Shoreline council adopts amended tree-removal fee schedule, sets higher charges for large trees

The Shoreline City Council on March 3 voted to adopt Resolution No. 541, amending the 2025 planning and community development fee schedule to charge a base fee of $3,325 for permitted removal of trees 24 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and greater, with an additional $100 for each inch above 24 (Option 5). The final motion passed 6–1 after council members earlier approved an amendment to replace the staff recommendation with Option 5 by a 5–2 vote.

Council action matters because the change creates a uniform, citywide charge applied when a property owner seeks a permit to remove a large tree, and it ties into a broader rewrite of Shoreline’s tree code scheduled for later this year. Staff told the council the fee applies only to permitted removals of trees 24 inches DBH or greater; replacement and retention requirements remain in force in addition to the new fee.

City staff presented four options for calculating a fee in lieu for permitted removal of large trees. Staff’s original recommendation (Option 3) tied the fee to quantified ecological values estimated by a canopy benefits tool and started at $900, scaling with tree size. Other options included a flat fee of $3,325 based on the estimated three-year cost to purchase, plant and maintain a replacement tree (Option 4), a higher-size‑scaled proposal beginning at $2,500 plus $200 per inch (council proposal), and Option 5—put forward by the Tree Preservation Code Team—starting at $3,325 and rising $100 per additional inch. The council adopted Option 5.

During public comment, residents urged the council to prioritize large, long-lived trees and questioned whether fee calculations reflected the true value of older trees. Shoreline resident Kathleen Russell told the council, “Middle housing does not necessarily mean affordable housing,” and urged careful consideration of how tree fees interact with housing choices. Bonnie Berry, another Shoreline resident, criticized staff’s use of an ecological‑benefits tool to set monetary value and said, “I Tree does not provide the value of a tree.” David Gilland, speaking from the audience, emphasized the tension some residents feel between preserving trees and creating housing, and added, “I bike to Costco,” after recounting how tree-removal costs could affect homeowners’ decisions.

Staff and councilors clarified how the city’s existing exemptions and permitting rules interact with the new fee. Presenters said an existing exemption allows removal of up to three “significant” trees (trees over 6 inches DBH and up to 24 inches DBH) on a 7,200-square-foot example lot without a permit; removal beyond that or removal of trees 24 inches DBH or larger requires a permit and the fee. Staff confirmed the $3,325 figure has been in the fee schedule as the city’s fee‑in‑lieu for replacement trees (purchase, planting and three years of maintenance) and that some fees have been adjusted over time for inflation.

Council members were divided on the tradeoffs between tree preservation and affordability. Several members said they preferred Option 3 (staff recommendation tied to quantified ecological values) because it starts lower for smaller trees and homeowners with less means; other members supported Option 5 as better protection for large, legacy trees. One council member suggested targeted exemptions for low‑income seniors or homeowners with accessibility needs could be considered during the full tree‑code update.

The council also asked staff to revisit certain technical and exemption questions as part of the broader tree-code revision, including whether foundation damage or construction of accessibility ramps should be treated as an explicit exemption from the removal fee. Staff said those refinements are beyond the scope of the single‑fee action and are planned for the comprehensive tree-code update.

Votes at a glance: the council first approved an amendment to replace the staff recommendation with Option 5 (amendment vote 5–2); the final motion to adopt Resolution No. 541 as amended passed 6–1. The meeting adjourned after the vote; staff will implement the fee change and include tree-code refinements in a later update.

The council’s action changes the city’s near‑term financial penalties and fee structure for permitted removal of large trees while leaving replacement and retention rules intact; a more comprehensive review of Shoreline’s tree regulations is expected later this year.