The Encinitas Environmental Commission voted at its October meeting to delay any formal recommendation to the City Council on a proposed mature tree ordinance and requested a special joint meeting with the Urban Forest Advisory Committee to resolve substantive differences between the staff draft and UFAC revisions.

The ordinance defines which trees would be regulated, when preservation is required, and what mitigation — replacement trees or fees — would be required if a mature tree is removed. Senior Planner Evan Jednak presented the staff draft and said it would apply to public property and to private sites subject to new development and redevelopment while exempting single-family lots and properties in high or very high fire-hazard severity zones. "The primary intent of the ordinance is to preserve mature trees," Jednak said, and described replacement ratios and an in-lieu fee based on an appraisal guide approved by the International Society of Arboriculture.

Commissioners and volunteers raised multiple concerns about key points where the staff draft (Attachment 1) differs from UFAC's subcommittee draft (Attachment 2). UFAC Chair Brad Leftkowitz, who spoke in support of the committee's version, said UFAC tried to broaden protection while keeping the ordinance focused on development triggers. "The big idea here is it applies to all trees in the city, but is only triggered by permitted projects," Leftkowitz said, and urged clearer valuation guidance and stronger deterrents for pre-development clearing.

Major issues that drew sustained discussion included whether the ordinance should:
- Require a permit or other tracking when a mature tree is removed, or rely on a complaint-driven enforcement model using satellite imagery (the staff draft opts for complaint-driven enforcement and use of Nearmap imagery to verify removals);
- Include a two-year look-back that treats trees removed within two years prior to a development application as subject to replacement or penalty; UFAC recommended coupling that look-back with a prohibition on issuing building permits for two years after unauthorized clearing, while staff did not include a permit-denial provision;
- Apply to single-family lots and accessory dwelling units (the staff draft exempted single-family lots; UFAC’s version included single-family properties);
- Exempt properties within high fire-hazard severity zones (staff proposed that exemption; some commissioners and UFAC members opposed broad exemptions, noting fire-risk tradeoffs).

Commissioner discussion also covered the mechanics of mitigation: the staff draft proposes on-site replacement ratios of 3-to-1 (2-to-1 if native species are used), off-site replacement of 4-to-1 (3-to-1 if native), and an option to pay a fee based on ISA appraisal values if replacement is infeasible. Leftkowitz and other volunteers urged clearer examples or caps for valuation-based fees, saying some mature specimens (such as large native Torrey pines or coastal live oaks) could have much higher valuations than standard ornamental trees.

Staff told commissioners that adoption of the ordinance would likely require expanded duties or a contract change for the city arborist, and that enforcement would be limited to properties subject to the ordinance. Senior Planner Jednak said staff excluded the building-permit denial penalty partly because it could unduly constrain future owners who acquire property unexpectedly after a prior owner removed trees without a permit.

After more than an hour of questions and public comment from the UFAC chair and other volunteers, the commission voted to postpone a recommendation to council and asked staff to convene a special joint meeting with UFAC so commissioners could work through the substantive differences before the item proceeds to the Planning Commission and City Council. The motion to delay and schedule the special UFAC meeting passed with aye votes recorded and no opposing votes noted in the meeting record.

Next steps described by staff include scheduling the special joint meeting with UFAC, then bringing the ordinance to the Planning Commission and City Council for further consideration. The commission asked staff to circulate comparison language between Attachment 1 (staff draft) and Attachment 2 (UFAC suggested revisions) ahead of the joint meeting to help focus the discussion.