Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Protection And ADU Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses tree‑protection plan standards and accessory‑structure rules; staff to draft minimum submission requirements
Summary
Commissioners and staff reviewed tree‑protection plan examples and discussed accessory‑structure regulation and ADU policy; staff said it is drafting minimum landscape/arborist submission requirements and signaled potential future code work on ADUs.
The Planning & Community Design Commission used its April 17 meeting to discuss two policy topics: improving the format and minimum contents for tree‑protection reports and whether accessory‑structure/ADU rules need clearer code language.
On tree protection, staff and commissioners praised a recent submission that included a canopy map, species common names, and a replacement plan; several commissioners asked that future submittals use a consistent, easily readable format that shows existing canopy, species (common and botanical names) and proposed replacement planting. “I like how it showed the canopy and included common names,” Commissioner Laura Ragsdale said. Carlos Treas said staff is drafting minimum submission requirements for landscape and arborist reports so applicants and consultants will know the expected format and data fields.
On accessory structures and ADUs, commissioners reiterated the tension seen earlier in the meeting: the comprehensive plan calls out ADUs as a tool for housing choice, but the zoning code and the city’s design guidelines do not set clear numeric or descriptive limits for detached two‑story accessory living units. Commissioners asked staff to consider drafting code clarifications that would define “subordinate” or set numeric thresholds so the commission and staff have clearer review standards. Treas noted the city currently allows accessory structures by right but that detached living units above garages that exceed staff approval thresholds require commission review and that the commission has discretion under the design guidelines.
No formal action was taken. Staff said it will return to the commission with proposed minimum submission checklists for tree/arborist reports and will present options for code language to clarify ADU/ accessory‑structure standards if requested.
