Shoreline Planning Commission Regular Meeting – July 16, 2026

The Shoreline Planning Commission met on Thursday, July 16, 2026, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:13 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Shoreline City Hall. The meeting included a public hearing on the 2026 Development Code Amendments, a study session on the Tree Code Update (Discussion #1), and extensive public comment. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Development Code Amendments and discussed key policy questions for the tree code, but took no votes on the tree code update.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda was accepted as presented.
• The draft minutes of July 2, 2026, were approved as presented.

Public Comments & Testimony

General Public Comment (Tree Code Update): Seventeen people spoke in person; 40 written comments were submitted. Key speakers and positions:

• Gary Halpern (Shoreline resident): Expressed concern about the high cost of permits to remove a tree damaging his property and the requirement to plant three replacement trees when his property already has many trees.
• Jack Malek (Shoreline resident, realtor, former Planning Commissioner): Encouraged a balanced, scientifically supported tree-canopy policy that recognizes differences in neighborhood geography and land use. He asked the City to independently verify Innis Arden’s 45% canopy and 50+ acres of forest reserves, establish canopy objectives by neighborhood, and develop a view-sensitive vegetation management system.
• Gerry Millar (Innis Arden resident): Concerned that tree-planting requirements could harm established neighborhood views.
• Cynthia Esselman (Innis Arden resident, former Planning Commissioner): Stated that single-family homeowners should not be required to offset canopy loss from higher-density development. She noted that Innis Arden already exceeds the City’s 40% canopy goal with a 45% canopy and over 50 acres of collectively owned forest reserves.
• Peter Esselman (Innis Arden resident): Supported a healthy tree canopy but questioned placing the burden of compensating for light-rail and high-density development tree loss on residential homeowners. He noted that despite the removal of approximately 1,400 trees for light-rail construction, the City reported an overall increase in canopy elsewhere.
• Claire Turner (Richmond Highlands resident): Requested additional protection for exceptionally large trees (60 inches DBH or more) in all zones, not just temporary protection in town centers.
• Brian Branagan (Innis Arden resident): Supported tree canopy goals and suggested allowing tree credits to be transferred or shared within a neighborhood or community.
• Curtis Schmautz (Shoreline/Innis Arden resident): Asked the City to develop a comprehensive plan to reach the 40% canopy goal rather than placing primary responsibility on residential neighborhoods.
• Sarah Kennedy (speaking for Innis Arden Club HOA): Supported the City’s canopy goal but asked for recognition of Innis Arden’s 45% canopy and 50+ acres of forest reserves, greater flexibility for communities with established vegetation management, and clarification on credits for properties with critical areas.
• Suzanne Tsoming (Save Shoreline Trees co-chair): Expressed concern that the proposed tree-density credit method could allow property owners to retain fewer trees once minimum credits are met.
• Boni Bieri (Shoreline resident): Presented a chart comparing tree retention under current and proposed codes for six completed projects, arguing that the proposed formula allows too many trees to be removed.
• Lance Young (Westminster neighborhood resident): Expressed concern that the proposed tree code is too lenient on developers, especially in higher-density zones where tree retention may not be required.
• Jonelle Kemmerling (Shoreline resident): Urged balancing housing goals with tree canopy goals, noting that exempting higher-density zones from retention would increase inequity and shift burden to homeowners. She cited the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment showing over $3 million in annual infrastructure savings from the urban forest.
• Carla Carroll (Shoreline resident, member of tree-code Citizen Advisory Group): Expressed doubt that the proposed code would balance housing and canopy goals. She opposed exceptions to the tree-credit system for higher-density zones and additional flexibility.
• Kathleen Russell (Save Shoreline Trees): Stated that Shoreline is on track for housing production under the Growth Management Act and that financing, not tree regulations, is the primary cause of any slowdown. She opposed zone multipliers that would retain too few trees.
• Larry Moore (Richmond Beach resident): Expressed concern about fairness and cost of tree-removal permits, describing a $5,000 cost to remove a tree 3 feet from a foundation as unreasonable.
• Richard Gould (Innis Arden resident): Supported tree preservation goals but asked for clarification on how critical areas interact with tree credits. He requested that trees in critical areas count toward credits, and that the City recognize Innis Arden’s existing canopy and cooperative management.

Public Hearing – Development Code Amendments: Two oral testimonies were given:

• Jack Malek (Shoreline resident, former Planning Commissioner): Supported reducing the street-facing wall requirement from 40% to 20% in SMC 20.50.160.C, arguing the 40% threshold makes smaller middle-housing projects difficult to design without sacrificing parking and open space.
• Jerry Millar (Innis Arden resident): Emphasized that neighborhoods like Innis Arden already have high canopy and that the City should not penalize lots with fewer trees if the overall neighborhood canopy is sufficient.

Written testimony was received from MBAKS and several individuals.

Public Hearing: 2026 Development Code Amendments

Senior Planner Steve Szafran presented the amendments, which fell into five categories: Daycares, Uses and Use Tables, Subdivisions, Traffic Impacts, and Building Design. The amendments were largely as discussed on June 6, 2026. Commissioners asked clarifying questions, and a discussion about the 40% vs. 20% street-facing wall requirement arose. Chair Brinson and Commissioners Lorah and Hadley expressed interest in revisiting that topic for the next round of amendments.

Motion: Commissioner Lorah moved, seconded by Vice Chair Mosier, to recommend approval of the 2026 Development Code Updates as shown in Attachment A of the staff report. Vote: Unanimously passed (7-0). The public hearing was closed.

Discussion Items: Tree Code Update Discussion #1

Senior Planner Sierra Carson and consultant Kim Frappier (Facet NW) presented the draft tree code update. Key elements:

• The draft code emphasizes retaining mature, exceptional trees (≥24 inches DBH or qualifying groves of three or more trees with combined diameter ≥12 inches). Certain species (alder, cottonwood) and damaged/topped trees are not considered exceptional.
• Exceptional trees would generally be required to remain in all zones, with removal allowed only for hazard/nuisance, non-viability, or to allow a minimum buildable area based on hardscape allowances per zone.
• Minimum tree credits would be required on all lots based on lot size and a zoning multiplier. Credits can be met through retained or planted trees, with larger existing trees earning more credit.
• The draft code applies tree regulations citywide, including zones currently exempt.
• Staff is not recommending continuing the current permit fee for large tree removal.

Commissioner discussion focused on:

• The need for concrete examples, side-by-side comparisons, and cost implications for housing feasibility (especially middle housing).
• Whether exceptional tree requirements should apply citywide or have exemptions for certain project types or zones.
• The trade-off between retention-first vs. flexible approach for minimum tree credits. Commissioners appeared to favor flexibility, given that exceptional trees are already protected.
• Concerns about intentional damage to trees to avoid protections, and about interactions with critical areas and view covenants.
• The relationship between the tree code and the City’s 40% canopy goal and housing targets.

Commissioners requested additional data, visual examples, analysis of the code’s impact on housing production and canopy goals, and discussion on mitigation options for trees removed beyond minimum credits. They also asked for clarification on when tree code requirements are triggered (e.g., for sheds, ADUs). Staff will return with more information at upcoming meetings.

Key Outcomes

• Development Code Amendments: Unanimously recommended for approval to City Council (7-0). The Commission expressed interest in revisiting the 40% vs. 20% street-facing wall requirement for a future amendment cycle.
• Tree Code Update: No votes were taken. The Commission provided guidance to staff on several points:
  1. Support for a flexible approach to meeting minimum tree credits (rather than retention-first), subject to further analysis.
  2. Request for side-by-side comparisons of current vs. proposed code on completed development projects, including impacts on design, cost, and housing production.
  3. Request for analysis of how the draft code contributes to the 40% canopy goal and housing targets.
  4. Interest in possible mitigation options for tree removal beyond minimum credits in higher-density zones.
  5. Clarify interaction between tree code and critical areas, view covenants, and topped trees.
  6. Staff to continue public and developer engagement and return in September for further discussion.
• Next Meeting: August 6, 2026, will cover 2026 Comprehensive Plan amendments and follow-up on two light rail subarea plan updates.