City Council Approves Amendments to Tree Protection Ordinance

At its meeting Tuesday night, Belmont City Council approved amendments to an ordinance which regulates how trees on private property can be chopped down, the culminating action of a two-year long process to clarify that section of the Municipal Code for residents. 

The current tree ordinance, adopted in 1989 and updated in 2004, regulates the removal of seven tree varieties — Oaks, Bay, Buckeye, Monterey Cypress, Redwood, Giant Sequoia and Madrones — with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more. Acacia, Eucalyptus and Monterey Pines are offered no protection.

Parks and Recreation Director Jonathan Gervais said the language in the current ordinance is confusing for residents, who often call the city asking whether they need a permit to cut down a particular tree on their property but don't know what species it is.

The city realized, "we need to simplify this," he said.

On Aug. 9 councilmembers voted 4-0 (Councilman David Braunstein was absent) for a new, amended version which stipulates that property owners will be required to seek a permit to cut down any tree, regardless of species, with a trunk 10 inches or more in diameter.

The council approved the first revision of the ordinance at its . At that time, Braunstein voted against it and Councilman Warren Lieberman abstained.

At Tuesday's meeting Lieberman voted in favor of the amendments, saying that "I hate to be a little more intrusive than we need to be but on the whole we've come up with something workable."

Councilwoman Christine Wozniak said the new ordinance is actually much less stringent than in neighboring wooded towns in the Bay Area, where native trees are given extra protection or the trunk diameter measurement is lower to cover more trees.

The ordinance was developed by an ad-hoc committee tasked with balancing some residents' concerns of too much red tape and that of others wishing to protect Belmont's cherished green canopy.

Belmont resident Kristin Mercer said because Belmont considers itself a tree city, the ordinance should have been made stricter. But she said she supports the streamlined application process which allows for resident appeals to both the tree board and City Council.

"You don't find this in any other city's ordinance," she said.

The city’s tree board, made up of two planning commissioners, two parks and recreation commissioners and one at-large representative knowledgeable about trees, will expand its responsibilities to include hearing and ruling on appeals of denied permits.

It will also maintain a current list of recommended replacement trees and will have discretion to determine what species are considered trees and what are bushes, which are not covered by the ordinance.

Gervais said under the revised ordinance, a protected tree may still be cut down if it poses a significant hazard, but under the new replacement policy the homeowner would be required to work with a city inspector to determine the species of tree, number of trees and location to replant.

Another amendment to the ordinance will require property owners to clearly post their permits for tree removal at least 48 hours beforehand, which Gervais said was done so that neighbors will know if a removal is legitimate instead of calling the city to inquire about it.

The city also does not currently charge applicants for tree permits but may institute a $75 fee if a permit is issued. Councilmembers urged city staff to make the fee as low as possible, and a decision could come when the city determines its mid-year budget adjustments.

Councilmembers agreed to take another look at the ordinance a year from now and make any changes then.

To view the staff report and revised ordinance, click on the attached PDF above.