Commission approves supplemental tree-ordinance FAQ; commissioners press for clearer definitions and urban-forest plan

The Natural Resources and Environmental Commission voted unanimously on Sept. 23 to approve a supplemental FAQ intended to accompany an amended city tree ordinance; the commission also asked staff to add clarifying language and background details before the FAQ is posted.

Danielle (Public Works staff) and Michael Martinez presented the FAQ and reminded the commission that City Council had completed a first reading of the ordinance and scheduled a second reading for Oct. 1. Staff said that, if City Council approves the ordinance Oct. 1, the ordinance would go into effect Nov. 1.

The FAQ explains which trees require trimming or removal permits, distinguishes removal associated with development from removal not tied to development, and summarizes replacement requirements and emergency exemptions. Danielle said the list of species that qualify as “mature protected trees” was taken from the city’s prior resolution (the staff presentation referenced an earlier resolution used to define protected species) and that protected trees in the ordinance are presently defined by the city’s resolution as those species designated native by the council.

Commissioners pressed several issues they said should be added to the FAQ and to follow-up materials: a current inventory or species count for street and private trees (staff said street-tree inventories exist for the public right-of-way but private-tree inventories are not complete), explicit timelines for permit reviews (staff agreed to add target turnaround estimates), clearer cross-references and vocabulary (for example, the proposed ordinance’s definition of “tree” — “a woody perennial usually having one or several main stems and a mature height greater than 16 feet” — should be mirrored in the vegetation-management standards), and more clarity about how the protected-species list is updated.

On the protected-species list, staff and commissioners clarified that the city’s protected-tree list is driven by a council-adopted resolution that designates which species the city regards as native for the purposes of the ordinance. Staff said the resolution can be updated by council action if the city later wishes to add species to the protected list; the commission asked staff to confirm whether the resolution mechanism or an amendment to the ordinance is the correct path to protect non-native species in the future.

Public commenters raised related concerns. Angelo Gladding urged stronger protection for non-native trees, cited replacement ratios in neighboring cities and asked for clearer on-site replacement requirements. Wendy Ryan raised public-safety concerns tied to contractors’ root-cutting and urged ordinance language or standards to prohibit hazardous root cutting except where a tree is removed on the same day.

Action: the commission voted to approve the drafted tree-ordinance supplemental FAQ and recorded a unanimous vote. Commissioners also voted to approve the July 22 minutes with a requested amendment noting concerns about the process for an earlier special meeting and that some earlier commission feedback was not fully reflected; staff said it would update the minutes and refile them on the website.

Ending: Staff said it will incorporate the requested changes — species counts where available, a definition of “shrub” for administrative guidance, target review timelines for trimming and removal applications, and clearer explanation of how the protected-tree list may be updated — and carry the FAQ and the amendment to the ordinance forward to City Council at the Oct. 1 second reading.