Belmont clarifies tree rules

Vice Mayor Doug Kim acknowledged the lengthy road toward incorporating community input into the ordinance, the latest version of which was adopted in 2011 and reviewed again for amendments in 2015.

“It’s hard to believe it’s taken months if not years,” he said. “I think the staff recommendation here tonight is a way of saying Belmont cares about trees.”

Councilman Eric Reed said he found the ordinance proposed at Tuesday’s meeting struck a balance between protecting Belmont trees and considering the needs of homeowners managing their properties.

“Our goal is to protect an urban forest,” he said. “Our goal is to give homeowners some amount of [certainty] that if they follow the rules, they’ll be able to understand what the outcomes are going to be.”

The changes the council adopted deemed native trees measured at 10 inches in diameter and large trees measuring 14 inches in diameter 4.5 feet above grade as protected, which would require a permit for removal. By adding madrone, bay laurel and buckeye to the list of native trees and removing the need for removal permits for certain types of eucalyptus, Monterey pine, palm and acacia trees, the amendments further extend protections to native trees while lifting restrictions on removing non-native species.

A requirement for those planning to remove a native tree for a renovation or development project to replant a native species in its place or pay an in-lieu fee is also expected to preserve the number of native trees in the city.

Several members of the community expressed concerns the ordinance did not do enough to maintain Belmont’s valued tree coverage.

For resident Jennifer Lien, the beauty, shade and environmental benefits trees offer to residents should afford all species of trees protection under the new ordinance.

“It’s important to protect all trees, not just heritage trees,” she said.

Lien urged the council to consider keeping the ordinance adopted in 2011 that stipulated removal of any tree measured at 10 inches in diameter 4.5 feet above grade required a removal permit.

Birgit Merian also advocated for an ordinance ensuring trees of any type be preserved, and expressed concern the ordinance did not indicate the size of replacement trees. She suggested a minimum size of 15 gallons for replacements so residents could benefit as quickly as possible.

“I believe that the primary objective of the ordinance should be to keep as many mature trees as possible,” she said.

Merian also suggested officials revive the city’s tree board to help educate residents about the benefits of trees and their role in the surrounding environment. Under a previous version of the city’s ordinance, the citizen board acted as an appeal authority for tree removal permits.

Councilwoman Davina Hurt hoped more residents could be educated about trees, and suggested the city arborist or members of the Parks and Recreation Commission could conduct educational workshops to increase awareness of them instead of reviving the tree board. As a former member of the tree board, Hurt said she remembered times when she relied on the expertise of an arborist to make decisions and thought the board had the potential to make subjective decisions depending on who was on it. She also supported adding a minimum size for replacement trees.

“I would like to see the suggestion about the replacement tree size and there being a discussion as to what that minimum should be,” she said.

Councilman Warren Lieberman acknowledged the citywide ordinance the council was reviewing both provided more clarity for homeowners regarding when a removal permit would be required and clear standards for developers looking to clear sites for new projects.

“If we tell that homeowner you can’t do that, because that tree is a large one, we should have a pretty good reason we’re telling them you can’t do it,” he said. “I do believe, however, that when it comes to development … I think there is enormous incentive to get rid of trees if it helps [developers] clear the land.”

Kim agreed that as a former planning commissioner, he remembered feeling discomfort when reviewing development projects requiring tree removal in the absence of a clearly defined policy.

“I will reiterate that I felt that at times with development review, we were guessing as to the right quality or quantity,” he said. “I think we are better served as a city when City Hall says here are the rules.”

Mayor Charles Stone said he looked forward to seeing the new ordinance go into effect, which he hoped would encourage some homeowners who wouldn’t have stepped forward to remove unsafe trees or trees that were not well-suited for their yards to do so. He was optimistic homeowners would continue to plant trees in Belmont, regardless of the ordinance.

“The tree ordinance is not what gave Belmont trees,” he said. “Private citizens did that, just as they are continuing to do today.”

Stone expressed interest in lowering the in-lieu fee for replacing a native tree to half its current cost, which is currently just under $500. He also suggested the city use the fees collected through the tree ordinance toward free tree giveaways, which could encourage residents, especially those who live in areas where tree cover is not as dense, to plant more trees without requiring them to do so.

The council agreed to review a tree education program, updates to the in-lieu replacement fee and other strategies for incentivizing tree planting at a future meeting.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102