The B'game ordinance requiring approval to cut down a protected tree is getting an update. The "sort-of" protected status covers all private trees in the city if they measure at least 48" in circumference when measured 54" high from natural grade. I say "sort-of" because there are a variety of ways to get around it. The Daily Journal piece describes some of them
Burlingame is proposing updates to its tree ordinance, including broadening appeal rights for removal decisions, offering staff discretion over plantings and replacements based on site conditions and harsher penalties for ordinance violators.
Burlingame, locally known as the ‘city of trees,’ has long prioritized its urban forest, but its current tree ordinance doesn’t follow present industry standards and isn’t an effective deterrent to intentional wrongdoing, Richard Holz, parks superintendent and city arborist, said.
Note we aren't just locally known as a "city of trees", we have been awarded Tree City USA status by the National Arbor Day Foundation each year since 1980. Tree Cities must have an active tree maintenance and replacement program. They must also have an active local board which specifically deals with arboricultural issues. But that aside, the piece picks up on the tougher penalties
Additionally, (Assistant City Attorney Scott) 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.
Sounds good until you realize Sacramento just keep inflicting more and more ways to damage local quality of life and control. Michael Brownrigg was on it
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.”
Unfortunately, we can think about such a penalty all we want, but it's not likely to happen. I'm sure bully AG Rob Bonta would be sending a threatening letter to the city the minute even one ADU was stymied because of a measly old tree. That's like reverse greenwashing. It's 84 degrees outside as I write this at 3pm. I'm gonna go find a shady spot under a big tree.
Leave a Reply