The Encinitas Planning Commission voted 4–1 to recommend the city adopt a new Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance, after a special hearing in which staff outlined definitions, mitigation rules and enforcement tools and commissioners pressed for clearer purpose language, tighter tracking and higher penalties.

Senior planner Evan Jednak presented the draft ordinance, which staff said defines a "mature tree" as any tree with an 11‑inch or greater trunk diameter, native tree species at 9 inches and certain native scrub oak species at 4 inches; the diameter is measured at 4½ feet above the base. The draft would require a city tree removal permit for mature trees, apply a two‑year lookback for recent removals, and use a mitigation hierarchy: preserve the tree when feasible, replace it on‑site if possible, then consider off‑site replacement or an in‑lieu fee.

"The primary intent of the ordinance is to preserve mature trees, so the first strategy is always to preserve the tree unless it's infeasible," Evan Jednak said during his presentation.

Staff described replacement ratios in the draft: a default 3:1 on‑site replacement that reduces to 2:1 when replacements are entirely native, and a default 4:1 off‑site replacement reduced to 3:1 for native plantings. A 1:1 ratio would apply when an arborist verifies the tree is dead, in severe health decline or poses an immediate life‑safety risk. The draft also proposes treble enforcement fees—three times the appraised value—when a mature tree is removed without authorization; staff said appraisals use the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) appraisal guide.

Commissioners raised several points during questioning. One concern was applicability: under the draft, existing single‑family properties on a single lot were exempt, while subdivisions and projects that convert single‑family lots to multifamily would be covered. Commissioners asked staff to clarify whether projects submitted before council adoption would be exempt; staff said projects submitted before 30 days after city‑council adoption would not be subject to the new rules.

Commissioners also sought clearer definitions for replacement planting size and the practical meaning of appraisal values. "It defaults to the UFMP manual of procedures," staff said, noting minimum replacement stock is typically 15‑gallon; an example appraisal for an 11‑inch Torrey pine was roughly $2,000–$3,000, while certain mature oaks can be harder to appraise.

UFAC representatives urged stricter protections and clearer purpose language. Brad Lefkowitz, chair of the Urban Forest Advisory Committee, warned that a blanket exemption for high‑fire‑hazard zones could allow removal of ecologically significant native trees without penalty and urged the commission and council to refine the exemptions.

Public commenters and UFAC members also flagged constitutional and equal‑protection considerations if the ordinance's purpose and applicability are inconsistent, and recommended the ordinance explicitly state that the rule targets development‑related tree loss.

During deliberation, Commissioner Susan (speaker 6) said the ordinance should include single‑family properties where development is occurring and that current in‑lieu fee examples ($2,000–$3,000 for some trees) would not deter large developers. "When they're making millions, $2,000 or $3,000 is chicken feed," she said, urging higher penalties to create a disincentive to remove mature trees.

Susan moved that the commission recommend approval to the city council with amendments to: (1) include single‑family properties when development is occurring rather than exempting them outright; (2) ask legal counsel to revise the ordinance's purpose section for clarity and to explain why certain properties are treated differently; (3) consider increasing enforcement multipliers beyond the current treble fee (discussed range 3–5×); and (4) tie the three‑year verification period for replacement trees to the certificate of occupancy to make tracking practicable. Commissioners offered friendly amendments on fee multipliers and timing. The motion was seconded and passed 4–1.

The commission's recommendation does not adopt the ordinance; it forwards the package and suggested edits to the City Council for consideration and potential adoption. Staff told the commission that the ordinance introduction is tentatively scheduled for January 28, with a second council reading to follow for possible adoption.

What happens next: the Planning Commission's recommendation and requested edits will be transmitted to the Encinitas City Council, which will consider the draft ordinance, accompanying purpose language and fee structure at an upcoming council meeting. Any final ordinance adopted by the council will specify the effective dates, exact fee formulas and the administrative procedures for permits and 3‑year verification.