Burlingame City Council talks tree ordinance

“We want our ordinance to allow us to do the things we want to do and prevent the things we don’t want to happen,” he said.

Councilmembers agreed at a June 17 meeting that it was important to allow staff flexibility around adjusting planting and replacement requirements based on site conditions and specific situations.

“This is clearly going to be a balancing act between public safety and sustainability,” Mayor Donna Colson said. “I think the number one most important thing for me is deference to our staff and discretion to our arborist to make in-the-field decisions that don’t have to come back to commissions and don’t have to come back to council.”

The tree replacement plan does call for some increases to replacement standards for trees on privately-owned property and commercial lots and redefines protected trees and landscape trees. Councilmembers weighed the idea of in-lieu fees if replacement trees could not be planted, with Mayor Colson calling it an option of last resort.

The proposed ordinance will also aim to address what Burlingame Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail called a “disconnect in our system” regarding the permitting process for commercial development. If approved, tree removal permits will now be considered in tandem with project development to ensure processes are being properly followed.

“If someone needs to remove a tree to make a development, to build it, and it’s going to physically preclude them from building it … they’re going to have to identify which trees those are, and the Planning Commission is going to have to look at that as a part of the project,” he said.

Although the city has limited ability to deny tree removals for projects like accessory dwelling units or Senate Bill 9 housing, which have state-mandated zoning requirements, they can stipulate conditions of removal, Spansail said.

Councilmember Michael Brownrigg expressed frustrations around these state-mandated allowances and said that the proposed document was “a little too nice.”

“For one, if you want to get rid of a tree, the easiest thing in the world right now is to just say, ‘I’m going to build an ADU right where the redwood is, coincidentally, and you take it out and you never build the ADU,” he said. “You might think of a penalty if that happens.”

The ordinance also addresses community concern about the previously-limited appeals process. Under new regulations, residents may appeal any tree removal that isn’t dead, dying, qualifies as an emergency removal or is city-owned.

The Beautification Commission would continue to hear such appeals, but appeals of their decisions would go to an independent body rather than the City Council under the new plans.

Another topic under council consideration was city arborist determination of less desirable species, which is proposed to remain as one factor when considering a tree removal.

Colson said that through her work at Filoli, an important consideration of species prioritization had become what trees would be most resilient to future climate change.

“[In] thinking about how to replace these trees, one of the things we’re really looking at is climate change issue. Some of senior management has been looking at trees that grow here [to the] south, as opposed to here [to the] north,” she said. “In 20 years, the climate may not be amenable to those species.”

Additionally, Spansail proposed explicitly stating that violations of the ordinance can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor and raising fines for violators — like those who illegally remove trees — to $1,000 per violation and restitution for the tree’s appraised value, the maximum amount permitted under California law.

“I do support fines for intentional destruction of trees on a property,” resident Leslie McQuaide said regarding the proposed new penalties.

Penalty funds could go into the new Tree Replacement fund, which would be responsible for tree-planting and preservation programs.

Vice Mayor Emily Beach emphasized the importance of making science-based decisions and allowing city staff to do their jobs and keep Burlingame’s urban canopy healthy.

“I really think there is science-based art happening here with our urban canopy,” she said. “It is really important our staff has some discretion to make reasonable decisions, to make sure we’re replenishing the urban canopy in a way that makes sense.”

City staff will bring the ordinance back to the City Council for final approval at a later date, Holz said.