The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors inched closer to finalizing a proposed tree protection ordinance at its regular meeting this week, months after trying to craft new regulations to require permits for the removal of certain trees.
The meeting also served as a public hearing to get feedback from residents and stakeholders, some of whom urged the board to both pass the regulations and others who want more flexibility in the local law.
The county is trying to establish enforceable standards for permit applications for the removal of certain native trees, but contentious issues are yet to be settled, including what trees would be included and how large, what criteria would require a permit, and how far back a review of a proposed development might go.
Permits to remove trees would be required any time a building or construction permit is needed under the county’s current plan. But one issue yet to be settled is whether such a building permit application should require a review of up to five years into the past to ensure that trees weren’t simply removed before applying.
Several potential exemptions also are still in flux, even after multiple public feedback sessions and presentations to the board dating back to November. Issues still being drafted include exemptions for allowing property owners to conduct certain maintenance for safety and fire prevention, allowing professional foresters to conduct work without additional review, and allowing more flexibility for affordable housing developments.
The tree removal ordinance is being considered along with another ordinance protecting oak woodlands. A temporary ordinance restricting tree removal was extended by the board in January as stakeholders continued to give feedback about the proposals. It will expire at the end of May if no permanent protections are passed, or it is not renewed.
Balancing conservation and property rights
The oak woodland protection ordinance is finalized, but language in the tree removal ordinance raised concerns from homeowners, property developers and conservationists, sometimes for opposing reasons.
Supervisors and stakeholders among the public debated the balance between tree conservation and property rights, with Supervisor Susan Gorin lamenting at one point that limiting the restrictions to building activity that requires a permit was shrinking the scope of the protections to a fraction of what it was originally, which was an effort to protect certain native trees throughout the unincorporated county.
Permit Sonoma staff previously determined that tying the regulations to permit development applications would be the best way to ensure the ordinance was enforceable.
Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said she was concerned with placing too many restrictions on property owners doing routine maintenance.
Hopkins said her goal was to protect trees and forests, “but not to get to a point where we are basically like Sonoma County unincorporated homeowners association and a neighbor is turning in a neighbor for performing basic property maintenance,” she said during the presentation.
There were 15 speakers during the public hearing. Several disagreed with the exemptions allowing for the removal of mature trees if younger trees were planted elsewhere. Others urged more flexibility for forest and property management. Most urged the board to pass the ordinance in some form and protect the county’s native trees.
If the process is too hard, people are just going to do whatever they want, because they have a decision that they need to move forward with.
Scott Orr, Permit Sonoma’s Assistant Director
Another issue was who could be certified to provide recommendations to property owners to create defensible space or conduct property maintenance for safety purposes. Staff was told to create more flexibility for nonprofits and other local experts to be qualified, rather than just insurance agents, fire marshals or other county inspectors.
“If the process is too hard, people are just going to do whatever they want, because they have a decision that they need to move forward with,” Scott Orr, Permit Sonoma’s Assistant Director said.
California bay laurel trees were proposed to be eliminated from the list of protected trees and manzanita plants were recommended to be added. The size of trees requiring permits to remove was reduced to 6 inches at breast height, rather than the 9 inches in the initial draft.
The board also asked staff to separate the two proposed ordinances so that the oak woodland protections could be passed on its own, in case further changes are needed to the general tree protection ordinance.
Both proposed ordinances are again scheduled to come before the board for consideration on April 16.