Encinitas UFAC debates scope and mitigation in revised mature tree ordinance; sends several items for further review

The Urban Forest Advisory Committee spent the bulk of its meeting reviewing a subcommittee revision of a proposed mature tree ordinance intended to retain mature trees during private and public development, disincentivize pre-development clearing and increase the number and quality of replacement plantings when removal is unavoidable.

Subcommittee member Linda Schneider summarized the revision and its goals: retain mature trees during development; prevent developers from clearing trees in advance of permit filings; encourage planning around trees; and when removal is unavoidable require mitigation designed to increase future tree numbers and species quality. Schneider said the revision shortens the draft from 10 pages to 6, moves technical construction protections into an administrative urban forestry program manual, and narrows applicability to development situations (projects likely to allow the city to require protections only when a building permit or discretionary development application is filed).

She summarized key provisions the subcommittee changed from the original draft: consolidation of technical requirements into administrative procedures; making ordinance applicability linked to an application for development within two years rather than blanket coverage of all parcels; and removal of the original draft's hierarchy of relocation, replacement and fees-in-lieu in favor of fees-only mitigation (the committee planned to reconsider replacement rules later in the meeting). Schneider also explained the proposed enforcement penalties for unauthorized removals within two years of a development application: payment of three times the appraised value of the tree and denial of a building permit for up to two years.

The committee heard staff feedback. Megan Openshaw, assistant director of the Development Services Department, thanked the subcommittee for its work and explained staff's preference that UFAC provide specific recommendations to present to City Council (recommendations may be presented as suggested language changes and a bullet-list summary rather than asking UFAC to finalize every line of ordinance text).

The meeting included public comment. Katie Kramer, chair of the Environmental Commission, and other speakers urged adoption of strong protections, linking the ordinance to the Climate Action Plan and native-plant goals. Public commenters raised species-list questions (recommendations to add specific native shrubs and scrub oaks were made) and concerns about enforcement, the scope of protections, and how the ordinance would interact with projects such as the Quail Meadows development.

Key committee outcomes and votes recorded at the meeting included:

- Applicability/exemptions: The committee voted to recommend excluding only commercial professional growing operations (the "C3" exemption) from the ordinance, while leaving other exemption options on the record for later bodies to consider. The motion passed 6-1 (committee member Matt Palumbo cast the lone "no").

- Construction activity definition (LS2): The committee rejected a proposed narrowing of the definition that would have limited "construction activity" to building (striking references to grading, excavation and paving). Members said the broader listing covers activities that commonly lead to mature tree loss. The motion to keep the broader construction-activity language passed unanimously.

- Scope/species (LS3 and LS4): The committee voted against narrowing the ordinance to protect only a short list of species, opting instead to keep a broad species-based definition tied to trunk-diameter thresholds. The motion to retain broad coverage passed with one no and one abstention (Palumbo voted no; Altman abstained). The committee also approved several additions to the species/protected-list recommendations: adding Quercus tomentella and other native species, and creating a special treatment for Quercus dumosa (a scrub oak) that would treat three primary stems in aggregate to reach the diameter threshold for protection. The committee asked staff to recommend a process for periodic review of the species list and to reconcile the list with the city's pending native-plant ordinance.

- Replacement vs. fees (LS5, LS7, LS8): The subcommittee had removed a requirement that developers replace mature trees on-site, leaving mitigation via fees in lieu; the original draft had required replacement at 3:1 on-site or 4:1 off-site ratios with preferential ratios for native species. Committee members debated tradeoffs: some said required replacement on private development sites better preserves mature-tree canopy and encourages developers to retain trees; others said replacement takes decades to approximate the loss of mature trees and can be administratively complex. The committee did not finalize a single citywide replacement policy at this meeting. It did, however, approve striking language that would have required the city to pay in-lieu fees when city agencies removed mature trees on public projects. A proposal to add the cost of replacement and appraisal into fee calculations was discussed but deferred for further work by the subcommittee and staff.

- Enforcement and appraisal: Committee members reviewed appraisals for removed trees. Subcommittee outreach to arborists and the American Society of Consulting Arborists confirmed standard appraisal methods consider species, condition, and forensic evidence (aerial photos, stumps, neighbor photos) when a removed tree must be valued. The proposed enforcement penalty remains — three times the tree's appraised value and a potential two-year building-permit bar — intended to discourage pre-development clearing without permits.

- Process and next steps: Committee members agreed UFAC would finalize additional edits and return a recommendation package (redline changes plus a short bullet-list of recommended policy positions) for staff to present to Planning Commission, Environmental Commission and ultimately City Council. The committee also voted to defer several complex items (agenda items 5, 6 and 8) to the next meeting and to continue discussion of mitigation details in a subcommittee/staff working session.

Ending: The committee paused the mature tree ordinance discussion to allow the subcommittee and staff to refine remaining language and carry several items to the next UFAC meeting for another vote.