Meeting #1 Community Advisory Group Recap

The Tree Code Update Community Advisory Group (CAG) convened for their first meeting on October 21st, 2025. The purpose of this first meeting was for the CAG Members to meet the project team and learn about the tree code project and goals.

During the first half of the meeting, staff and consultants presented the Meeting #1 Advisory Group Presentation, which went over the groups role and responsibilities, the project timeline, provided background information about urban forestry considerations, and a high-level summary City-wide priorities for growth, housing and climate change.

For the second half of the meeting, CAG Members were split into small groups to discuss three case studies highlighting issues with the existing tree code. Members were prompted with questions as they discussed the challenges highlighted. An Advisory Group Meeting 1 Summary has been prepared to synthesize what was discussed.

After the small group discussions, the members regrouped to report back on what they had discussed in the breakout groups. These ideas are included below and will be reviewed and incorporated into the code development process.

General Feedback

• Tree preservation or replacement requirements are costly or inflexible and are cumbersome to many property owners. It may unintentionally disincentivize development.
• Current fee structure is too high; consider reducing fees or scaling them based on a different levels/categories (e.g., lot size).
• High fees can also limit tree planting – homeowners may not want to plant trees if they know future removals may be very costly or complex.
• Lower tree replacement ratios to make compliance more achievable.
• Make trees more valued in the development/design process to support citywide canopy goals.
• Address historic inequities in tree canopy coverage, especially in growing neighborhoods.

Exemptions:

• Partial exemptions on large development could be taken advantage to minimize significant tree retention.
• Potential misuse of exemptions before development is proposed.
• More nuanced determination of tree viability to prevent large tree removal.
• Consider nuisance/hazard tree exemption for removal fees.

Design and tree standards

• Require stronger open space and “mini park” requirements for tree grove retention within large development.
• Adjust landmark tree thresholds by species (i.e., 12” DBH landmark for slow-growing trees like madrone).
• Establish clearer guidance for replacement trees and invasive tree removal.
• Explore native planting requirements and other replacement tree options for climate resilience.

The Advisory Group will next convene on December 9th, 2025, where they will discuss the best practices findings prepared by the consultant team.