Two unpermitted tree removals, two very different bills

Two Larkspur homeowners came to Council Wednesday night to appeal penalties for cutting down heritage trees without a permit, and they left with sharply different outcomes. At 33 Hillcrest Avenue, owner Brennan Damro (listed in the agenda as Demro) contested a $7,231.30 assessment — arborist costs, code enforcement costs and twice the appraised tree value — for removing a California bay that he said had been topped and smothered in ivy before he bought the house. Staff recommended upholding the full penalty plus a 24-inch box Valley Oak replacement. Council instead voted 3-1 to set a flat $3,200 penalty, stripping out the stacked cost recovery and waiving the replacement tree because the owner had already planted 16 to 20 trees on the property.

“I want to begin by acknowledging openly that the two bay laurels on my property were removed without a permit. That was a mistake and I take responsibility... the buck stops with me.”— Anton Haramis, owner of 10 Walnut Avenue, before Council upheld the full $56,335.20 penalty

The mayor said awareness and intent weighed heavily with her and that she believed the removal was unintentional. Council Member Sarah Margalles was less forgiving, saying ignorance is no excuse in the law and that while she would consider revisiting the fines, she was not inclined to erase them. Council Member Gabe Pollson framed it as a social contract in which the city's tree canopy requires process.

At 10 Walnut Avenue, the arithmetic was far larger: a $56,335.20 penalty for removing two mature heritage bay trees during construction of a retaining wall and parking area that were not on the approved plans. Owner Anton Haramis disputed the timeline and argued the wall had been approved, but opened by taking responsibility outright. Council upheld staff's full recommended penalty, dropped the requirement to retain a remaining 16-inch bay because a parking pad now sits there, and extended the payment deadline to February 4, 2026, with a lien authorized if the money isn't paid.

Pollson said the Walnut case offered no claim of ignorance or of unhealthy trees and that he would trust the arborist's valuation. Vice Mayor Stephanie Andre told the owner he was plainly aware of the heritage tree ordinance and that better oversight of the project might have produced a different outcome. Resident James Holmes pointed to the record of other compliance actions for unpermitted work at the site and said the trees were a significant piece of the neighborhood canopy. Separately and unanimously, Council authorized a lien for $9,930 in unpaid administrative citations at 10 Walnut tied to construction management plan violations if the fines aren't paid by October 15; the owner said he hadn't known the amount was outstanding and would pay immediately.

City manager's contract amendment fails on a 2-1-1 vote

Resolution 48/25, approving Amendment No. 13 to the City Manager's employment agreement — salary and benefit adjustments following a performance review by an outside consultant — failed to pass. With four members present and one seat excused, the motion drew two votes in favor, one against and one abstention. It will have to come back at a future meeting.

“I am not a represented employee. I am not protected by certain laws that protect your represented employees. You can vote no tonight on this contract and you are not in violation of any law.”— City Manager Dan Schwarz, addressing Council before the vote

Vice Mayor Andre said she had heard from residents who disliked seeing the item on the consent calendar and felt they got no color on how the decision was reached. Resident Ted Horton asked why the final vote on the resolution isn't done in public, saying a roughly $300,000 salary decision should not move by consent. Another resident, James Holmes, asked by Zoom whether Council could at least say if a particular matter had come up in closed session, without disclosing its substance.

Legal counsel shut that door, and the city manager himself told Council he was not a represented employee and that a no vote carried no legal risk.

Ordinance 1091 introduced: SB9 lot splits without the 800-square-foot cap

Council unanimously introduced Ordinance 1091 by title only, amending Larkspur Municipal Code chapters 18.20 and 18.100 to bring the city into line with SB9 and SB450. The changes remove the 800-square-foot floor area cap and the affordability deed restriction on SB9 units and lot splits, apply the T3 objective design standards, and clarify ministerial approval timelines for two-unit developments in single-family zones.

“25 cubic yards... imagine a cube that's 9 foot on each side, right? That's all the dirt you're allowed to move when flattening a hill.”— Matt Papovich, Larkspur resident, on the ordinance's grading limit

Resident Matt Papovich pressed staff on the details, arguing the city can't require offsite improvements before a parcel split is recorded and that some provisions might, in subtle ways, run afoul of SB9 and SB450. He also took aim at the grading limits written into the standards.

Planning staff responded that installing a utility meter is not a community improvement in the sense at issue in the San Diego and Long Beach cases. The ordinance now heads to a future consent calendar for adoption unless a council member pulls it.