Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and local realtor urge Shoreline to reconsider tree‑retention rule after project loses a unit
Summary
A developer and a local Realtor told the Shoreline City Council that the city's new 35% tree retention requirement is threatening a townhome project near light rail, removing one unit and reducing project value by an estimated $750,000–$800,000; they asked the council to revisit the project and process.
Two members of the public told the Shoreline City Council on Monday that a new tree retention requirement is jeopardizing a small townhome project near light rail and that city review has been opaque and inconsistent.
Jack Malik, a longtime Shoreline resident and a Realtor representing a client, said the proposal at 2145 North 140th (as described to council) met local townhome rules but now faces a demand under a January 2025 rule that 35% of trees be retained. Malik said the planning department is pushing to eliminate one proposed unit, which he estimated would reduce project value by $750,000 to $800,000.
“That one unit, just a single home, represents a loss of 750 to 800,000 in project value,” Malik said, adding that the loss is also “a missed chance to put another family in a thoughtfully planned, well located Shoreline home.” He connected reduced housing supply to upward pressure on property taxes and cited several bills under consideration at the state level (Senate Bill 5798, House Bill 2049 and House Bill 1334) as part of the broader context.
Sissy Mandava, an investor who said she has put “millions of dollars” into multiple Shoreline projects near the 140th and 190th transit centers, told council the review process has been “increasingly opaque and inconsistent.” She urged staff and council to collaborate with developers to find solutions that meet the city’s goals while recognizing current market realities.
Both speakers asked the council to provide special consideration for the projects affected by the tree retention change. Council did not take action during the meeting; the comments were heard during the public‑comment period and were not linked to a specific agenda vote.
The speakers identified the new 35% tree retention rule as the proximate policy causing review changes and asked staff to reconsider how the rule is applied to projects that predated the regulation. No staff response or formal direction to re‑open the project review was recorded in the transcript.
The council took no formal action on the speakers' requests at the meeting.
