Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burlingame seeks CEQA review after staff presents broad rewrite of tree protections and replacement rules
Summary
Staff presented a proposed overhaul of Burlingame's tree code, merging chapters to expand "protected tree" definitions, propose a reforestation fund and a 7-day real-estate disclosure for protected trees; council directed staff to proceed to CEQA analysis and refine replacement/fee details.
City arborist Rich Holtz and staff presented a near-complete rewrite of Burlingame Municipal Code Title 11 on Oct. 7, proposing to merge the existing street-tree and general-tree chapters into a single, broader ordinance that would expand the definition of "protected trees," tighten removal and replacement rules, and create a tree-planting and replacement fund.
Rich Holtz told the council the draft closes what staff described as loopholes that allowed protected trees to be removed without meaningful replacement and would require earlier preservation planning on development projects. As an example, Holtz described a diameter-at-breast-height replacement schedule and noted that if a developer cannot plant replacement trees on site they would pay a fee into a municipal tree fund; staff cited Sacramento's illustrative fee ($325 per inch) as a model but said Burlingame would complete a local fee study.
Staff also proposed a real-estate disclosure requiring sellers to disclose protected trees seven days before a transaction closes, expanded public-notification and appeal processes, and new criteria allowing the director to consider unique economic burdens (including some insurance cancellations) when evaluating removal requests. Holtz noted state law limits fines to $1,000 per occurrence but that civil damages, valuation-based mitigation and in extreme cases misdemeanor penalties remain options.
Councilmembers asked for clarity on replacement quantities, fees and how the fund might be used; several asked that staff notify current property owners (not only new buyers) during outreach. Council agreed the draft should go forward for environmental review; staff said they will hire a CEQA consultant and expect review to occur in the coming quarters. Multiple councilmembers indicated support for preserving more trees while balancing development constraints and implementation practicality.
Next steps: staff will return with CEQA analysis and refined implementation details, including a fee study and outreach plan for residents, utilities and developers.
