Commission reviews nine tree-removal requests; most approved with replacement requirements

Sonoma City Parks, Recreation and Open Space Commission on Wednesday reviewed nine separate tree-removal permit applications and voted on each individually, approving most requests while requiring replacement trees and declining one commercial-parcel request.

The commission considered removals ranging from street trees to privately owned yard specimens. Staff and the city arborist presented individual reports for each property and recommended either denial or removal with specified replacement trees. Commissioners debated whether replacement ratios should follow past practice (1:1) or be adjusted and noted state requirements that any change to city policy on replacement ratios would need a formal process.

Staff recommended denial of the application for 811 West Napa Street after an arborist site visit found the conditions cited in the applicant’s report were not present. The commission voted to decline that permit (motion passed; tally recorded as passing with five in favor, one opposed and one abstention).

For privately owned residence requests, outcomes included:

- 1189 Fifth Street East: Two coast redwood trees near the house. Staff recommended approval with two 24-inch-box replacement trees; commissioners approved the removal while voting for a 1:1 replacement ratio instead of staff’s suggested two 24-inch boxes. The motion passed (vote count recorded as passing with five in favor, one opposed, one abstention). The homeowner was not present.

- 130 Patton Street: A coast live oak the homeowners said was competing with other trees on a small lot. Homeowner Nancy Simpson told the commission, “we love trees. I’m a gardener,” and said she and her husband were willing to replant appropriate specimens on or near the property. The commission approved removal with a 1:1 replacement requirement (motion passed unanimously).

- 492 Montini Way: Two sycamore street trees with sidewalk and water‑meter impacts. Staff recommended approval with two replacement trees; the commission approved the removal and required replacement (motion passed 6–1).

- 670 (listed in the packet as 670 Estamadera/Estimate Area Court): A coast redwood with a shallow, aggressive root system causing driveway and garage-floor lifting. The commission approved removal with a single 24‑inch-box replacement tree (motion passed 5–1).

- 556 Ivy Court: Two street sweet gums that were causing trip hazards on a narrow planter strip. Residents Andrew and Shelly Ryan told the commission the trees were planted by the city and that the sidewalk was effectively unusable at that stretch. The commission approved removal with a 1:1 replacement requirement; one commissioner recused (motion passed with majority yes votes).

- 413 Rosalie Drive: A Linden/plane tree located about 12 inches from a planned new sidewalk and therefore in conflict with frontage-improvement requirements. The property owner’s landscape plan shows two new shade trees in the new planter strip. The commission approved removal subject to the replacement approach shown on the applicant’s landscape plan (motion passed; commissioners specified replacement per plan).

- Three liquid ambers in planter strips: Staff recommended removal and replacement. The commission approved removal with a 1:1 replacement requirement (motion passed 5–1).

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted city goals to increase and retain canopy cover while balancing private property concerns, sidewalk safety and infrastructure costs. Commissioners raised concerns about the adequacy of one-to-one replacement ratios for larger trees and whether the city should revisit policy to set a consistent mitigation standard.

What the commission did and next steps: Each approved removal was accompanied by a replacement requirement (ratios varied by motion). Commissioners discussed the need to agendize a future, broader policy review on replacement ratios and canopy strategy; staff and the city attorney’s office advised that any change to replacement rules or fees should follow the formal procedures required under California law.

Votes at a glance (summary of staff recommendation and outcome): - 811 West Napa St. — Staff: deny; Outcome: denied by commission (passed). Replacement: n/a. - 1189 Fifth St. E — Staff: approve; require two 24-inch boxes; Outcome: approved with 1:1 replacement (commission motion). - 130 Patton St. — Staff: approve with two smaller trees suggested; Outcome: approved with 1:1 replacement; homeowner to replant on property or nearby site. - 492 Montini Way — Staff: approve; require two replacements; Outcome: approved (two replacements required). - 670 Estamadera/Estimate Area Ct. — Staff: approve; require one 24-inch replacement; Outcome: approved (one 24-inch box required). - 556 Ivy Court — Staff: approve; Outcome: approved with 1:1 replacement; one commissioner recused. - 413 Rosalie Dr. — Staff: approve in concept with landscape plan; Outcome: approved; replacement per submitted landscape plan. - Three liquid ambers (planter strip) — Staff: approve; Outcome: approved with 1:1 replacement.

No appeals were filed during the meeting; applicants retain the right to appeal the commission’s decisions according to the city’s appeal procedures.

Commissioners flagged the broader issue of consistent replacement standards and requested staff bring back a timeline and process for a policy review that would ensure any changes comply with state law on impact fees and studies.