Staff proposes rewrite of South Pasadena tree ordinance to streamline permits, focus on a 'protected' species list

Danielle Garcia, South Pasadena’s water conservation management analyst, presented a multi‑city review of tree ordinances and a set of staff recommendations to the Natural Resources and Environmental Commission on May 27 aimed at clarifying permitting rules, reducing subjective criteria, and prioritizing a long‑term urban forest management plan.

“Currently, our code serves as a guidance rather than a requirement, which can leave residents quite confused in in how to properly maintain trees,” Garcia told the commission, and staff recommended several changes intended to improve clarity, streamline review and better protect native species.

Key recommendations presented by staff include: establishing a short list of “protected” tree species that would require permits; separating trimming/pruning permit criteria from removal criteria so routine maintenance is easier to authorize; removing the 15‑day public comment and routine NREC review for certain approved trimming and removal permits so the director can administratively approve applications; requiring a 100‑foot notification when a development‑related removal application is denied and the applicant appeals; extending the allowed time to complete replacement plantings from 90 days to one year; and lowering or otherwise adjusting replacement obligations (staff noted other cities use scaled replacement matrices tied to diameter or require native replacements).

Staff described fees and deposits that currently fund replacement work: inspection fees of $141, a tree removal permit fee (cited in the presentation), and a replacement deposit that staff said equals $424 per tree as the city’s contracted planting cost through West Coast Arborist. Garcia explained those fees pay for staff review, inspections and planting work for city‑funded replacements when applicants forfeit deposits.

Staff also proposed clearer, objective criteria for enforcement and for assessing when a tree is dead, diseased or an imminent hazard, and recommended developing a formal urban forest management plan with measurable benchmarks and species guidance for planting and resilience (including fire‑resistant species in high‑severity zones). The presentation compared South Pasadena’s current rules with neighboring cities (Alhambra, Arcadia, Sierra Madre, Claremont, Glendale and San Marino) and noted varying approaches to mitigation, arborist reporting and replacement requirements.

Commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about maintaining notification to neighbors and avoiding irreversible ministerial removals without public notice. Angelo Gladding, an in‑person commenter, said a healthy oak near his home was removed without sufficient notification and appealed council action after the fact, adding that ministerial removal had left neighbors unable to contest the decision. Another commenter, David Butler, urged retaining notification rules to prevent arbitrary removals and stressed the need for objective standards for defining imminent public‑safety threats.

Garcia said staff will continue stakeholder outreach, present the recommendations to the Public Safety and Public Works commissions, and bring the item to city council in July for direction. Staff aims to produce first and second readings of a draft ordinance in August–September and to implement a revised code in October.