Planning commission recommends mature‑tree ordinance to city council with edits after extended debate

The Encinitas Planning Commission on Feb. 20 voted 5‑1 to recommend that the city council move forward with a proposed mature‑tree ordinance, but the commission attached a set of requested edits and clarifications before the ordinance is considered by council. The ordinance, which staff has developed following council direction in 2021 and outreach with the Urban Forest Advisory Committee (UFAC), defines "mature tree," sets preservation requirements for public and private development, and establishes a mitigation hierarchy: preserve, relocate, replace or pay an in‑lieu fee.

Why it matters: The ordinance is the city’s first comprehensive attempt to define and protect mature trees across municipal projects and private development subject to review. Commissioners and stakeholders debated who the ordinance should apply to, replacement ratios, exemptions for certain species and fire‑hazard exceptions.

Staff presentation and proposed rules Senior planner Evan Jedinak told commissioners the ordinance would define a mature tree as any tree with an 11‑inch or greater trunk diameter (diameter at standard height), with a lower 9‑inch threshold for identified native species and a 4‑inch threshold for native scrub oaks. The proposal exempts certain trees regardless of size, including city‑defined invasive trees, fruit trees and monocot species (palm trees). Heritage trees would remain subject to separate regulations.

Applicability and mitigation hierarchy Staff proposed to apply the ordinance to city rights‑of‑way and public property as well as private property subject to new development (subdivisions, multifamily, commercial/mixed‑use and redevelopment of landscaped/undisturbed areas). Single‑family lots and properties within high or very high fire hazard severity zones would be exempt. When removal is necessary, the ordinance establishes a mitigation cascade: preserve in place, relocate on‑site with a three‑year post‑relocation verification, replace (3:1 on‑site, 2:1 if replacement uses natives; 4:1 off‑site, 3:1 if native) or pay an in‑lieu fee based on an ISA appraisal guide.

Public testimony and key technical input Consulting arborist Mark Wisniewski testified in support of a mature‑tree ordinance but urged simplification on species nomenclature, strict enforcement of the city’s Urban Forest Management Program (UFMP) construction protections (fencing, signage, root protection) and clearer language on when certified arborists may authorize removals. He provided photos from recent city streetscape work he said show inconsistent implementation of protective measures.

Commission deliberations and requested edits Commissioners spent extensive time probing the ordinance’s scope and implementation implications. Key commissioner concerns and directions to staff included: - Applicability: Several commissioners asked staff to move the "what this ordinance applies to" language higher in the document so readers understand immediately whether the ordinance applies to their property. Commissioners also debated the policy choice to exempt single‑family lots from the ordinance and whether that large exemption is consistent with city climate and canopy goals. - Species lists and thresholds: Commissioners asked staff to simplify nomenclature (for example, list Quercus agrifolia as "coast live oak" rather than multiple varietal entries) and to consider whether referencing an external authoritative list (California Native Plant Society / Calscape) would be preferable to a fixed enumerated list. - Replacement and in‑lieu policy for damaged or diseased trees: Commissioners sought an option that limits the burden on property owners who remove trees for emergent safety or documented disease. A majority favored allowing a one‑to‑one replacement (or a different reduced obligation) rather than the full 3:1 or 4:1 ratios when removal is compelled by safety, disease or insurance requirement; commissioners asked staff to return with recommended language. Multiple commissioners also asked staff to consider bonds or other financial guarantees for replacement monitoring so obligations do not fall to future property owners without notice. - Administrative burden and arborist reports: Several commissioners questioned potential duplication of existing arborist reporting requirements for development applications and asked staff to clarify when an ISA certified‑arborist report is required, and when the city can rely on existing application materials. - Neighboring trees and the 25‑foot rule: Commissioners asked staff to clarify how the ordinance treats mature trees located within 25 feet of a project but whose trunks are on adjacent property, and how access limitations would be addressed during review.

Result and next steps The commission voted 5‑1 to recommend adoption of the ordinance to the city council with the stated edits: reorganize the ordinance so applicability appears earlier; simplify species nomenclature (e.g., unify coast live oak naming); delete or substantially revise the 30‑day actions tied to a three‑year verification period; and provide an alternative approach (for staff consideration) to the 3:1/4:1 replacement ratios for trees removed because of disease, imminent safety hazards or insurance‑mandated removal (the commission favored limiting replacement obligations in those cases, for example a 1:1 replacement or comparable remedy). The commission directed staff to present the ordinance and the commission’s recommended edits to UFAC on Feb. 27 and to return to council for introduction on March 26.

Quote: "I would like to see enforcement enforced, including on current projects," consulting arborist Mark Wisniewski said, urging consistent protective fencing and oversight during construction.

Administrative notes: Staff emphasized the ordinance will rely on the city arborist and code enforcement for implementation and that any in‑lieu fee uses the ISA appraisal guide and would fund the Encinitas Habitat Stewardship Program. Commissioners asked staff to return with clarified language on appeals, triggers for arborist reports and potential bonding/guarantee mechanisms for replacement monitoring.