San Carlos pruning tree regulations

Last June, the council adopted an urgency tree ordinance largely based on a more restrictive measure implemented in Menlo Park in response to community concerns about the number of trees being removed. On average, more than 100 trees are removed a year in the city, said Principal Planner Andrea Mardesich who estimated about 85-90% of permits the city processes related to trees are for removal while the rest are for substantial pruning jobs.

The updated ordinance is also being addressed as staff is working through the review process of a number of large development proposals that include the removal of hundreds of trees.

Under San Carlos’ urgency ordinance, the city imposes increased penalties for illegally removing trees, charging violators either $5,000 or the appraised value of the tree, whichever is greater. It also extends the distance property owners are required to post tree removal permit notices to 300 feet from the tree and limits the reasons trees can be removed from 11 to six reasons.

During Monday’s discussion, Councilmember Ron Collins spoke in favor of even larger noticing requirements, stating “whatever it is it ought to be double that.” Similarly, Vice Mayor Adam Rak said he’d like to see the timeframe extended for when a resident needs to notify neighbors about the removal and said stricter noticing should be required for tree pruning as well to reduce neighborhood tensions.

Concerned the city’s ordinance could be manipulated, Rak also questioned whether the city’s contracted arborist and horticulturist, Ellyn Shea, felt pruning restrictions were strict enough. Staff recommended the city permit pruning of no more than 25% of healthy foliage per year without a permit and Rak was concerned the allowance would give someone the opportunity to kill their tree, ultimately leading to its removal.

While pruning is not completely necessary for the health of a tree, Shea said, she noted pruning 25% is industry standard. Without stricter permitting oversight, she said it would be difficult to monitor all city trees.

“I think we can write whatever we like, but, if we aren’t able to check, this is a reasonable threshold for requiring a permit. If someone wants to kill their tree, they’re going to do it,” Shea said.

Speaking to concerns by Mayor Sara McDowell about the types of trees permitted in public places, Shea agreed that fruiting trees or ones that cause a mess should not be permitted but also noted property owners will have a say in what types of trees to put in their yards.

Shea said she’ll be looking for additional guidance on revamping her own list from a more extensive report by an arborist contracted by the city of San Mateo. Meanwhile, she said her main criteria in selecting trees for the list was that they be deemed as low water use on the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species team overseen by the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Councilmembers did stress the importance of including eucalyptus trees on its unprotected list, which will also include palm trees, and shared interest in incorporating a review period to ensure trees are healthy. McDowell also requested that the city permit the use of rubber on sidewalks to prevent trees from being removed after damaging walkways.

Ultimately, the council agreed that more decisions should be up to the city arborist’s discretion such as the size of tree that should be permitted to replace a removed tree.

Councilmembers also expressed a strong interest in addressing removal permitting fees in part to help residents with dying trees in their yards that may become hazardous, though, that discussion will be held at a later date.

Given all the council’s proposed changes to the ordinance, City Manager Jeff Maltbie and City Attorney Greg Rubens recommended the council postpone a vote to allow staff time to redraft the policy. Rubens shared assurances that the city had enough time to reconsider the ordinance at a later date, noting a permanent ordinance would need to be approved by May 14 to take effect by June 14 when the urgency ordinance expires.

If additional community feedback or council changes result in another postponed vote, Rubens said the council may be able to extend the urgency ordinance. Collins cautioned his colleagues of continuing to make tweaks to the ordinance, arguing staff has worked hard to present the council with a good policy document.

“We’re getting too much into the weeds here,” Collins said. “I’m not sure how much more we want to work with this because it’s really come a long way and it’s a lot better than it was.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106