Euclid Shade Tree Commission members voiced concern on Dec. 19 after learning most trees near Lakeside Cove Apartments on Lakeshore Boulevard had been removed over several days, leaving local canopy noticeably reduced. Speaker 2, a commission member, said the complex had "taken down every silver maple that is at all close to" several buildings and warned that while replacement saplings are cheaper to buy, "the expense of losing a tree is the services that go along with it."

The discussion centered on two linked problems: acute canopy loss at the site and the commission's limited enforcement power over private-property removals. Speaker 5 (Linda) told the commission that under current city code private-property owners do not need permits to remove trees and Planning & Zoning reviews only significant new landscape plans tied to large development. "There's no permitting process," Speaker 5 said, and the commission noted that the absence of permitting means removals often are only noticed after they occur.

Commissioners and staff described a range of responses under consideration rather than a single, immediate remedy. Speaker 7 summarized recommendations from a recent Davey Resource Group review of Euclid's ordinances, including creating a priced inventory of street and park trees so the city has documented replacement costs and establishing a dedicated tree fund to hold penalties or contribution dollars for future replanting and planning. Speaker 6 suggested pooling or bulk-contracting for tree work so apartment managers could achieve lower unit costs for hazard mitigation or targeted pruning rather than wholesale removal.

Several commissioners discussed using i-Tree or parcel-level canopy data to apply a canopy threshold—Speaker 2 described a hypothetical approach that would allow removals down to a community goal (cited in discussion at roughly 30% canopy) but require charges or replacement when removals would push coverage below that threshold. Commissioners presented the idea as a policy option to explore during code revisions, not as an immediate regulation.

Not all removals were presented as avoidable: Speaker 4, who observed the work on-site, said many trees were damaged and splitting and described them as hazardous, noting crews appeared "strategic with what they were doing." Commissioners repeatedly framed the issue as both a short-term safety and insurance matter and a long-term canopy-management concern.

No formal policy or ordinance change was adopted at the Dec. 19 meeting. Commissioners instructed staff and working groups to include these findings in upcoming code-review conversations and to weigh options such as a tree valuation guide, targeted outreach to multiunit-property managers, possible pooled-contract pilots, and a reserve fund for replacements. The commission also flagged the urban-forest comprehensive plan public outreach (January–March) as an opportunity to gather input and refine any proposed code changes.