including replacement trees, professional planting, delivery, and sales tax,
and ongoing maintenance thereof, as set forth in Section C.2 above.
g. Contribution(s) to the Medina Tree Fund shall comply
with Section 16.52.200.E.3.
h. At its discretion the City may perform the remediation
work required or the City may use preferred consultants of its choice.
i. Modifications may be applied to remediation
requirements as determined appropriate by the Director.
4. Tree Activity and Right of Way Use Permit Requirements.
a. Fees for work performed without benefit of an issued
tree activity and right of way use permit shall be doubled.
E. Tree Protection Requirements and Standards During Development.
1. Failure to Implement or Maintain Tree Protection. Failure to
implement or maintain tree protection as required during development
projects shall result in a minimum fine of $1,000 per tree.
2. Damaged Trees. Trees found to have their health and/or
viability substantially or permanently damaged due to improper or failed
implementation or maintenance of tree protection requirements shall be
subject to fines, fees, cost reimbursement, and remediation as though the
tree had been removed without benefit of permit.
F. Financial Guarantees and Supplemental Provisions. The following
provisions apply to all actions occurring under this Section:
1. A financial guarantee acceptable to the City, including a bond,
cash, or bank cash set-aside account (collectively Guarantee) is required
for all time deposits under this Section.
2. A minimum Guarantee in the amount of $4,000 is required per
remediation tree. Said Guarantee shall be held for 5 -years beginning with
the date of replanting.
3. Guarantees shall be replenished within 60 days of written
notice from the City that the current deposit amount is at 25% or less of the
original deposit.
87
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 13
4. All or portions of a Guarantee may be used by the City to
cover total cost to replant if needed.
5. A portion of a Guarantee may be used for assuring a new 3-
year watering and maintenance program, and concurrent 5 -year period of
City arborist observations.
Section 7. Section 1.15.030 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1.15.030 Applicability.
This chapter applies to any violations of:
A. MMC Title 16, Unified Development Code;
B. Chapter 8.04 MMC, Nuisances;
C. Chapter 8.06 MMC, Noise;
D. Chapter 12.08 MMC, Construction in Streets;
E. Chapter 12.32 MMC, Structures in Unimproved Portions of Public Rights-of-
Way;
F. Chapter 13.06 MMC, Stormwater;
G. Chapter 16.75 MMC, Construction Activity Permit;
H. Chapter 16.50 MMC, Critical Areas; and
I. Chapter 16.52 MMC, Tree Management Code; and
J. Other Medina Municipal Code sections that make reference to this chapter.
Section 8. Section 1.15.330 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1.15.330. Monetary penalties.
A. Monetary penalties for a citation, other than as set forth in subsection C
and D below, shall be in accordance with Table 1.15.330:
Table 1.15.330
Code Provision First
Violation
Second
Violation
Third and
Subsequent
Violations
88
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 14
Exceeding noise
standards
$100.00 $200.00 $500.00
Failure to comply
with code of
conduct or
construction
mitigation plan
$100.00 $400.00 $750.00
Failure to comply
with erosion
control measures
and best
management
practices
$100.00 $200.00 $500.00
Illicit discharges of
or into
stormwater, illegal
dumping of or into
stormwater and/or
illicit connections
to a stormwater
facility
$300.00 $600.00 $900.00
Failure to comply
with a stop work
order
$300.00 $750.00 $1,500.00
Failure to obtain a
tree removal
permit
$300.00 $500.00 $750.00
Failure to obtain
and/or comply
with a right-of-way
permit
$100.00 $400.00 $750.00
Placement of a
prohibited
structure or object
in city right-of-way
$50.00 $100.00 $300.00
B. Monetary penalties for a notice of violation shall be as follows:
1. First day of each violation, $100.00;
2. Second day of each violation, $200.00;
3. Third day of each violation, $300.00;
4. Fourth day of each violation, $400.00;
5. Each additional day of violation beyond four days, $500.00 per day.
89
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 15
C. Violations involving the tree regulations set forth in Chapter 16.52 MMC
shall be as set forth in MMC 16.52.250.
D. Violations involving and the shoreline master program set forth in
Chapters 16.60 through 16.67 MMC shall have the monetary penalties
prescribed by this section assessed on a per tree basis.
Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 10. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved
summary consisting of the title.
Section 11 . Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk,
and/or the code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to
this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener ’s/clerical errors,
references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference
thereto.
Section 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after
publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS XX DAY OF , 2024
BY A VOTE OF X FOR, X AGAINST, AND X ABSTAINING, AND IS SIGNED IN
AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE ON THE XX DAY OF ,
2024.
_________________________
Jessica Rossman, Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
________________________________ _____________________________
Jennifer S. Robertson, City Attorney Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.: / AB
90
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 4
Six Tree Management Code “Short-Term Solutions” which Council directed staff and
consultants on 1/23/23 to develop into text amendment draft proposals.
1. Remove - "Supplemental trees in excess of those needed to meet the minimum required
tree units shall not be required." from 16.52.090.D.3.(d)
a. Removing this will align the minimum preservation and restoration standards with
the code’s intent to “preserve the existing tree canopy”.
2. Require species that can attain a similar canopy size to trees being removed.
a. An intent of the code is to “Protect and preserve the existing tree canopy”, but the
minimum standards focus on tree replacement, not canopy replacement.
3. Expand "List of Suitable Trees" to allow select deciduous non-native species.
a. There is an inadequate selection and supply of suitable size native deciduous trees
required for supplemental and restoration tree plantings. Expanding the list will
increase approved options.
4. Tree preservation plan shall include a report by a qualified professional that identifies
compliance with code objectives.
a. A qualified professional (arborist) is a person that has the necessary experience and
training in an applicable area and is needed to address specific requirements
identified in the code (example. Is a tree healthy and wind -firm? MMC
16.52.170.A.3.c.iii)
5. Increase minimum replacement trees to account for attrition.
a. This measure is intended to address potential loss of supplemental trees required to
remain viable 5 years after planting (MMC 16.52.100.A.4), which currently lacks a
means to track and enforce replacements.
6. Legacy and Landmark trees: Remove "the risk of the tree declining or becoming a
nuisance is unenhanced by any proposed development." (16.52.080.A.1.c.ii &
16.52.080.A.2.c.ii)
a. As written, this line is not consistent with the code’s purpose and intent and may
result in the indiscriminate removal of large trees from development that might not
occur.
91
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
92
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
93
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
94
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
95
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
96
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
97
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
98
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
99
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
100
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 6
Tree Removal Without Permit
Comparison of Fines
Example:
Removal of one 31” dia. Doug. Fir
Private Property
Value = $24,100.00
Fines only. Fees and reimbursements additional
Jurisdiction Note (1) 31” Doug Fir
Clyde Hill No permit needed for private tree removal
$0 Private
$250 ROW
Medina $300 1st, $500 2nd, $750 3rd
$300 ROW or private
Redmond Up to $3,000/tree
$3,000 ROW or private
Aspen CO $2,650/tree. X2 for no permit
$5,300 ROW or private
Kirkland $30,000 if in a Critical Area or native growth
protection easement
$20,000 ROW or private
$30,000 Sensitive Area
Mercer Island Fine based on tree value
“up to” 3x for ROW removals
$24,100
ROW $24,100 - $72,300
Seattle Fine based on tree value
“may be” 3x for ROW removals
$24,100
ROW $24,100 - $72,300
Hunts Point $1,000/tree + $1,000/inch. $25,000
maximum per tree.
$25,000
ROW or private
Yarrow Point $10,000/tree + $1,000/inch over 18” to $25k
max./tree
$25,000
$5,000 ROW
Medina As proposed for MMC Amendment.
$1,000/tree + $1,000/inch. $25,000
maximum per tree.
2x for ROW/Critical Areas w/no limit
$25,000 Private Property
$63,000 ROW, Critical area
101
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 7
1
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL
Monday, January 23, 2023
Subject: Tree Management Code Amendments
Category: City Business
Staff Contact: Steven R. Wilcox, Development Services Director
Summary
The purpose of this Agenda Bill is for Council to consider directing city staff to perform two tasks:
1. Prepare draft amendments to Medina Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Tree Management Code
according to the six (6) “Short-term Solutions” as presented by our City Arborists.
2. Prepare a plan for an approach to a comprehensive review of MMC Code Chapter 16.52 Tree
Management Code.
In 2022 Medina employed two new arborist consultants, Sean Dugan (Tree Solutions, Inc.) and
Andy Crossett (Tree Frog, LLC). Following a consistent 15-years of success with our previous
consulting arborist Tom Early, our two new arborists have brought us a fresh perspective and
have voiced their observations regarding the effectiveness of our Tree Management Code while
considering the defined Purpose and Intent.
Ordinances adopted by municipalities require amendments from time to time. A discussion about
the effectiveness of our Tree Management Code is appropriate now that we have new information.
Presenting our arborist’s observations is important for Council to hear so that decisions about
possible actions can be made.
Sean Dugan is a Principal with Tree Solutions, Inc. Sean performs development project work for
Medina. Sean is involved with proposed development projects from pre-application through final
inspection approval. Sean primarily interacts with property developers and contractors. More
information about Sean and his company may be found at Tree Solutions Inc. - a tree consulting
company in the Pacific Northwest.
Andy Crossett is owner of Tree Frog LLC. Andy performs non-development work for Medina.
Any request by a Medina resident for tree removal, tree health assessment, and general tree
related code enforcement outside of new development projects including the public right of way,
are assigned to Andy. Andy primarily interacts with our residents and finds himself often guiding
people through our permit process. More information about Andy and his LLC may be found at
Tree Frog LLC.
102
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
EXHIBIT 7
2
The proposed projects meet and supports Council priorities 3, 4, and 5.
Council Priorities:
1. Financial Stability and Accountability
2. Quality Infrastructure
3. Efficient and Effective Government
4. Public Safety and Health
5. Neighborhood Character
Attachments
PowerPoint presentation prepared by Sean Dugan and Andy Crossett
MMC Ch. 16.52 with our arborist’s and staff comments
Budget/Fiscal Impact:
1. Code amendment draft preparation estimated at $25,000. This is an estimated cost to draft
simple code amendments necessary to affect short-term solutions to matters involving the
Tree Management Code.
2. Comprehensive review plan draft estimated at $2,000 preparation. This is not the cost to
comprehensively review the entirety of the Tree Management Code.
Estimates are for consulting arborists and attorney’s costs. There is no defined budget for this
work.
Recommendation: Approve
City Manager Approval:
Proposed Council Motions:
1. I move to direct city staff to prepare for Council consideration draft amendments to the Medina
Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Tree Management Code according to the six (6) “Short-term
Solutions” bullet points as presented at the 1/23/23 meeting by our tree code consultants.
2. I move to direct city staff to prepare for Council consideration a plan for a comprehensive
review of the Medina Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Tree Management Code.
103
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Tree Removal
Violations
Development Services Department
104
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Example 1 Costs to the Violator
TREE REMOVAL VIOLATIONS 2
Private Residential Property
One 25” Douglas Fir tree removed
without permit
First and only known tree code
violation
Exempt from fines
Permit required
•Supplemental trees
•Fees doubled
City costs of enforcement to be
recovered
Violation Costs
Fines $0 Exempt
Permit Fee $100 Doubled
Cost
Recovery
$500 Estimated
Actual Costs
Total $600
105
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Example 2 Costs to the Violator
TREE REMOVAL VIOLATIONS 3
Private Residential Property
Two trees removed
•28” Douglas Fir
•18” Douglas Fir
First and only known tree code
violation
Not exempt from fines
Permit required
•Supplemental trees
•Fees doubled
City costs of enforcement to be
recovered
Violation Costs
*Fines $45,000 Not Exempt
Permit Fee $200 Doubled
Cost
Recovery
$2,500 Estimated
Actual Costs
Total $47,700
*Property owner could petition HEX for a hardship to reduce fines to 25% ($11,250)
Fine Calculation:
$1,000/tree x 2 = $2,000
28” tree = $25,000 (max allowed)
18” tree = $18,000
106
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Example 3 Costs to the Violator
TREE REMOVAL VIOLATIONS 4
Private Residential Property
Ten trees removed
•10” diameter each
•Top of critical area steep slope
Likely cut for view enhancement
Fines are tripled
Permit required
•Supplemental trees
•Fees doubled
City costs of enforcement to be
recovered
Violation Costs
*Fines $160,000 Not Exempt
Permit Fees $1,270 Doubled
Cost Recovery $10,000 Estimated
Actual Costs
Total $163,770
*Property owner could petition HEX for a hardship to reduce fines to 25% ($40,000)
Fine Calculation:
$1,000/tree x 10 = $10,000
50” combined tree diameter = $50,000
$50,000 x 3 = $150,000
107
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Example 4 Costs to the Violator
TREE REMOVAL VIOLATIONS 5
Public Property
Two trees removed
•31” Douglas Fir
•28” Douglas Fir
Likely cut for view enhancement
Fines are tripled
Remediation to be the estimated full
canopy replacement of that removed
Permit required
•Fees doubled
City costs of enforcement to be
recovered
Violation Costs
Fines $183,000 Tripled
Permit Fee $3,000 Doubled
Cost
Recovery
$20,000 Estimated
Actual Costs
Total $206,000
Fine Calculation:
$1,000/tree x 2 = $2,000
31” x $1,000 = $31,000
28” x $1,000 = $28,000
$61,000 x 3 = $183,000
108
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Example 5 Costs to the Violator
TREE REMOVAL VIOLATIONS 6
Public Property
Eight trees removed
•6-8” Douglas Fir
•2-12” Douglas Fir
Likely cut for view enhancement
Fines are tripled
Remediation to be the estimated full
canopy replacement of that removed
Permit required
•Fees doubled
City costs of enforcement to be
recovered
Violation Costs
Fines $240,000 Tripled
Permit Fee $3,000 Doubled
Cost
Recovery
$20,000 Estimated
Actual Costs
Total $263,000
Fine Calculation:
$1,000/tree x 8 = $8,000
(6)x8” x $1,000 = $48,000
(2)x12” x $1,000 = $24,000
$80,000x 3 = $240,000
109
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
Next Steps
TREE REMOVAL VIOLATIONS 7
110
AGENDA ITEM 6.4
1
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
Wednesday September 11, 20234
Subject: Non-administrative Variance Code Amendment Proposal
Planning Commission Action: Discussion, and Council Recommendation
Public Hearing Required - Noticed
Staff Contact: Steven Wilcox, Development Services Director
A. Background - 2024 Council Workplan
The 2024 Council Workplan for Development Services Department includes a review of
Medina’s existing non-administrative variance procedures found within Medina Municipal
Code 16.72.030.
The purpose of the review is to ensure that the City’s land use codes and comprehensive
plan are implemented and that variances are a rare exception, granted only when truly
necessary. Non-administrative variances are heard by the City’s hearing examiner.
With assistance of City Attorney Jennifer Robertson, a proposal was drafted into an
Agenda Bill which she presented to Council on April 2 2, 2024 and which is now included
for you as Exhibit 1.
Council discussed the proposal and directed that the Planning Commission review and
make recommendation which is where we are now.
Subsequent to the Aprill 22, 2024 Council presentation, our City Attorney prepared a draft
ordinance which is included for you as Exhibit 2.
To assist with your review, the entire MMC Section 16.72.030 is provided as Exhibit 3 for
comparison to the draft ordinance.
The draft ordinance (Exhibit 2) has the changes underlined, which may be difficult for
some to read. I am providing the draft ordinance unmodified from Exhibit 2, but with the
underlined changes highlighted. This highlighted version of the draft ordinance is provided
to you as Exhibit 4.
111
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
2
B. Non-Administrative Variance Purpose and Procedure
Medina Municipal Code 16.72.010 states:
“The purpose for a nonadministrative variance is to provide property owners relief from
certain provisions of this title where conditions justify such relief on a case-by-case
basis.”
City staff review variance applications and generate a staff report as part of the hearing
examiner process. The hearing examiner conducts the hearing. The applicant may be
represented by legal counsel at the hearing. The city attorney normally does not attend
hearings unless asked to by staff. Each the City and variance applicant have the
opportunity to present during the hearing. The hearing examiner will listen, ask
questions, and will close the hearing with a formal decision issued usually within a short
period of time.
The hearing examiner is required to follow the procedures outlined within our Municipal
Code.
C. Issue Prompting this Proposal
In the past, non-administrative variances have often been easily granted in Medina,
which is contrary to the intent that they be a rare exception, and only granted when
necessary for the property owner to make reasonable use of their property.
As an example, there have been code enforcement violations where structures were built
without benefit of required Medina permits. Proper permitting prior to construction would
have identified that these structures were not allowed under our Municipal Code . Under
permit application. options would have been given, but permits would not have been
issued if there were code violations in the design.
Once Medina staff become involved there is an investigation. If there is a violation
discovered, then action is taken as our MMC requires. Actions may include:
Issuance of a Stop Work Order
Issuance of a Notice of Violation or Fine through Citation
Voluntary Compliance Agreement
Final Order
Within the violation process there are options for the person with the violations including:
Remove the structure
Submit a permit application with design modificatio ns showing code compliance
Application for a variance to request that the non-code compliant structure remain
as it is
112
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
3
D. Proposed Code Amendment Section by Section
The following was prepared by our City Attorney as part of the April 22, 2024 Council
presentation.
The attached draft revisions to MMC 16.72.030 would tighten up the criteria under which
this type of variance may be granted by the hearing examiner and would provide greater
guidance to the hearing examiner and applicants regarding the situations that would
justify the granting of a non-administrative variance. These proposed revisions are
outlined below:
1. MMC 16.72.030.A is clarified to ensure that non-administrative variances are only
granted when they meet the criteria in the code.
2. MMC 16.72.030E.1 is modified to add more detail as to what type of lot may be
eligible for a variance. This provides better guidance for the hearing examiner and
applicant.
3. MMC 16.72.030E.2 is modified to clarify that prior non-administrative variances do
not create precedent and cannot be used as a justification for obtaining a future
non-administrative variance.
4. MMC 16.72.030.E.3 is modified to expand the list of item s under which a non-
administrative variance may not be granted, including:
a. To alter any provision establishing a permitted or conditional use within a
zoning district; (revision to subsection “b”)
b. To alter any administrative provisions including procedures or fees;
(revision to subsection “c”)
c. To legalize structures or improvements that were installed in violation of
MMC and which would not be permitted without a variance; (**New**
subsection “d”) (Note, this would prohibit the owner who builds something
without permits and in violation of the code being able to keep that
improvement by gaining a variance.)
d. To alter the maximum residential density allowed in any zoning district;
(**New** subsection “e”)
e. To alter the provisions of Chapter 14.04 MMC, SEPA. (**New** subsection
“f”)
5. MMC 16.72.030.F is modified to clarify that a non-administrative variance may only
be granted if it meets all of the criteria in that section. (Note, this is far more typical
variance code language than what is currently in the M edina code.)
6. MMC 16.72.030.F.1 is modified to remove the “vicinity” language when evaluating
whether the grant of the non-administrative variance constitutes a special privilege.
113
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
4
Instead, the consideration is limited to the zone. The purpose for this suggested
edit is to avoid the compounding of variances granted when one in granted in an
area of the city; the “vicinity” language makes it more likely that the neighboring
property owner could meet this criterion just due to be near a property that obtained
a variance. Limiting this to zone, treats properties in the same zone equitably,
regardless of what their neighbors may or may not have been granted.
7. MMC 16.72.030.F.2 is modified to narrow what is deemed “necessary” for the
purposes of granting the non-administrative variance by requiring that the variance
is necessary to “make reasonable use of the property” and tying that necessity to
the factors related to the lot, including factors that “substantially constrain
development” such that “the property owner cannot develop the property
consistent with allowed uses.”
8. MMC 16.72.030.F – **three new subsections** “5”, “6”, and “7” are recommended
which provide additional criteria that must be me t before a non-administrative
variance can be granted. These are:
a. The applicant must have first evaluated a lternative development concepts
in compliance with the existing code and that undue hardship would result
if such adherence to code provision is required;
b. The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of t he relevant city
ordinances and the comprehensive plan;
c. The basis for the variance request is not the result of deliberate actions of
the applicant or property owner;
9. MMC 16.72.030.F.8 (currently subsection “5”) is modified to limit the approval to
reasonable use of the property as opposed to using the language “reasonable
relief” as is in the current code.
10. MMC 16.72.030.G – **new subsection** – this new subsection defines “hardship”: “For
purposes of this section, it shall not be deemed a hardship if the applicant can develop
the property for its allowed use under the zone without the granting of a variance.” By
putting this definition in the code, the hearing examiner will need to use this definition in
weighing the criteria for granting the non-administrative variance.
11. MMC 16.72.030.H (previously “G”) – “Conditions of Approval” is modified to specifically
permit the hearing examiner to reduce the scope or scale of any variance granted to
“ensure that the variance is no more than the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
use of the property”. This provides more flexibility to the hearing examiner such that the
answer on whether to grant the variance is not limited to “yes” or “no”. Rather, the hearing
examiner can tailor the variance to more closely meet the City’s standards while giving the
applicant added flexibility to make reasonable use of the property.
114
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
5
E. Summary and Next Steps
The Council supports the non-administrative code amendment proposal detailed in Exhibit
1. This proposal has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review.
Currently, the draft ordinance is under review by the Department of Commerce.
Our planning consultant, LDC, is also evaluating the draft ordinance for SEPA compliance,
with Jonathan Kesler providing final confirmation.
A notice of the public hearing scheduled for September 11, 2024, regarding this proposed
code amendment was published. The comment period has closed with no feedback
received.
The Planning Commission will need to consider any comments from the public notice or
the public hearing.
Planning Commission is requested to approve the proposed amendments to the Medina
Municipal Code (MMC) 16.72.030. Upon receiving the Planning Commission's approval, the
proposal will be presented to the Council for final approval.
Attachments
Exhibit 1, Agenda Bill April 22, 2024
Exhibit 2, Draft Ordinance
Exhibit 3, MMC 16.72.030. Nonadministrative variance
Exhibit 4, Draft Ordinance with changes highlighted
Proposed Planning Commission Motion:
“I move to direct staff to forward the draft non-administrative variance ordinance, as detailed in
Exhibit 2, to the City Council for their review and approval.”
115
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 1
10853961.2 - 371096 - 0012
MEDINA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL
Monday, April 22, 2024
Subject: Non-administrative Variance and Hearing Examiner Proposal
Category: Discussion and Direction
Staff Contacts: Steve Wilcox, Development Services Director and Jennifer S. Robertson, City
Attorney
Summary
A. Non-Administrative Variance.
The Council work plan for Development Services included a review of the non-administrative
variance procedures for the purpose of ensuring that the City’s land use codes and
comprehensive plan are implemented and that variances are a rare exception, granted only when
truly necessary. The non-administrative variance code is found at MMC 16.72.030. Non-
administrative variances are heard by the City’s hearing examiner. The City staff review the
application and generate a staff report as part of the hearing examiner process. Often the
applicant is represented by legal counsel for the hearing. In the past, non-administrative variances
have been easily granted, which is contrary to the intent that they be a rare exception, and only
granted when necessary for the property owner to make reasonable use of their property.
As an example, there have been recent code enforcement violations where structures were built
without benefit of required Medina permits. Proper permitting would have identified that these
structures were not allowed under our Municipal Code. Options would have been given, but
permits would not have been accepted or issued. Once Medina staff became involved these
structures were posted and work was stopped. Options were given including to apply for variance
which did occur. In both of these recent variance applications the hearing examiner approved of
the structures in the non-compliant locations. Medina does not process very many variance
applications annually with some years none at all.
The attached draft revisions to MMC 16.72.030 would tighten up the criteria under which this type
of variance may be granted by the hearing examiner and would provide greater guidance to the
hearing examiner and applicants regarding the situations that would justify the granting of a non-
administrative variance. These proposed revisions are outlined below:
1. MMC 16.72.030.A is clarified to ensure that non-administrative variances are only granted
when they meet the criteria in the code.
2. MMC 16.72.030E.1 is modified to add more detail as to what type of lot may be eligible
for a variance. This provides better guidance for the hearing examiner and applicant.
116
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 1
10853961.2 - 371096 - 0012
3. MMC 16.72.030E.2 is modified to clarify that prior non-administrative variances do not
create precedent and cannot be used as a justification for obtaining a future non-
administrative variance.
4. MMC 16.72.030.E.3 is modified to expand the list of items under which a non-
administrative variance may not be granted, including:
a. To alter any provision establishing a permitted or conditional use within a zoning
district; (revision to subsection “b”)
b. To alter any administrative provisions including procedures or fees; (revision to
subsection “c”)
c. To legalize structures or improvements that were installed in violation of MMC and
which would not be permitted without a variance; (**New** subsection “d”) (Note,
this would prohibit the owner who builds something without permits and in violation
of the code being able to keep that improvement by gaining a variance.)
d. To alter the maximum residential density allowed in any zoning district; (**New**
subsection “e”)
e. To alter the provisions of Chapter 14.04 MMC, SEPA. (**New** subsection “f”)
5. MMC 16.72.030.F is modified to clarify that a non-administrative variance may only be
granted if it meets all of the criteria in that section. (Note, this is far more typical variance
code language than what is currently in the Medina code.)
6. MMC 16.72.030.F.1 is modified to remove the “vicinity” language when evaluating whether
the grant of the non-administrative variance constitutes a special privilege. Instead, the
consideration is limited to the zone. The purpose for this suggested edit is to avoid the
compounding of variances granted when one in granted in an area of the city; the “vicinity”
language makes it more likely that the neighboring property owner could meet this criterion
just due to be near a property that obtained a variance. Limiting this to zone, treats
properties in the same zone equitably, regardless of what their neighbors may or may not
have been granted.
7. MMC 16.72.030.F.2 is modified to narrow what is deemed “necessary” for the purposes
of granting the non-administrative variance by requiring that the variance is necessary to
“make reasonable use of the property” and tying that necessity to the factors related to
the lot, including factors that “substantially constrain development” such that “the property
owner cannot develop the property consistent with allowed uses.”
8. MMC 16.72.030.F – **three new subsections** “5”, “6”, and “7” are recommended which
provide additional criteria that must be met before a non-administrative variance can be
granted. These are:
a. The applicant must have first evaluated alternative development concepts in
compliance with the existing code and that undue hardship would result if such
adherence to code provision is required;
b. The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the relevant city
ordinances and the comprehensive plan;
c. The basis for the variance request is not the result of deliberate actions of the
applicant or property owner;
9. MMC 16.72.030.F.8 (currently subsection “5”) is modified to limit the approval to
reasonable use of the property as opposed to using the language “reasonable relief” as is
in the current code.
117
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 1
10853961.2 - 371096 - 0012
10. MMC 16.72.030.G – **new subsection** – this new subsection defines “hardship”: “For
purposes of this section, it shall not be deemed a hardship if the applicant can develop
the property for its allowed use under the zone without the granting of a variance.” By
putting this definition in the code, the hearing examiner will need to use this definition in
weighing the criteria for granting the non-administrative variance.
11. MMC 16.72.030.H (previously “G”) – “Conditions of Approval” is modified to specifically
permit the hearing examiner to reduce the scope or scale of any variance granted to
“ensure that the variance is no more than the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
use of the property”. This provides more flexibility to the hearing examiner such that the
answer on whether to grant the variance is not limited to “yes” or “no”. Rather, the hearing
examiner can tailor the variance to more closely meet the City’s standards while giving the
applicant added flexibility to make reasonable use of the property.
If the Council is supportive of narrowing the code language for granting non-administrative
variances and believes the draft code is an appropriate starting point, then the next step would
be for the Council to direct staff to take this matter to the Planning Commission for review of the
code, holding the public hearing, and making a recommendation to the Council.
This meets and supports Council’s priorities 3 through 5.
Council Priorities:
1. Financial Stability and Accountability
2. Quality Infrastructure
3. Efficient and Effective Government
4. Public Safety and Health
5. Neighborhood Character and Community Building
B. Hearing Examiner Proposal.
The City of Medina hearing examiner, Alex Sidles, recently gave the City notice that he has been
appointed by Governor Inslee to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Therefore, the City
needs a new hearing examiner. Phil Olbrechts of Olbrechts & Associates has submitted a
proposal which is attached. Mr. Olbrechts is a very experienced hearing examiner who has
practiced law for over 30 years and served for many years as a city attorney or deputy city attorney
earlier in his career.
The City and Mr. Olbrechts have agreed to contract terms, but the contract will not be executed
until Council has an opportunity to comment on his qualifications. The requirement that the City
Council be allowed to comment on qualification of a potential hearing examiner is required by
MMC 2.72.020. Therefore, if any council member has comments about Mr. Olbrechts, they may
either provide those comments during the council meeting or may communicate separately with
the City Manager’s office.
This meets and supports Council’s priorities 3 and 4.
Council Priorities:
1. Financial Stability and Accountability
118
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 1
10853961.2 - 371096 - 0012
2. Quality Infrastructure
3. Efficient and Effective Government
4. Public Safety and Health
5. Neighborhood Character and Community Building
Attachments
Draft update to MMC 16.72.030
Hearing Examiner Proposal and Background for Phil Olbrechts of Olbrechts &
Associates, PLLC
Budget/Fiscal Impact: If the Council sends the draft code to the Planning Commission, that will
take staff time to process the amendment.
Hiring a new hearing examiner will be an expense to the City’s budget, however, with the imminent
the departure of the current hearing examiner, a new examiner needs to be hired.
Recommendation:
1. Provide input to staff on draft revisions to MMC 16.72.030 and provide direction on
whether this draft amendment should be transmitted to the Planning Commission for
review and processing.
2. Provide input to the City Manager on the qualifications of the proposed new hearing
examiner.
City Manager Approval:
Proposed Council Motion: “I move to direct staff to forward the proposed revisions to MMC
16.72.030 to the Planning Commission for review and processing.”
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
119
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON
Ordinance No. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MEDINA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 16.72.030
OF THE MEDINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE
PROCEDURES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
GRANTING NON-ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CORRECTIONS,
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Medina allows for variance under certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, variances should be exceptions to the zoning standards which are
only provided due to constraints to the property at issue that is outside of the control of
the property owner; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was submitted to the Department of Commerce for 60-
day expedited review on , 2024; and
WHEREAS, on , 2024, the City’s SEPA official issued a
determination of nonsignificance for the proposed amendments, which was published and
provided to the public in accordance with WAC 197-11-510, and there have been no
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed code
amendment at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the City’s Planning
Commission which was published in the City’s official newspaper and provided to the
public in accordance with Title 16 MMC; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of this Ordinance to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this Ordinance along with the
recommendation from the Planning Commission during its regularly meeting on
, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that it is in the public interest, safety and
welfare to clarify when non-administrative variances are appropriate and the scope of
such approvals; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
120
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 2
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
Section 1. Section 16.72.030 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
16.72.030. Nonadministrative variance.
A. Purpose. The purpose for a nonadministrative variance is to provide
property owners relief from certain provisions of this title where
conditions justify such relief on a case-by-case basis and where the
criteria set forth in this section are met.
B. Applicant. Any owner may submit an application for a
nonadministrative variance.
C. Procedures. Nonadministrative variances are processed as a Type 3
decision pursuant to the review procedures set forth in Chapter 16.80
MMC.
D. Applicability. Circumstances where relief from a dimensional standard
is sought subject to the limitation set forth in subsection (E) of this
section.
E. Limitations.
1. Nonadministrative variances may be granted where the
application of a dimensional standard would result in an unusual or
unreasonable hardship due to the physical characteristics of the
site, such as a substandard or irregularly shaped lot, topography
that significantly constrains development, or the presence of critical
areas and/or buffers on the property which significantly constrain
development;
2. Evidence of other variances granted under similar circumstances
shall not be considered precedent and shall not be considered in
the granting of a nonadministrative variance; and
3. No variance shall be granted for any of the following:
a. To alter any definition or interpretation of this title;
b. To alter any provision establishing a permitted or conditional
use within a zoning district; or
c. To alter any administrative provisions including proceduresal
provisions or fees.;
d. To make legal structures or improvements that were
installed in violation of MMC and which would not be permitted
without a variance;
e. To alter the maximum residential density allowed in any zoning
district; or
f. To alter the provisions of Chapter 14.04 MMC, SEPA.
121
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 3
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
F. Criteria for approval. The decision authority may approve
nonadministrative variance only if the following criteria are satisfied
Unless another section of the MMC provides additional or separate
criteria, a variance shall not be granted unless all the following criteria are
met:
1. The variance does not constitute a granting of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located; and
2. The variance is necessary to make reasonable use of the
property and such necessity is because of special circumstances
relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings or
other factors on the lot such as the presence of critical areas or
buffers that substantially constrain development of the subject
property such that the property owner cannot develop the property
consistent with allowed uses to provide it with use rights and
privileges permitted other properties in the vicinity and in the zone
in which the subject property is located; and
3. The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship that
cannot be relieved by any other means such that the material
hardship must relate to the land itself and not to problems personal
to the applicant; and
4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and
5. Alternative development concepts in compliance with the existing
code have been evaluated and undue hardship would result if such
adherence to code provision is required; and
6. The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
relevant city ordinances and the comprehensive plan; and
7. The basis for the variance request is not the result of deliberate
actions of the applicant or property owner; and
58. The variance granted is the minimum necessary to provide
reasonable relief use of the property.
G. Hardship defined. For purposes of this section, it shall not be deemed a
hardship if the applicant can develop the property for its allowed use
under the zone without the granting of a variance.
GH. Conditions of approval. The decision authority may attach reasonable
conditions, including reducing the scope or scale of any variance
granted, to ensure that the variance is no more than the minimum
necessary to provide reasonable use of the property and to safeguard
the public health, general welfare and safety.
HI. Lapse of approval.
1. An approved nonadministrative variance shall expire after one year
from the later date of the decision being issued or an appeal
122
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 2
Page 4
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
becoming final unless a complete building permit application is
submitted; and
2. Expiration of the nonadministrative variance is automatic and
notice is not required; and
3. The director may grant a single six-month extension if the applicant
makes such a request in writing prior to the expiration date and can
show good cause for granting the extension.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved
summary consisting of the title.
Section 4. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk,
and/or the code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to
this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener ’s/clerical errors,
references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference
thereto.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after
publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS XX DAY OF , 2024
BY A VOTE OF X FOR, X AGAINST, AND X ABSTAINING, AND IS SIGNED IN
AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE ON THE XX DAY OF ,
2024.
_________________________
Jessica Rossman, Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
________________________________ _____________________________
Jennifer S. Robertson, City Attorney Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.: / AB
123
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 3
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:20 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 1 of 2
16.72.030. Nonadministrative variance.
A. Purpose. The purpose for a nonadministrative variance is to provide property owners relief from certain
provisions of this title where conditions justify such relief on a case-by-case basis.
B. Applicant. Any owner may submit an application for a nonadministrative variance.
C. Procedures. Nonadministrative variances are processed as a Type 3 decision pursuant to the review
procedures set forth in Chapter 16.80 MMC.
D. Applicability. Circumstances where relief from a dimensional standard is sought subject to the limitation set
forth in subsection (E) of this section.
E. Limitations.
1. Nonadministrative variances may be granted where the application of a dimensional standard would
result in an unusual or unreasonable hardship due to physical characteristics of the site;
2. Evidence of other variances granted under similar circumstances shall not be considered in the granting
of a nonadministrative variance; and
3. No variance shall be granted for any of the following:
a. To alter any definition or interpretation of this title;
b. To alter any provision establishing a use within a zoning district; or
c. To alter any procedural provisions.
F. Criteria for approval. The decision authority may approve a nonadministrative variance only if the following
criteria are satisfied:
1. The variance does not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon
uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located; and
2. The variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted
to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located; and
3. The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship that cannot be relieved by any other means
such that the material hardship must relate to the land itself and not to problems personal to the
applicant; and
4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and
5. The variance is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable relief.
G. Conditions of approval. The decision authority may attach reasonable conditions to safeguard the public
health, general welfare and safety.
H. Lapse of approval.
1. An approved nonadministrative variance shall expire after one year from the later date of the decision
being issued or an appeal becoming final unless a complete building permit application is submitted;
and
2. Expiration of the nonadministrative variance is automatic and notice is not required; and
124
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 3
Created: 2024-01-05 08:51:20 [EST]
(Supp. No. 6)
Page 2 of 2
3. The director may grant a single six-month extension if the applicant makes such a request in writing
prior to the expiration date and can show good cause for granting the extension.
(Code 1988 § 20.72.030; Ord. No. 900 § 5 (Att. B), 2013)
125
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 4
Page 1
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON
Ordinance No. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MEDINA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 16.72.030
OF THE MEDINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE
PROCEDURES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
GRANTING NON-ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CORRECTIONS,
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Medina allows for variance under certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, variances should be exceptions to the zoning standards which are
only provided due to constraints to the property at issue that is outside of the control of
the property owner; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance was submitted to the Department of Commerce for 60-
day expedited review on , 2024; and
WHEREAS, on , 2024, the City’s SEPA official issued a
determination of nonsignificance for the proposed amendments, which was published and
provided to the public in accordance with WAC 197-11-510, and there have been no
appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed code
amendment at least 15 days prior to the public hearing before the City’s Planning
Commission which was published in the City’s official newspaper and provided to the
public in accordance with Title 16 MMC; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
recommend approval of this Ordinance to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this Ordinance along with the
recommendation from the Planning Commission during its regularly meeting on
, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that it is in the public interest, safety and
welfare to clarify when non-administrative variances are appropriate and the scope of
such approvals; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
126
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 4
Page 2
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
Section 1. Section 16.72.030 of the Medina Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
16.72.030. Nonadministrative variance.
A. Purpose. The purpose for a nonadministrative variance is to provide
property owners relief from certain provisions of this title where
conditions justify such relief on a case-by-case basis and where the
criteria set forth in this section are met.
B. Applicant. Any owner may submit an application for a
nonadministrative variance.
C. Procedures. Nonadministrative variances are processed as a Type 3
decision pursuant to the review procedures set forth in Chapter 16.80
MMC.
D. Applicability. Circumstances where relief from a dimensional standard
is sought subject to the limitation set forth in subsection (E) of this
section.
E. Limitations.
1. Nonadministrative variances may be granted where the
application of a dimensional standard would result in an unusual or
unreasonable hardship due to the physical characteristics of the
site, such as a substandard or irregularly shaped lot, topography
that significantly constrains development, or the presence of critical
areas and/or buffers on the property which significantly constrain
development;
2. Evidence of other variances granted under similar circumstances
shall not be considered precedent and shall not be considered in
the granting of a nonadministrative variance; and
3. No variance shall be granted for any of the following:
a. To alter any definition or interpretation of this title;
b. To alter any provision establishing a permitted or conditional
use within a zoning district; or
c. To alter any administrative provisions including proceduresal
provisions or fees.;
d. To make legal structures or improvements that were
installed in violation of MMC and which would not be permitted
without a variance;
e. To alter the maximum residential density allowed in any zoning
district; or
f. To alter the provisions of Chapter 14.04 MMC, SEPA.
127
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 4
Page 3
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
F. Criteria for approval. The decision authority may approve
nonadministrative variance only if the following criteria are satisfied
Unless another section of the MMC provides additional or separate
criteria, a variance shall not be granted unless all the following criteria are
met:
1. The variance does not constitute a granting of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the
vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located; and
2. The variance is necessary to make reasonable use of the
property and such necessity is because of special circumstances
relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings or
other factors on the lot such as the presence of critical areas or
buffers that substantially constrain development of the subject
property such that the property owner cannot develop the property
consistent with allowed uses to provide it with use rights and
privileges permitted other properties in the vicinity and in the zone
in which the subject property is located; and
3. The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship that
cannot be relieved by any other means such that the material
hardship must relate to the land itself and not to problems personal
to the applicant; and
4. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and
5. Alternative development concepts in compliance with the existing
code have been evaluated and undue hardship would result if such
adherence to code provision is required; and
6. The variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
relevant city ordinances and the comprehensive plan; and
7. The basis for the variance request is not the result of deliberate
actions of the applicant or property owner; and
58. The variance granted is the minimum necessary to provide
reasonable relief use of the property.
G. Hardship defined. For purposes of this section, it shall not be deemed a
hardship if the applicant can develop the property for its allowed use
under the zone without the granting of a variance.
GH. Conditions of approval. The decision authority may attach reasonable
conditions, including reducing the scope or scale of any variance
granted, to ensure that the variance is no more than the minimum
necessary to provide reasonable use of the property and to safeguard
the public health, general welfare and safety.
HI. Lapse of approval.
1. An approved nonadministrative variance shall expire after one year
from the later date of the decision being issued or an appeal
128
AGENDA ITEM 6.5
EXHIBIT 4
Page 4
10909577.2 - 371096 - 0012
becoming final unless a complete building permit application is
submitted; and
2. Expiration of the nonadministrative variance is automatic and
notice is not required; and
3. The director may grant a single six-month extension if the applicant
makes such a request in writing prior to the expiration date and can
show good cause for granting the extension.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved
summary consisting of the title.
Section 4. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk,
and/or the code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to
this ordinance, including but not limited to the correction of scrivener ’s/clerical errors,
references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference
thereto.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after
publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS XX DAY OF , 2024
BY A VOTE OF X FOR, X AGAINST, AND X ABSTAINING, AND IS SIGNED IN
AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE ON THE XX DAY OF ,
2024.
_________________________
Jessica Rossman, Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
________________________________ _____________________________
Jennifer S. Robertson, City Attorney Aimee Kellerman, City Clerk
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.: / AB
129
AGENDA ITEM 6.5