Encinitas planning commission denies Heritage Grove nomination for seven ficus at 670 Union Street

The Encinitas Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny a homeowner’s request to designate seven ficus trees at 670 Union Street as a Heritage Grove, saying questions about the trees’ long-term impacts and the city’s responsibilities remained unanswered.

City planner Charlotte Brenner told commissioners the nomination covered seven ficus trees on private property near the southern property line of 670 Union Street and that the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee had recommended approval because the group found the trees to be “a defining or significant outstanding feature of the neighborhood.” Brenner also noted staff had determined the nomination was exempt from CEQA under Guideline 15061(b)(3).

The nomination was submitted by the private property owner and was accompanied by the owner’s written approval, Brenner said, and the city arborist inspected the trees. Brenner described the trees as standing between 40 and 47 feet tall and said public works staff measured trunk locations to confirm the trunks are entirely on private property.

Commissioners focused their deliberations on several practical and legal concerns. Several commissioners noted that ficus species are on Encinitas’ “do not plant” or invasive species list, even though that designation does not itself prohibit designating an existing tree as heritage. Commissioners repeatedly raised uncertainty about the extent of ficus root systems, whether roots or canopy could encroach on the public right-of-way, who would be responsible for public infrastructure repairs if roots damaged pavement or utilities, and how responsibilities would transfer if the property was sold.

Brenner told commissioners that maintenance and removal of designated heritage trees would follow the city’s administrative manual and that any maintenance requiring excavation or pruning would be reviewed by the city arborist. She also read from Encinitas Municipal Code, chapter 15, explaining the city manager may authorize emergency removal of a heritage tree in urgent circumstances.

The property owner, who addressed the commission in support of the nomination, said the ficus grove was a defining visual landmark for people turning onto Union Street and that earlier removals on the property had been distressing to neighbors. The owner said the trunks are roughly 10 to 15 feet from the street and that the homeowner maintains the canopy.

Commissioners were split. Commissioner Susan said mature trees “enhance our canopy” but acknowledged ficus are invasive and called them “a plumber’s friend” — language other commissioners used to describe well‑documented root issues for large ficus. Commissioner Brent said he saw merit in preserving mature canopy but questioned whether the nomination met the heritage criteria strongly enough. Commissioner Bob and another commissioner expressed stronger opposition, saying the trees are non‑native and that designating an invasive species as a heritage grove could be inconsistent with city planting guidance.

A motion to deny the Heritage Grove nomination was made and seconded. The commission voted 3-2 to direct staff to return at a subsequent meeting with a resolution denying the application; the public hearing was closed and staff indicated it will prepare the resolution reflecting the denial for a future agenda.

What this means: the trees remain on private property and the owner retains existing rights to maintain or remove them subject to city and state law; a Heritage Grove designation will not be in place unless a future hearing reverses the denial. Staff said the administrative process allows rescission of a heritage designation in the future and that emergency removal authority rests with the city manager where public safety requires it.

The record: Commissioners asked for clarifying information — including measured trunk and root distances, any public‑works records of conflicts, and the city arborist’s field notes — which staff said were not fully in the packet but may be reflected in UFAC minutes. The commission’s denial will be memorialized in a resolution brought back to a future meeting.