$3,200 at Hillcrest, $56,335 at Walnut: Council draws a line between the careless and the aware

The single night of city business this week produced the year's clearest lesson in what a heritage tree is worth in Larkspur — and the answer depends almost entirely on what Council believes you knew. Two homeowners appealed penalties for cutting protected California bays without a permit. One walked out with his bill cut by more than half; the other left owing $56,335.20.

“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

At 33 Hillcrest Avenue, owner Brennan Damro contested a $7,231.30 assessment — arborist costs, code enforcement costs and twice the appraised value of the tree — for removing a bay he said had been topped and buried in ivy before he bought the place. Staff wanted the full penalty upheld plus a 24-inch box Valley Oak planted. Council instead voted 3-1 to set a flat $3,200 penalty, stripping out the stacked cost recovery and waiving the replacement tree entirely, noting the owner had already put 16 to 20 trees in the ground. The mayor said awareness and intent weighed heavily with her and that she believed the removal was unintentional. Council Member Sarah Margalles was cooler on it — ignorance is no excuse in the law, she said, and she was not inclined to erase the fines altogether. Council Member Gabe Pollson described a social contract in which the city's canopy requires process.

At 10 Walnut Avenue, the facts ran the other direction. Two mature heritage bays came down 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, and called the valuation "profoundly excessive" — but opened by taking the blame outright. Council upheld staff's full penalty, dropped the requirement to retain a remaining 16-inch bay because a parking pad now sits where it would have stood, and extended the payment deadline to February 4, 2026, with a lien authorized if the money doesn't arrive. Pollson said there was no claim here of ignorance or unhealthy trees and that he would trust the arborist's number. 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 night.

Resident James Holmes, a steady presence at the microphone all evening, told Council the record showed other compliance actions for unpermitted work at the Walnut site and that the trees were a significant piece of the neighborhood's 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 unpaid by October 15; the owner said he hadn't known the balance was outstanding and would pay immediately.

City manager's raise fails 2-1-1 — and the argument was as much about process as pay

Resolution 48/25, approving Amendment No. 13 to the City Manager's employment agreement with 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 comes 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

The friction was less about the number than about how it got here. Vice Mayor Andre said residents had told her they disliked seeing the item ride 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 taken in public, arguing a roughly $300,000 salary decision shouldn't move by consent. James Holmes, by Zoom, asked whether Council could simply say whether a particular matter had come up in closed session without disclosing its substance. Legal counsel said no — anything discussed in closed session about the city manager's contract cannot be discussed outside it.

Then the city manager himself stepped up and removed the last excuse for a reluctant yes.

Ordinance 1091 introduced: the 800-square-foot cap on SB9 units goes away

Council unanimously introduced Ordinance 1091 by title only, amending Larkspur Municipal Code chapters 18.20 and 18.100 to square the city with SB9 and SB450. The amendments 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 worked through the fine print in public comment, arguing the city cannot require offsite improvements before a parcel split is recorded and that some provisions might, in subtle ways, run afoul of state law. He reserved particular scorn for the grading limit baked into the objective standards. Planning staff answered 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 heads to a future consent calendar for adoption unless a council member pulls it.