Shoreline Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 15, 2026

The Shoreline Planning Commission met on Thursday, October 15, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall to discuss proposed updates to the city's tree code. The meeting focused on the second discussion of the tree code update, specifically addressing hazard, nuisance, and emergency tree removal, replanting requirements, and code exemptions. The meeting lasted approximately 2.5 hours and included a public comment period with 32 written comments and 14 in-person speakers.

Consent Calendar

• Roll call: Commissioners Povick, Cabe, Gedland, Susa, Laura, Vice Chair Mosier, and Chair Brinson were present.
• Approval of the agenda and the October 1, 2026 meeting minutes were approved unanimously by acclamation (thumbs up).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jack Malik (former planning commissioner) urged the commission to revise the tree code so that requirements are clear, proportionate, and grounded in both canopy data and housing feasibility. He noted a lawsuit where the city lost on counting trees in rights-of-way and argued that same reasoning applies to critical areas.
• Siegrid Strom (Shoreline resident) stated that the overwhelming majority of residents value trees and that trees are integral to addressing climate change. She emphasized that a 50-year-old tree takes 50 years to replace.
• Jean Link (Innis Arden) noted that many lots in Innis Arden have 80% critical area and asked for consideration of lots with extensive critical areas.
• France Giddings (Shoreline resident) described herself as a "tree hugger" and asked the commission to think long-term, citing examples of urban cooling from trees in Nanjing, China.
• Sarah Kennedy (Innis Arden Club board member) advocated for two changes: (1) trees in critical areas should count toward a property's minimum tree credits, and (2) an explicit exemption from replanting where recorded view covenants would conflict. She noted that Innis Arden has 84% of properties with mapped critical areas and 45% tree canopy coverage.
• Robert Allen (Innis Arden) said residents maintain trees because they enhance property enjoyment and asked for a responsible, affordable, and practical tree policy.
• John Husagan (retired tree care company owner, consulting arborist) urged that the term "hazard tree" be stricken in favor of "risk assessment," and supported counting trees in critical areas toward tree credits.
• Sarah Kennedy (personal capacity) expressed concern that the draft tree code appears disconnected from the city's 2023 Urban Forest Strategic Plan and asked for a formal alignment process to ensure equitable canopy distribution.
• Bonnie Beerie (Shoreline) noted the loss of trees from road expansions, light rail, and infill housing, and asked that every tree lost be replaced, suggesting rooftop plantings for multi-unit buildings.
• Soren Suver (Shoreline) questioned the commission's sincerity in taking comments and warned that not counting critical area trees could reduce property values in high-revenue areas like Innis Arden.
• Susan S (long-term Shoreline resident) asked that every tree lost be replaced to preserve the city's "Sylvan Beauty."
• Lance Young (Shoreline Preservation Society, Tree Pack) urged the commission to keep the city's responsibility to the planet in mind and requested that every significant tree removed be replaced.
• Kathleen Russell (Safe Shoreline Trees) requested that hazard and nuisance tree removals require replacement trees or fee-in-lieu, and that the city establish a program to sell replacement trees at wholesale cost to property owners.

Discussion Items

• Tree Code Update #2 – Hazard, Nuisance, and Emergency Trees: Senior Planner Sierra Carson and consultant Kim Frappier (Facet) presented the draft code's definitions and proposed regulations. Emergency trees (imminent danger) would remain exempt from permits and replacement. Hazard trees (high or extreme risk with defect and target) would require a TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualification) report from a certified arborist. Nuisance trees (causing physical damage to structures or hardscape) would require documentation—either clear photos or a professional report—but not necessarily from an arborist.
• Commissioner Feedback on Hazard/Nuisance Trees: Commissioners expressed confusion about the distinction between emergency and hazard trees, concern about the cost of TRAQ reports (estimated $500–$1,000), and worry that requiring professional assessments for every scary tree would burden low-income homeowners. They suggested allowing alternative professional opinions (e.g., from plumbers or engineers) for nuisance trees and exploring fee waivers or subsidized assessments. They also discussed the need for clear, plain-language guidance for residents.
• Replanting Requirements: Staff proposed that replacement trees be required only when the removed tree is the last tree on the property. Commissioners were divided, with some arguing that replacement should be required in all cases to preserve canopy, and others citing cost burdens and lack of space on small lots. They asked for a side-by-side cost comparison of all scenarios, including replacement tree costs.
• Code Exemptions: Staff introduced new exemptions for hedges (defined as maintained shrubs not allowed to arborize), city-owned parks and facilities (still subject to public tree code and critical areas regulations), master plan developments and vegetation management plans, and trees in critical areas (regulated solely under critical areas code). Commissioners requested more information on how hedges are defined (with photos), how the city's public tree code aligns with canopy goals, and how vegetation management plans work.
• Citywide Canopy Coordination: Several commissioners asked for a briefing from the city arborist and other departments (Parks, Public Works) on how all tree-related policies—private tree code, public tree code, urban forest strategic plan, PROSA plan—work together to achieve the city's 40% canopy goal. They noted that regulating private property owners without consistent city standards felt uneven.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken; the discussion was for direction to staff.
• Staff will bring back at the November meeting (or a later date) additional information on: elective tree removal pathways, a comprehensive cost matrix for all removal scenarios (including arborist reports and replacement trees), and clearer definitions (including photos) for hedges and hedgerows.
• Staff will coordinate a briefing from the city arborist and other departments on the citywide tree canopy strategy, to be scheduled on a non-discussion night.
• The November 5, 2026 regular meeting was considered canceled by consensus (no formal vote, but Chair Brinson stated the meeting would be canceled).