Council committee approves substitute tree protection ordinance, raises recompense and funds senior assistance program

The Community Development and Human Services Committee approved a substituted tree protection ordinance during its June meeting after extensive public comment from developers, tree advocates and neighborhood groups.

The substitute ordinance updates multiple enforcement and funding provisions in Atlanta's tree code and was adopted by committee vote (4 ayes, 1 nay, 1 abstention). The committee substituted and advanced the ordinance for further processing while staff test its interaction with the forthcoming zoning code.

Why it matters: Atlanta's tree canopy and the rules that govern tree removal have been the subject of years-long debate. The substitute touches on fees, enforcement and programs intended to reduce the cost burden on some homeowners while expanding enforcement and staffing; opponents argue it does not yet deliver the stronger preservation standards they seek.

The committee vote advanced a modified version of the measure described in the May draft. Key, enacted changes in the substitute include raising the recompense (the city fee levied when trees cannot be preserved) to $140 per inch; expanding a senior assistance program for hazardous tree removal and pruning to $400,000; and authorizing new arborist positions (three senior arborists and six field arborists) with a funding split described as 50% from the Tree Trust Fund and 50% from the general fund. The substitute also authorizes a tree‑company registry and funds for a secretary and project manager for the Tree Conservation Commission. City staff said positions would be authorized but not filled until needed.

Committee members and many public speakers made three recurring points: (1) tree advocates pressed for a stronger "tree preservation standard" and restoration of elements from earlier drafts they say would curb clear‑cutting; (2) developers and builders asked for predictable recompense caps and affordable‑housing waivers to prevent the fee structure from impairing projects; and (3) several speakers urged careful testing to ensure the new tree ordinance does not conflict with the forthcoming zoning code.

Among public comments, groups and individuals urged different remedies. West Atlanta Watershed Alliance and House Atlanta asked the committee to preserve trees while protecting affordable housing goals and to restore affordability waivers. Trees Atlanta and other advocates pressed for higher protections and the return of a preservation standard from an earlier May draft; several developers and trade groups argued the ordinance as drafted added cost and uncertainty and requested a cap on recompense and optional, not mandatory, early arborist meetings.

City planning and the bill sponsor said the substitute is intended as a workable set of immediate changes that can be implemented now and tested alongside the new zoning ordinance. Staff told the committee they will run applications through both the current rules and the proposed zoning provisions to find misalignments before bringing further amendments. Staff also noted weekend code‑enforcement patrols and provided a tip line for suspected illegal cutting: (404) 330‑6178.

Action and next steps: The committee approved the substitute (recorded tally: 4 ayes, 1 nay, 1 abstention) and advanced it for further city processes. Staff will test the ordinance’s interaction with the new zoning code and return with additional amendments as needed. Several council members signaled they will seek oversight reports and continued negotiations with stakeholders.

Public response and outstanding issues: Speakers for both preservation and development interests described the substitute as incomplete. Advocates said the draft lacks the stronger preservation standard from the May 1 draft; industry representatives said predictable recompense caps and waivers for affordable projects remain necessary. Committee members asked staff to continue stakeholder engagement, and one member said he would pursue follow‑up legislation to monitor implementation.

The committee action does not immediately change all permitting practice; staff said some provisions will require implementation steps and further rule testing before full effect. The committee advanced the ordinance consistent with the motion and substitute recorded in the meeting.