Group says city’s new tree removal policy threatens urban forest
San Jose city leaders recently voted to overhaul the city’s tree removal permit process for private property owners
An advocacy group says San Jose city leaders are missing the forest for the trees by trying to streamline the city’s tree removal permit process in an effort to save money.
At its Dec. 19 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved ordinance changes that make it easier for private property owners to obtain permits to cut down their trees.
Those changes are “solely for the purpose of saving planning staff time,” Rhonda Berry, president of the advocacy group Our City Forest, wrote in a letter to Mayor Sam Liccardo before the vote. She suggested the city was acting too hastily to save money and added it’s “unwise that the urban forest should take on the burden of this balancing act.”
City officials held several community meetings last year as they explored ways to simplify the permit process not only to save residents time and angst from dealing with red tape but also to cut the staff time spent reviewing applications, issuing the permits and doing any followup and enforcement.
San Jose policy planner Arthur Henriques previously said in an interview that the city in the last couple of years has spent about $300,000 more to process permits than it collects for the tree removal program and the deficit could grow to $400,000. That’s enough money to hire two fulltime planners for the year, he added.
Berry’s letter noted money alone shouldn’t drive the city’s action, calling it “unwise that the urban forest should take on the burden of this balancing act.”
“Staff’s proposed changes are simply not ready to be voted on, as they lack the critical detail to use or enforce,” Berry wrote. She suggested instead that “this proposal be taken up as part of the more comprehensive Community Forest Management Plan process (covering both public and private trees) and thus allow for more input and more detail.”
In addition to sections of policy language that are “vague and which would easily open the door to unnecessary removal of mature trees,” Berry also said the proposed application review period of 10 days is too short and recommended increasing it to 30 days.
For Councilwoman Dev Davis, who represents District 6, raising fines could be one way to recoup some staff costs.
Davis wrote in a memo that she would like to see illegal tree removal fines be “at least five times the cost of a tree removal permit.”
“This level of fine would function to deter bad actors from illegally removing trees and damaging our urban canopy in ways that may take many years to replenish,” Davis said, adding she would also like to create a subscription email notice service for tree removals in each council district.
“Posted notices can be damaged by weather, blocked from view, or removed altogether,” Davis wrote. “An email subscription that would send notification of planned nonexempt tree removals by council district would allow our residents to know what trees are considered for removal regardless of the visibility of posted notices.”
City staff is expected to review and suggest changes to the tree removal permit fees next month as part of the city’s annual review of various fees.