Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council leans toward higher tree-mitigation fee tied to planting costs; draft code streamlines credits
Summary
Staff presented an updated tree ordinance that replaces per-tree fee categories with a pooled "mitigation-inch" approach, increases credit opportunities for on-site preservation and planting, and offered two fee options; council favored the higher option that approximates planting plus irrigation costs.
Zane Brown, development support manager, presented a revised tree ordinance and a proposed change to how the city calculates tree-mitigation fees. The draft replaces multiple per-tree fee categories with a single mitigation-inch approach and expands credit opportunities for preserving and planting trees on private lots.
Why this matters: The draft aims to simplify fee calculations, incentivize preservation and on-site planting, and better align fee amounts with the real cost of replacing trees. Council input was requested on which mitigation-inch fee to bring forward.
Brown explained the mechanics: after measuring removed trees, staff would convert inches removed to mitigation inches using a ratio (heritage trees 3:1, very large protected trees 2:1, other protected 1:1), aggregate mitigation inches across the site, then subtract credits for preserved or newly planted trees to produce remaining mitigation inches that could be satisfied by on-site planting or a fee-in-lieu. The draft also widens the list of activities that can earn credit (residential plantings, credits for south/west planting locations for energy benefits, floodplain and common-area plantings, infrastructure expenditures to support trees).
Staff provided two fee options based on an analysis of recent planting projects. Option 1A: $450 per mitigation inch (installation cost only). Option 1B: $550 per mitigation inch (installation plus a rough allowance for irrigation equipment and maintenance). Brown said planting cost data varied widely across projects and that irrigation infrastructure added materially to replacement costs.
Several councilmembers and steering-committee participants said they favored the higher fee that better reflected the total cost to establish trees and would make fee-in-lieu less attractive compared with on-site preservation and planting. Councilmember Jake explicitly recommended option 1B; multiple councilmembers endorsed bringing option 1B as the staff-recommended figure for a resolution.
The draft also removes “order of last resort” language that previously allowed the urban forester to rank mitigation options; the steering committee and staff said removing that provision increases predictability by letting applicants choose from the menu of mitigation options and credits so long as requirements and species lists are met.
Public-comment speaker Brian Birdwell, a local developer and steering-committee member, urged council to reduce subjectivity in the ordinance so developers and residents could plan with certainty. Brown said staff will bring a resolution to adopt a fee schedule amount for council consideration.
Ending: Council directed staff to return with a resolution reflecting the preferred fee option (option 1B, $550 per mitigation inch), to include clarified credit provisions and to continue refining the preferred-plant list and administrative procedures for inspections and enforcement.
