Commission seeks revisions to proposed private-tree ordinance after fire-safety and implementation concerns

The San Anselmo Planning Commission on Feb. 3 reviewed a draft ordinance that would repeal and replace the town’s private-tree regulations and establish a tree-preservation in-lieu fee, but did not vote to recommend adoption. Commissioners raised questions about how the ordinance would interact with defensible-space requirements, exemptions for emergency tree removal, arborist qualifications and protections for redwood groves; they asked staff to return with clarified language.

Mark (Public Works representative) and Rob Bastian of the Ross Valley Fire Department joined the meeting to answer commissioners’ questions about defensible-space zones and how tree removal for fire safety would be handled. Bastian said California is expanding requirements for a vegetation-free zone from 0 to 5 feet immediately around structures (Zone 0) and explained that certain tree species are considered fire-prone in the 5-to-30-foot zone and must be managed with canopy separation standards. He said insurers and fire agencies increasingly focus on the 0–5-foot zone.

Commissioners and the public asked how the town’s proposed ordinance would interact with required defensible-space work and with insurance-driven removals. Staff said some removals—dead, diseased or immediate fire hazards—would be exempt from the normal permit process, though the town prefers to be notified and keep records. Commissioners expressed concern that property owners who must remove trees to meet fire-safety directives could still face separate municipal permit or fee requirements; staff replied that the draft includes exceptions for emergency and fire-safety removals but that the code should be clarified.

Public comment included two speakers who urged careful balancing of tree protection and fire risk. Renee Voss (public commenter) and Roseanne (resident and letter author) both spoke on the record. Roseanne recommended tightening the arborist standard used to evaluate removals (she urged recognition that American Society of Consulting Arborists certification carries a higher threshold than International Society of Arboriculture certification) and suggested lowering the diameter threshold used to protect redwoods so groves are treated consistently.

Commissioners asked staff to revise the draft to: (1) clarify which fire authorities and conditions trigger the streamlined exemption for hazardous-tree removal; (2) present a clear distinction in the code between protected/heritage trees and routine removals for defensible space; (3) explain the arborist-qualification standard the town will require; (4) include an explicit reference to defensible-space (Zone 0/1) standards and how they interact with the permit rules; and (5) provide a simple in-lieu fee schedule or valuation example and describe appeal/remedy paths. Several commissioners also suggested that where tree removal affects public and private property differently, staff explain why, and if possible bring the public-tree code into alignment with private-tree rules.

Mark said staff welcomed the feedback and recommended the Commission continue the item to allow incorporation of the requested clarifications before any recommendation to the Town Council. No final action was taken; commissioners instructed staff to return with a revised draft that addresses the points raised.