Oakland’s City Council on Tuesday imposed a $915,135 fine on property owners Matthew Bernard and Lynn Warner after they cut down 38 protected trees in the Oakland hills without permits, a decision city officials framed as a test of enforcement of the city’s Protected Trees Ordinance. The vote came after the council struggled to reach an outcome in two earlier attempts, and after city staff, environmental advocates and the property owners each made arguments to councilmembers.

The council vote was 5-3 in favor of fining Bernard and Warner, with councilmembers Janani Ramachandran, Noel Gallo, Kevin Jenkins, Zac Unger and Charlene Wang supporting the fine. Rowena Brown, Carroll Fife and Ken Houston voted against it. Council staff had previously said the couple began felling trees without the required permits, and the ordinance’s enforcement process includes an option for a public hearing before the City Council for people facing fines under the tree protection law.

Emeryville residents Bernard and Warner bought the hillside lot behind the Claremont Hotel and Club in 2019, city staff said. Two years later, staff said the owners started removing trees without permits, and staff said some of the trees were on neighboring properties as well. City staff described the removed trees as including native live oaks, broad-leaf maples, buckeyes and other species.

City staff also said Bernard repeatedly ignored warnings that he needed permits to cut down the trees. When staff calculated the value of each tree for purposes of the ordinance, they said the total was nearly $1 million, ranging from a small plum valued at $750 to a mature coast live oak valued at $95,000. City staff told the council the Protected Trees Ordinance is intended to protect hillside stability and ecosystem services, including fire prevention and reductions in erosion and debris flows, as well as supporting biodiversity and cleaning the air.

Before Tuesday’s vote, environmental advocates flooded council members’ inboxes with messages supporting the fine, according to the report. Several advocates spoke at the meeting, arguing the city needed to penalize violations to avoid encouraging developers and other property owners to cut trees without permits. Arash Daneshzadeh, director of programs at the Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation, said the issue was not only environmental but also civic, public safety and equity-related—adding that when egregious violations go unpenalized, it can send a message that compliance is optional.

Bernard and Warner asked for a resolution that would allow them to replant rather than pay the fine, and Bernard made arguments before the City Council that he had tried to follow the city’s process in good faith. Bernard told the council he disputed that 38 trees were removed, saying some had fallen prior to the couple’s purchase and others fell during storms. The city’s case, staff said, relied on extensive evidence including photographs of the lot before and after the trees were cut, photographs of people cutting trees on the property, and reports from the city’s arborist staff. City police also took reports after responding to the property while cutting was under way, city staff said.

The City Council also considered the case in earlier sessions. The council was unable to resolve the matter in December and again in April, and a motion to impose the maximum fine did not pass at the April 14 meeting after councilmembers Brown, Fife and Houston voted no and Gallo’s absence was recorded as a no vote. In the run-up to Tuesday’s decision, Brown and Fife continued to seek a more favorable outcome for Bernard and Warner, with Brown calling the protected tree ordinance “outdated” and arguing it felt unfair to impose such a large fine for trees the city would likely have permitted removal of anyway.

Brown said an equitable approach required distinguishing between preventable loss and inevitable removal, and she tried to secure a reduction in the fine toward roughly $300,000. Fife said the punishment reflected racially inequitable policies and compared the approach to the drug war, mass incarceration and colonization, while also noting that Bernard is Black and that his property is in an area where people of color were prohibited from living in the early 20th century. Councilmembers supporting the fine said Oakland needed to enforce its laws rather than treat violations as excusable.

Ramachandran, one of the councilmembers voting for the fine, said Oakland needs to make clear that people who violate the city’s laws will be fined. Jenkins said the decision was necessary to restore confidence among residents that Oakland will uphold its laws, and he asked councilmembers Gallo and Houston—both of whom frequently raised concerns about perceptions of lawlessness at council meetings—to support the fine. Jenkins said, “Are we going to enforce the laws? Do they mean anything?”