Encinitas UFAC advances revised mature-tree ordinance, flags off-site replacement and enforcement questions

The Encinitas Urban Forestry Advisory Committee on Sept. 11 approved a package of edits to a third-draft mature-tree ordinance and asked staff to forward the draft, plus an alternate replacement approach, to subsequent commissions and to city staff for further review.

Committee members voted to add several native species to regulated lists, to align the ordinance's invasive-species definition with a related native-plant ordinance, and to restore replacement mitigation language as an alternate approach while keeping a streamlined fee-only route in the primary draft. The committee also approved enforcement language that ties penalties for unauthorized tree removal to appraisal-based fees and allows denial of development permits for up to two years in certain violations.

Why it matters: The changes set what will be the UFAC's formal recommendation to planning and environmental commissions and, ultimately, to City Council. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that municipal practice, staff capacity and real-world planting constraints need to be examined by later reviewers before a final ordinance is adopted.

Most important decisions and context

The committee approved adding Mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor) to the ordinance's 4-inch trunk-diameter list and confirmed earlier additions (toyon, lemonade berry, laurel sumac/summer holly) that the subcommittee had recommended. It also approved language giving the city arborist authority to augment the native-species list in the city's Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) manual and to make that list publicly available.

Members voted to adopt the invasive-species definition used in the draft native-plant ordinance so the city would use consistent terminology across drafts. They also approved removing utilities from the ordinance's penalties for pre-application tree removal; the revised language leaves utilities outside the ordinance's permitting penalties.

Replacement, fees and funds

The committee debated whether to require replacement plantings (with several on-site and off-site replacement ratios spelled out in the original draft) or to keep a simpler in-lieu-fee approach. The draft includes a detailed replacement schedule (for example, a 3:1 replacement ratio on-site, 2:1 if native; higher ratios for off-site replacements) and allows fee-in-lieu as a fallback. The UFAC voted to include the replacement provisions as an alternate (redlined) version to be carried forward alongside the streamlined fee-only approach so that later reviewers can evaluate both options.

The committee also voted to include appraisal and replacement costs in the fee calculation (city and applicant appraisal costs plus replacement-tree costs) and to leave the destination of collected fees broad: “the fee shall be paid into a city account for preservation and planting of new trees.” One committee member recorded a “no” vote on that destination language; the committee otherwise approved the wording to preserve staff discretion about fund use.

Decision authority, bonds and enforcement

The UFAC changed decision language so the city arborist would make recommendations and the director of Development Services would make final determinations on disputes about retention, replacement and fees. The committee discussed bond or security-deposit requirements to protect trees during construction and to guarantee survival of replacement plantings; proposed bond language (3-year retention) was considered but related bond sections were later struck after committee debate about staff workload and the practical ability to monitor survival. The committee approved enforcement language that ties penalties for removing a regulated tree within two years before filing for development to treble appraisal-based fees and allows denial of permits for up to two years for specified violations.

Dissent and outstanding issues

Members repeatedly flagged two problems: (1) whether appraisal-based fees (even multiplied) are a meaningful disincentive for developers and (2) the logistical difficulty of placing and monitoring off-site replacement trees. Several members said off-site replacement is administratively cumbersome and may produce few net new trees in the community; others said keeping the alternate replacement text preserves city council's intent if council prefers that option. The committee voted to carry an “asterisk” and written comments forward calling out those concerns so that planning, environmental commissions and Council see the debate.

Next steps

The UFAC directed staff to accept the committee's recorded votes and edits and to circulate an updated final draft to Planning/Environmental staff for routing. Committee members said they will attend subsequent commission hearings; the environmental commission's earliest available meeting is Oct. 9, 2025, per staff remarks during the session. The ordinance will next be reviewed by planning and environmental commissions and then City Council.

Quotes from the meeting

“I think it's more complicated than valuable,” Committee member Tony Gurnau said of the off-site replacement language, arguing for keeping an alternative rather than forcing off-site planting as the primary mitigation.

Neighboring process and staff notes

Staff and committee members repeatedly noted limitations on the city's ability to segregate and dedicate fees, the existing administrative manual sections on security deposits for tree preservation, and that the UFMP manual and habitat stewardship program may play different roles depending on whether replacement or fee-in-lieu is used.

Ending

The committee concluded its ordinance work item by asking the subcommittee chair to prepare a consolidated final revised draft for staff distribution. UFAC members asked that the next packet clearly highlight unresolved issues — chiefly off-site replacement feasibility and whether appraisal-based fees are a sufficient deterrent — so later reviewers and city council can act with full context.