Olivette staff outlines draft tree protection and replacement rules; commissioners urge clarity and simpler worksheet

Planning staff presented a draft tree inventory, protection and replacement text amendment May 15 that would move tree plan requirements into code, define "significant tree" (8 inches DBH or greater), and set minimum replacement standards tied to lot size and removed tree caliper.

Carlos Trejo, director of Planning and Community Development, described proposed zones (building zone, yard area, utility zone), a required tree protection plan, a landscape plan on the proposed site plan, and arborist‑report requirements. Staff said replacement standards would use a formula that converts removed DBH inches into a number of replacement trees and then subtracts the minimum trees already required by lot size.

Why it matters: The draft creates a formal, numeric method for calculating tree replacement rather than the city’s current ad hoc review. Staff said the approach aims to remove species‑by‑species judgments from staff review and to make decisions reproducible, while still allowing commission review where site constraints make full compliance difficult.

Commissioners and members of the public raised concerns that the draft is overly complicated for applicants and for staff to explain to homeowners. Several commissioners asked staff to provide a clear worksheet or calculator to be included in the application packet so applicants can determine replacement obligations before paying for design work.

Staff walked through three example lots. For 15 Bonaire Drive staff calculated required replacement as follows: combining DBH of trees within 15 feet of improvements yielded 168 inches removed, divided by 20 results in 8 replacement trees; additional removed trees outside that band brought the total to 12 replacement trees; subtracting the five trees that a lot that size must have produced a net obligation of seven replacement trees for that property. Carlos Trejo said, "This will be me" when asked who will perform the calculation for applications; staff will compute the replacement obligation from the arborist report and tell petitioners the number required.

Commissioners debated simplification options. One commissioner recommended starting with a simple 1‑for‑1 replacement rule (one new tree for every removed tree above a given DBH) for initial implementation and moving to a more complex metric later if needed; others warned a straight 1‑for‑1 approach could fail to account for older, larger trees lost during redevelopment.

The draft includes an administrative variation pathway: upon written request the commission may reduce the required replacement by up to 20 percent where topography, utilities or unique lot conditions make compliance infeasible. Staff told the commission they will test the standard on several parcels and expect to refine the text before forwarding a recommendation to City Council.

Other implementation points discussed: staff will seek pricing and reporting guidance from a contracted arborist (staff mentioned outreach to a firm identified in the packet); staff will prepare a worksheet or calculator for the application packet; and staff acknowledged the rule set may need future revision after real‑world application.

What’s next: staff will prepare a clearer applicant worksheet, refine wording and numeric thresholds, coordinate with an arborist about report standards and likely costs, and bring a revised draft back to the commission before transmitting a recommendation to City Council.