Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tree Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New tree-retention code applies to site-plan reviews; amendment needed to cover subdivisions, staff says
Summary
City staff told commissioners the tree-retention language adopted in Order 2024-O2 and code section 15.82 currently applies only to site-plan review and does not automatically apply to land-division (subdivision) applications; staff plans a code amendment to extend protections but said objective criteria will be required.
At the July 15 meeting, staff explained that the city’s recently adopted tree-retention language (Order 2024-O2, codified at section 15.82) applies to developments reviewed under site-plan review, not to land-division (subdivision) applications processed under clear-and-objective standards.
“Based on the current structure of chapter 15.82, the tree retention provision in subsection I applies only to development subject to site plan review and does not apply to land division applications,” staff said, adding that a new code amendment would be required to clarify applicability across development types. Staff noted the amendment process would follow legislative procedures and could take “3 to 4 months” in the quickest instances.
Staff described the difficulty of applying tree-retention requirements to housing subdivisions without objective language: “For this section of code to be clear and objective, it would have to include details such as what trees qualified as significant, how many trees must be preserved, what percentage of the site must remain undisturbed, how preservation is measured, when tree removal is allowed, and what objective criteria determines approval or denial.” Without that precision, staff said, tree-retention language tied to site-plan review cannot be used to deny subdivision approvals that must be reviewed under objective standards.
During public comment, resident Tori McGee said she’d noticed newly planted Ponderosa pines dying in recent developments and asked whether there is any requirement for ongoing care beyond the city’s typical one-year maintenance bond. Staff responded that required plantings usually involve irrigation requirements and a one-year maintenance bond that funds replacement if approved landscaping dies, but plantings made outside land-use approvals may not be covered.
Staff said it will pursue a formal code amendment and engage the public during that process; the commission did not adopt any ordinance at the meeting.
