Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buellton council reviews tree policies, adopts tree ordinance in first reading
Summary
After a staff "deep dive" showing tree rules are scattered across five documents, Buellton council directed staff to centralize guidance and introduced Ordinance 25-07 to codify a tree and landscape advisory board, planting standards and nuisance-removal powers for public safety.
Get email alerts on the Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Director Andrea Kiefer told the Buellton City Council on Nov. 13 that tree policy is scattered across five separate documents — the approved tree planting list, the 2025 General Plan, the Avenue of the Flags specific plan, the municipal code (including the native tree protection ordinance) and the community design guidelines — and that only oak, sycamore and cottonwood trees are currently covered by the native-protection rules.
Council members pressed staff on enforcement and clarity. Council Member Hornick asked whether the guidelines could be centralized and whether the city should consider mandatory canopy coverage for parking lots. Kiefer said the approved planting list is posted on the planning department page of the city website and that the landscape rebate program evolved from a county grant and functions as an implementation tool rather than a written policy in the code.
The council discussed enforcement mechanisms in the native tree protection ordinance, including requiring arborist substantiation for removals, replacement requirements (staff noted a typical 3:1 replacement ratio for unauthorized oak removals), development bonds and code enforcement actions. Members also questioned a 50-foot exemption for removal of trees within 50 feet of residential structures; staff said the 50-foot language dates to older practice and could be revisited.
Staff and council distinguished two related tracks: item 8 (the deep dive) was presented as a summary of existing policy and potential places to focus updates, while item 6 (Ordinance 25-07) is a proposed codification of standards for trees on public property, creation of a tree and landscape advisory board in code, and limited authority for the city to abate private trees deemed public nuisances. City Manager Scott Wolf said the draft ordinance draws on a National Arbor Day Foundation template and is intended in part to satisfy requirements for Tree City USA recognition and to consolidate scattered municipal provisions into one chapter of the municipal code.
Council asked about delegation of authority between the planning director (who handles protected trees under the zoning code) and the public works director (who would manage trees on public property). Staff said determinations would involve arborist expertise and would generally not be made unilaterally except in emergencies. Council further directed staff to return with code updates that centralize tree guidance, add native-plant elements and consider objective standards for future development projects while reserving flexibility for the planning commission on case-by-case determinations.
Vice Mayor Lewis moved to introduce Ordinance 25-07 and set it for first reading; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The ordinance will return for a second reading at a future meeting and staff was directed to draft related policy options — for example, requiring replacement when the city removes a public tree — for council consideration.
What happens next: staff will bring code-update options to the planning commission and return ordinance language for a second reading. The council requested that staff explore a centralized public-facing tree-and-landscaping guidance document and options for clarifying the 50-foot exemption.

