Under a new county proposal, West Marin residents may soon need to get permission and pay fees before removing more than five large native trees per year from their property.
The proposed tree ordinance - a pruned-back version of a stricter ordinance roundly criticized last February - regulates the cutting of 27 different species in West Marin and other unincorporated areas.
"Protected" trees would include those that are at least one foot in diameter and native to Marin, among them bay, buckeye, Bishop pine, Douglas fir, and several species of oak.
The earlier proposal covered virtually all species except for "undesirable" Monterey pine, eucalyptus, and acacia. It would have required an $80 fee for first tree cut and $25 for each additional tree on the same application.
Also, the new ordinance would cover much more of the county than the one previously proposed: ranchers and large landowners would also have to seek permission to cut more than five large trees.
As for the five-tree allowance, "the concept behind this is that people felt they should have the ability to manage landscaping around houses, and that it would be burdensome to get just one permit for just one tree," Hansen said.
Hansen said she expects people will debate about the fees at an upcoming public workshop on proposal, tentatively scheduled for Oct. 7 at Civic Center.
Public reaction may result in even more changes to the ordinance, Hansen said, and it could be some time before it goes before planning commissioners next year.
The ordinance also recommends that property owners submit an arborist's report or photographs of a protected tree when applying to remove it.
"Fifteen years ago I pestered [a commissioner] to create an ordinance so people like me could tell someone who wants to cut down all their trees that they can't do that," said arborist Tom Kent of Inverness. "Many people move into the woods and want to make the environment fit their taste but become overzealous about lot clearing."
"Some trees that are 8-inches thick such as a cherry-looking madrone should be saved at all costs, while some that are 20-inches thick could be considered expendable," he said.
The draft ordinance has several other changes from earlier drafts:
Rancher George Grossi, who owns a 440-acre ranch in Hicks Valley, said it seems "lopsided" to apply the same regulations for a two-acre lot in town to a rancher removing trees on 1,000 acres.
Permits may even be unnecessary for agriculturally zoned properties, he said. "No one is going to be clearing land to build homes on truly agricultural land," said Grossi, who explained that he usually removes trees only if they are ready to fall over
"Back in the 30s or 40s there were trees taken out to clear a field, but there's not much clearing of [ranch] land now," he said.
As written, the ordinance exempts public utilities districts who want to cut trees on their land, although the exemption could change at the public workshop, Planner Hansen said.
Inverness resident Anne Tennyson, a critic of the earlier ordinance, suggested that in light of the Inverness Ridge fire, exemptions should be extended to people wanting to cut down burned - but possibly healthy - trees.
"When a home is destroyed does the property revert to unimproved status?" Tennyson said. "There is no provision for people who had to take out trees after the fire in order to rebuild. It would have been a hassle to get a permit for every tree."
Exceptions also should be added for trees that block sunlight or views from homes, she said.