During a recent government meeting, local resident Robert Suffy raised concerns regarding a new requirement imposed by city staff for the replacement of street trees, which he argues is a matter of policy rather than a tree ordinance issue. Suffy explained that he had previously obtained a permit to remove two street trees planted voluntarily 25 years ago, but was surprised to find that the permit approval process included a new stipulation requiring him to replace the trees, despite no such requirement existing before.

Suffy emphasized that his appeal is not just about his personal situation but about establishing a clear policy for all residents regarding tree replacement. He urged the council to inform the city manager that the replacement of street trees should not be mandated if it was not previously required.

Council members acknowledged Suffy's points, noting that the municipal code allows staff to recommend tree replacement but does not obligate them to do so. They also clarified that there is no right of appeal or civil penalty associated with the tree replacement requirement, indicating that the city cannot compel compliance.

The discussion highlighted broader concerns about the city's tree code, with council members noting an increase in public inquiries regarding the regulations. They referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling that could impact the legal validity of such permits, suggesting that the council may need to reevaluate existing policies to ensure clarity and fairness for all residents.