Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trees And Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design commissioners raise alarm over non‑permitted tree removals, ask staff for education and enforcement options
Summary
Commissioners flagged instances of trees being removed or altered without permits in draft historic districts, asked staff for outreach and possible enforcement tools, and recommended inviting the city’s preservation consultant to present at a future meeting.
Commissioners at the June 24 Design Review Commission meeting said they have observed what they described as non‑permitted tree removals and repetitive alterations in areas under study for historic designation and urged staff to pursue education and enforcement measures.
Ron, the city architect, said he had seen projects where trees were removed before projects came to the commission’s review and asked staff to consider a workshop on draft historic districts and the implications for property owners. “There is some non permitted activity of removing trees before it comes to your overview,” Ron said, and noted that the city is refining a survey to identify potential historic districts.
Commissioners discussed options including early education for incoming property owners, outreach to realtors, a replacement requirement (for example, replacing a large canopy tree with two smaller trees), after‑the‑fact permit processes, and possible monetary penalties or liens to deter unpermitted removals. Commissioner Lopez suggested proactive notifications to owners and realtor education so new owners “are aware there are restrictions as to what they can and cannot do with the property.”
Samantha Tewalsar, planning manager, said the city is in phase two of a survey and that staff and the consultant could come before the commission to explain district boundaries, what qualifies as a contributor to a district and available incentives. She described an educational component as central: staff must inform owners during the transitional phase so owners understand potential consequences and options when making changes.
Commissioners asked staff to pursue follow‑up steps including bringing the preservation consultant to a future meeting, studying enforcement tools and best practices from peer cities, and evaluating outreach to realtors and property owners. No new ordinance or penalties were adopted at the meeting; staff described next steps as research, outreach and potential referrals to City Council if code changes are recommended.
