Council members' opinions of the city's stance on tree removals differed, however—one council member wanted the ordinance to be less restrictive, while another preferred no changes, and some brainstormed about increased city involvement in the process. As a result, the ordinance stayed the same, with direction to city staff to compile the different ideas.

The current ordinance states that it is unlawful to remove trees that are deemed significant. Oaks or redwoods with a 20-inch circumference and 4-foot height; any tree with a 25-inch circumference and 4-foot height; and any three trees removed from a property within 12 months are all considered significant.

A significant tree can be removed, however, if the city has found that it is hazardous, or it interferes with a public service or operation, or if it is "deemed no longer viable by the city manager."

Mayor David Baxter said at the Jan. 21 city council meeting that one common complaint is that the ordinance does not differentiate between species of trees. The public said fast-growing trees, such as acacias and eucalyptus trees, should be given special consideration by city staff, Baxter said.

According to Councilman Curtis Wright, the ordinance needed to be modified but the key deficiency was in education for residents.

"Some of the people that have had problems with the tree ordinance were people who were scared to talk to the city about it," Wright said. The city should better communicate with and explain the ordinance to the community, he said.

In looking at the ordinance, Councilman Mark Brodsky said, "I have a problem with all of these."

"I recognize that we are a tree city and it is terrible for someone to come in and wipe out some trees," Brodsky said, but "if a resident planted a tree, they should have a right to say, 'This tree no longer pleases me' and take it out."

Brodsky suggested that the ordinance be amended to include, "Any resident may remove any tree that they themselves planted on their property"—or allow residents to remove one tree every five years without needing to justify the removal.

Brodsky said he wanted to recognize the "intelligence and goodwill of this community" and give residents some leeway to make their own decisions in regard to tree removal.

"Isn't there some way to give our citizens that sense of empowerment?" Brodsky asked.

Councilwoman Barbara Nesbet disagreed with Brodsky and said she wanted to leave the ordinance the way it was.

"This really protects trees that are worth protecting," Nesbet said. She added, "If people come to us and ask" to remove a tree, the request will "generally be granted."

The council mulled over Baxter's suggestion to have homeowners register the planting of a tree as a "credit" for future removals. In this way the city could require fewer replacement trees from the resident if they could demonstrate having planted trees.

"There's no obligation to register but there's benefits if you do," Baxter said.

"When they apply for a tree removal, we give them some sort of philosophical consideration," City Manager Brian Loventhal added.

Nesbet objected to such a process, saying it means more bureaucracy and additional government regulations and intervention.

Brodsky suggested the city "codify it"; residents can show records of recent planting when requesting a tree removal permit, instead of having to register with the city.

While it is common for the city to require replacing trees on a 2-to-1 scale, each incident is determined on a case-by-case basis; tree removal violators face penalties ranging from replacement requirements to fines, along with misdemeanor charges.

Although individual council members' comments were vastly different, Loventhal agreed to take all the ideas and form one document, which will be discussed again at a future meeting.