HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2008.05.01AGENDA
B URLINGAME BEA UTIFICA TION
COMMISSION
MAY 19 2008 - 6: 00 PM
CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD — Conference Room A
Burlingame, CA
I. ROLL CALL
H. MINUTES
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. FROM THE FLOOR (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the
agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on a
`-- matter which is not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes.)
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. Business Landscape Award Election — Action
2. Street Tree Policy Proposal — Study
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. REPORTS
1. Staff
2. Chairperson
3. Commissioners
Next Regular Meeting:
Thursday, June 5, 2008 — City Hall
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation
Dept. at (650) 558-7323 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for
review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The agendas and
minutes are also available on the City's website: www. burlingame. org.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Beautification Commission regarding any item on
�- this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Ave during normal business
hours.
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
R�M� 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216
recreationnburlingame. org
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAY 27, 2008
TO: BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
FROM: BOB DISCO, PARKS SUPERVISOR
RE: REVISED STREET TREE LIST
The attached list is my recommendation for a new revised Street Tree list.
The lists are according to the by planter widths available throughout the City. At the end of each
list is a compilation of which trees were eliminated and added.
Asterisks are placed in front of those trees that require special planting widths within each list.
Example would be in the 3-6 foot list a Sycamore would require a planting width of 50 inches or
more but not suitable for a 3 foot planting width.
Please note that the locations of each tree are not accurate at this time and the overall look of the
permanent list may change and include more information about each tree. The list of species is
what is important for discussion and review.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARKS DIVISION
558-7330
OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST
TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES
BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum
(Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description
****************************************************************************************************************************
Cercis occientalis
(Across from Rose Garden
10-18'
15'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; early Spring flowers
WESTERN REDBUD
in Washington Park.)
sweet pea shaped and leaves are heart shaped; Fall color.
Geijera parviflora
Wells Fargo Bank
25-30'
30'
EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; graceful branches; fine
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
(Broadway)
textured leaves; pest free.
Gingko biloba ( 700& 800 blk Bayswater Ave.)
30-50'
40'
DECIDUOUS: Slow growth; fan shaped leaves turn yellow in
MAIDENHAIR TREE
Fall; spreading, almost umbrella form.
Koelreuteria bipinnata
(209 Victoria, 1149 Balboa)
20-35'
35'
DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow
CHINESE FLAME TREE
flowers; leaves yellow in Fall, drop late.
Koelreuteria paniculata
(1528 Howard)
20-35'
35'
DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow flowers;
GOLDEN RAIN TREE
leaves reddish in Spring, dull -green in Summer.
Lagerstromia indica
(Pershing Park,
20-30'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; Spring foliage light green tinged
CRAPE MYRTLE
1325 Drake)
bronze red; red flowers July -September; yellow Fall color.
* Magnolia grandiflora
20-40'
25'
EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; white flowers; simila
MAGNOLIA 'St. Mary'
to Southern Magnolia, but smaller. (*Requires 6' wide & over
planter strip.)
* Magnolia grandiflora
1101 Oxford Road
20'
10,
EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; upright branches; dark green
MAGNOLIA 'Little Gem'
(California Dr. side)
foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White
flowers in early spring and again late in summer.
Maytenus boaria
(1115, 1301, & 1462
20-40'
25'
EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; pendulous graceful
MAYTEN TREE
Burlingame Ave)
branches.
TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES
Page 2
* Pistacia chinensis
CHINESE PISTACHE
* Pittosporum undulaturn
(1201 & 1230 Burlingame Ave.
VICTORIAN BOX
Prunus cerasifera
PURPLE LEAF PLUM
(1400 Lincoln Ave.,
Village Park East side)
* Pyrus calleryana
(920 Linden Ave. &
`Aristocrat' FLOWERING PEAR
1429 Burlingame Ave)
* Sapium sebiferum
CHINESE TALLOW TREE
(990 Burlingame Ave./Parking
Lot median island - Lions Club
parking lot)
* Requires planter strip 3 feet wide and over
Eliminated:
Melaleuca
Photinia
Added:
Ginkko
30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; large, dark green
leave, brilliant fall color.
30-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; fragrant white flowers
glossy leaves; round headed
20' 15' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; coppery leaves; light pink
25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; upright form; masses white
flowers in Spring, red leaves in Fall.
35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round
crown; outstanding Fall color
Y/2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARKS DIVISION
558-7330
OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS Y WIDE AND UNDER
AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS
BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum
(Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing
Acer buergeranum
TRIDENT MAPLE
Aesculus carnea
RED HORSECHESTNUT
Craetaegus phaenopyrum
WASHINGTON THORN
Geijera parviflora
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
Koelreuteria bipinnata
CHINESE FLAME TREE
Koelreuteria paniculata
GOLDEN RAIN TREE
Lagerstromia indica
CRAPE MYRTLE
Maytenus boaria
MAYTEN TREE
Primus cerasifera
• PURPLE LEAF PLUM
i
Description
(Wash Park Rose Garden)
20-25'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; roundish crown; glossy, three -
Lobed leaves; fall color.
(2212 Adeline, 1336 Edgehill,
40'
30'
DECIDUOUS: Fast early growth; round headed; dark green
1421 Cabrillo
leaves; plumes of crimson flowers in Spring.
(1238 Oak Grove)
20-25'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth, graceful open limb structure;
glossy leaves; foliage turns orange, scarlet or purple in fall.
(Wells Fargo Bank
25-30'
30'
EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; graceful branches; fine
(Broadway) (117 Bayswater)
textured leaves; pest free.
(209 Victoria &
20-35'
35'
DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow
flowers; leaves yellow in Fall, drop late.
(1528 Howard)
20-35'
35'
DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow flowers;
leaves reddish in Spring, dull -green in Summer.
(Pershing Park)
20-30'
25'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; Spring foliage light green tinged
(1325 Drake)
bronze red; red flowers July -September; yellow Fall color.
(1553 Eastmoor)
20-40'
25'
EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth: pendulous graceful
branches
(1400 Lincoln Ave)
20'
15'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; coppery leaves; light pink to
(Village Park, Eastmoor Side)
white flowers.
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS Y WIDE AND UNDER
AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS
Page 2
Pyrus calleryana (920 Linden Ave. & 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; upright form; masses white
Aristocrat' FLOWERING PEAR 1429 Burlingame Ave.) flowers in Spring, red leaves in Fall.
Primus yedoenis (1236 Balboa, 2205 Hillside) 40'
Yoshino FLOWERING CHERRY
Eliminated:
Craetaegus lavigata English Hawthorne
Photinia
Prunus `akebono"
Added
Koelreuteria penniculata
Acer Buer. Trident maple
30' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; curving, graceful, open branching
pattern; light pink to nearly white fragrant flowers in early Spring.
4/2008
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARKS DIVISION
558-7330
OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER Y AND UNDER 6' WIDE
BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum
(Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description
Acer rubrum
RED MAPLE
Aesculus carnea
(2212Adeline) (1336Edgehill)
RED HORSECHESTNUT
(1439 Cortez) (1421 Cabrillo)
Celtis australis
(1108 Cambridge)
EUROPEAN HACKBERRY
Eucalyptus nicolh
WILLOW -LEAFED PEPPERMINT (18 Bloomfield Rd.)
Fraxinus oxycarpa
(1535 Calif. Dr. --Village Park
RAYWOOD ASH
byplay area & 853 Paloma Ave.)
Gingko biloba
MAIDENHAIR TREE
*Magnolia grandiflora
MAGNOLIA `Samuel Sommer'
Myoporum laetum
MYOPORUN
(700 & 800 blk Bayswater Ave)
(800 Burlingame Ave)
(856 Edgehill Dr., F#1 & F#2)
Pistacia chinensis
CHINESE PISTTACHE (227 Clarendon Rd.)
1
40-50' 35' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; lobed, shiny green leaves;
showy flowers; brilliant Fall color
40' 30' DECIDUOUS: Fast early growth; round headed; dark green
leaves; plumes of crimson flowers in Spring.
40-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; gray -green, elm -like leaves; upright,
round headed form.
30-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; graceful, weeping form;
textured, light green leaves; slight odor of peppermint.
25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; compact, round headed; dark green
leaves turn claret red in Fall.
30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth; fan shaped leaves turn yellow in
Fall; spreading, almost umbrella form.
30' 30' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; upright branches; dark green
foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers
in early spring and again late in summer.
20-30' 25' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; dense, glossy, light green
foliage.
30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; large, dark green leaves turn
brilliant red and orange in Fall.
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER Y AND UNDER 6' WIDE
Page 2
*Platanus acerifolia (603 Plymouth)
LONDON PLANE (SYCAMORE)
Pyrus calleryana (920 Linden Ave. &
FLOWERING PEAR 1429 Burlingame Ave)
*Quercus coccinea (1200 block Oak Grove Ave.)
SCARLET OAK
Sapium sebiferum
CHINESE TALLOW TREE
Tristan conferta
BRISBANE BOX
*Quercus rubra
RED OAK
Robinia ambigua
IDAHO LOCUST
*Ulmus
ACCOLADE ELM
*Zelkova serrata
ZELKOVA `Green Vase"
(1245 Paloma Ave &
990 Burlingame Ave)
[Lions club parking lot]
(860 Walnut)
(326 Clarendon Rd.)
(909 Linden Ave./2 trees)
40-60' 45' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; large, lobed, maple like
leaves; sheds old bark; new bark smooth, cream colored
25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; upright form; masses white flowers
in Spring; red leaves in Fall.
40-70' 45' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; high, open
branches. Large, bright green leaves turn scarlet in cold Fall.
35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round crown;
outstanding Fall color.
30-60' 45' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; reddish -brown
bark; green oval leathery leaves; resembles some Eucalyptus.
40-70' 45' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; spreading branches with round
crown.
30-40' 30' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; Spring clusters of
bright magenta flowers; long leaves divided into oval leaves.
60-80' 55' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; graceful vase shape limbs
Glossy dark green foliage, yellow in fall.
(Subject to availability)
60' 60' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; vase shaped; oval
saw toothed leaves; fall color; drought and wind tolerant.
* Requires planting widths of 50 inches or more
Eliminated: Craetaegus, Euc ficifolis, Euc Polyanthus, Mag little gem, Melaluca, Pittosporum, Euc Microtheca
Added: Tristana, Acer Rubrum, Quercus coccinia, Platnus acerfolia, Myoporum
J )4/2008
CITY OF BURLING"E
PARKS DIVISION
558-7330
OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 6' WIDE AND OVER
BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum
(Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing
Acer rubrum
( )
40-50'
RED MAPLE
Cinnamomum camphors
(300-400 b1k. Burlingame Ave)
40-50'
CAMPHOR
Magnolia grandiflora
(428 Dwight Rd)
2040'
MAGNOLIA ' Samuel Sommers'
Myoporum laetum
(800 Burlingame Ave)
20-30'
MYOPORUM
(856 Edgehill Dr., F# 1 & F#2)
Platanus acerifolia
(603 Plymouth)
40-60'
LONDON PLANE (SYCAMORE)
Quercus agrifolia
(2818 Easton Dr.)
40-70'
COAST LIVE OAK
Quercus coccinea
(1200 block Oak Grove Ave.)
40-70'
SCARLET OAK
Description
35'
DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; lobed, shiny green leaves;
showy flowers; brilliant Fall color.
45'
EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; yellow green
aromatic leaves; tiny yellow flowers in May.
25'
EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; white flowers,
similar to Southern Magnolia, but smaller.
25'
EVERGREEN: Fast growth; dense, glossy, light green
foliage.
45'
DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; large, lobed, maple like leaves;
sheds old bark; new bark smooth, cream colored.
45'
EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; dense foliage;
rounded holly -like leaves; round -headed, spreading crown.
45'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; high, open branches
Large, bright green leaves turn scarlet in cold Fall.
Page 2
Quercus rubra
RED OAK
Robinia ambigua
IDAHO LOCUST
Tristani conferta
BRISBANE BOX
Ulmus
ACCOLADE ELM
Zelkova serrata
ZELKOVA `Green Vase"
TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 6' WIDE AND OVER
(326 Clarendon Rd.)
(909 Linden Ave./2 trees)
(860 Walnut)
Eliminated:
Quercus ilex `Holly oak'
Added:
Ulmus `accolade'
Zelkova `green vase'
J
40-70'
45'
DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; spreading branches with round
crown.
30-40'
30'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; Spring clusters of
bright magenta flowers; long leaves divided into oval leaves.
30-60'
45'
EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; reddish -brown bark
green oval leathery leaves; resembles some Eucalyptus.
60-80'
55'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; graceful vase shape limbs
Glossy dark green foliage, yellow in fall.
(Subject to availability)
60'
60'
DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; vase shaped; oval
saw toothed leaves; fall color; drought and wind tolerant.
` 4/}2008
J `
DOCUMENT 1
AMENDED STREET TREE POLICY PROPOSAL
• REVIEW POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF BURLINGAME'S URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
PLAN, FOCUSING ON AREAS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT (SEE EXCERPTS BELOW).
• POSTPONE SPRING PLANTING.
• UPDATE STREET TREE INVENTORY, NOTING THE TRENDS OR "THEMES ON CERTAIN
STREETS.
• REVIEW AND REASSESS CURRENT STREET TREE LIST, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE
PRIMARY GOAL (WHENEVER POSSIBLE) SHOULD BE TO ENHANCE THE BEAUTY OF OUR
STREETS WITH THE CONTINUITY OF THE DOMINANT, 'GRANDER' TYPES OF TREES RATHER
THAN ORNAMENTALS. TO THAT END, CONSIDER THAT 'SCALLOPING' OF SIDEWALKS
CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED LATER ON WITHIN CITY SETBACKS IN ORDER TO
ACCOMMODATE PLANTING GRANDER TYPES OF TREES IN NARROWER STRIPS.
VISUALLY ASSESS NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE FEW OR NO TREES AND SELECT THREE
(3) SPECIES, (INCLUDING TWO (2) TYPES THAT WILL BE GRAND IN STATURE AND
APPROPRIATE WHERE NO OVER -WIRES EXIST) FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSIDER.
NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE PROGRAM AND IF INTERESTED, HAVE THEM RETURN
A POSTCARD WITH THEIR CHOICE. ABOVE ALL, CHANGE THE CURRENT POLICY WHICH
ALLOWS HOMEOWNERS TO SELECT THEIR OWN STREET TREES.
DOCUMENT 2
CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLt11 NGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Telephone (650) 558-7300 • Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330
Fax (650) 696-7216 e E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org
April 23, 2008
Staff Report to Beautification Commission
Staff Person: Tim Richmond, Parks Superintendent
RE: STREET TREE PLANTING PLAN
At its April meeting the Burlingame Beautification Commission heard a proposal from
two interested citizens on changing the current Street Tree Planting practices. The plan
was complex in that it addressed several distinct issues simultaneously. Those issues
included width of available planting areas, altering current planting lists, changing how
Street Trees are selected by district/block/neighborhood, (re)introducing the concept of
dominant species, updating the tree inventory, and potential elimination of tree categories
from planting plans (ornamentals and evergreens).
What follows is a compilation of information relevant to the suggestions raised by the
proposal. This document seeks to clarify current practices, review historical practices,
and raise questions that need to be answered in initiating amendments to current planting
practices. Hopefully, as this review process proceeds, the Beautification Commission
will be able to make its own recommendations to Council concerning suggested changes
to the current practices.
`- City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts
13,000 + City -owned Street Trees (park trees & other City -owned trees not included)
23 8 Streets with trees in the current Street Tree Inventory
* 100+ Different Species of Trees in City Planter Strips
45 Different Species Currently Offered on 5 Separate Street Tree lists
5 Separate Planting Lists:
1) Under Prim. Utilities.
2) 3' & Under
3) 3-6'
4) 6' & Over
5) Hillside View Area (Planning Dept.)
* 100+ Different Species of Trees in City Planter Strips:
55% to 60% Grow to 40' or more in height at maturity ...
Of that percentage, over 17% are Evergreen species
highest Percentage of Certain Species (over 6%):
13.02% (1690) Sycamore
8.44% (1097) Liquidambars
6.97% ( 906) Lg. Southern Magnolia
9.33% 1200) Eucalyptus (400 on ECR); 10 varieties throughout City planter strips
4893
24.00% or (3,100) Trees Under Primary Utilities
(Data obtained from tree work software)
Dominant Species:
Currently there are Street Tree species that occur frequently in Burlingame and are also the dominant
species in multiple locations
i.
Sycamore
ii.
Liquidambar
iii.
Magnolia Grandiflora
iv.
Eucalyptus (sp.)
v.
Oak (sp.)
vi.
Of the above the current proposal supports continued planting of only
i and v. Selections iii and iv are dismissed because they are
evergreens.
b. There are also species that are prevalent in limited areas
i.
Gingko (Bayswater Ave.)
ii.
Liriodendron (Stanley Drive, MacDonald Ave.)
iii.
Ornamental Pear (California Drive, Broadway)
iv.
Catalpa (portions of Balboa and Vancouver)
v.
Elm (Oxford/Cambridge)
vi.
Black Locust
vii.
Linden (Maple Avenue)
viii.
Of the above, the new proposal formally supports continued use of i,
iv, and v. Selection iii is dismissed because it is an "ornamental."
Selections ii, vi, and vii are not addressed, and may or may not be
supported for continuing use as dominant trees. Selections ii and vii
have severe annual insect infestations unless treated with pesticides.
Selection vi is difficult to obtain and is susceptible to decay
problems.
c. Historically, but not currently, common in specific areas:
i.
English Hawthorne
ii.
Plum (Prunus bleiriana)
iii.
Silver Maple
iv.
Birch
v.
Selections i and ii would be dismissed in the current proposal as
"ornamentals." Selection i was historically susceptible to Tussock
Moth infestations (in continuous row plantings), was short lived, and
tended to have main stem failure after 40-50 years. It is still on the
smallest width planting list. Selection iii tends to rot downward after
any heading cuts, e.g. utility clearance. Selection iv. fared very
poorly in drought and is susceptible to severe aphid infestation.
d. Questions
concerning establishing dominant areas
i.
Who decides? How is subjectivity removed from the process? How
are areas defined? How is area or neighborhood input received and
acknowledged. Unless a very high percentage of consensus buy in is
achieved, any new plan will face difficulties in implementation.
ii.
`vv fiat is done with current plantings that defeai the dominant free
concept? Remove healthy trees? Establish dominance over time
through replacement as trees are removed?
iii. Proposals have no role for "evergreens" or "ornamentals" which
constitute a substantial percentage of Burlingame's urban forest.
What are the implications of categorically removing both from future
plantings?
iv. Proposal treats street trees as infrastructure element, not as a
complement to individual properties. Questions arise.
1. Is individual choice completely dismissed in favor of an
established planting plan?
2. Many property owners enjoy choosing a Street Tree, seeing it
as an element of their yard landscape plan. What is the
mechanism for honoring informed property owner selection?
If there is no consensus behind a forced planting, the process
may produce increasingly negative interactions between City
Staff and residents and may impact the shared, cooperative
partnership between homeowner and City.
v. Planting spaces under utilities. These planting areas constitute a
substantial percentage of planting spaces in the City. "Ornamentals"
and evergreens are the most common eligible trees for that planting
list. The current City list corresponds well with the PG&E tree
planting software listings.
vi. Hillside View area. It's probably impractical to impose "grand" trees
within this designated area.
Diverse plantings
1. Values
a. Whole streets rarely decimated by single pest or disease
b. Interspersed variety of blooms add seasonal color
c. Varying shades and textures to leaves may add interesting
element to street.
d. More possibilities for complementing individual properties
e. Easier to accommodate overhead utilities and limits of
planting areas
2. Disadvantages
a. Does not create unified canopied effect for a block or area
b. Variety has the potential to be dissonant; section or block
may not tie together visually.
c. Same species row plantings are potentially simpler to
maintain
Hybrid approaches are possible.
1. Retain but reduce choices; Staff has been planning such an approach to
implementing the Tree Grant planting. In order to create efficiencies, Staff plans
to offer only two or three varieties to property owners eligible for grant funded
Lr 1.4J. The o= i lilgs wlll be specIrIto tile Zones being plalltGd.
2. Acknowledge that certain portions of the City are best left with diverse plantings;
focus on target single species areas (existing "themed" blocks).
PLANTING STRIP LIMITATIONS
Width of planting strips:
`-- a.
Risks of ignoring widths in Street Tree planting —future sidewalk uplift is possible and
in some cases likely.
b.
Width specific planting lists were initiated by Parks Director Rich Quadri in the
early eighties in order to efficiently address the problem of Street Trees planted in
spaces too narrow to sustain them. Quadri developed the width specific lists from a
single planting list developed in 1973 by his predecessor John Hoffman. Hoffman's list
specified a width requirement for each tree on the list. Quadri in consultation with
PG&E and the Beautification Commission also instituted a list specific to trees planted
under power lines. Lists have continued since then with occasional modification, as
appropriate species have proven worthy of inclusion. On several occasions the
Beautification Commission has reaffirmed its desire to offer choice to residents. Over
time some tree species disqualified themselves, as they became unavailable, as
pest/disease problems specific to the species become known, or as property owners
simply did not select them. Some species have been removed from the list due to
high maintenance issues; i.e. pests, invasive root systems, potential for structural decay
and/or limb/whole tree failure issues at maturity.
c.
Options in small width strips
i. Customized curving of sidewalks to create larger grow space around
planted trees is an option. In many cases this occurred during the work done
in 1996 in the area bounded by Hillside/Poppy from about Vancouver to
Benito. City Arborist spent hours on site with one of the PW Engineers.
The work was excellent in most instances and resulted in a gently curving
sidewalk. It was not repeated in the next contract, due to cost constraints. In
checking with Donald Chang from Engineering, he confirmed that the
program was cost prohibitive. In creating the gentle curve around the tree
grow spaces undamaged flags of sidewalk also had to be removed. Whether
or not future Councils will be willing to absorb those added costs is
unknown.
ii. Ignore width; plant trees large at maturity in spaces that cannot sustain
them; defer issue to the future. Significant root zones will be affected when
deferred sidewalk issues are ultimately addressed.
iii. Plant smaller scale trees per current planting lists.
d.
Many trees, which were planted (before the lists were created) in planter strips
too narrow to sustain them, remain viable. Many are trees that are large (height,
caliper), which at maturity add significantly to the Urban Forest canopy. Upon
removal, these trees would normally be replaced by trees that will be smaller at
maturity. The question that is critical to this discussion is: What species can the
planting strip reasonably sustain in terms of arboricultural principles and
responsible cost constraints? How that question is answered will affect future
Councils, administrations, residents, maintenance providers, and budgets.
e.
Supervisor Disco has recommended additions and deletions to the current lists;
his recommendations have accumulated over the last six months. He has added
as many trees as possible that will be large at maturity, and has
eliminated trees with limited availability, and species that are rarely chosen,
and/or are smaller in overall size. Over time, the revised selections would provide
more uniformity and would increase the canopies on non -dominant streets.
Inventory Upgrade
The Parks Division has a viable work record software application. The base inventory, however, dates
back to the mid 1980s. The data base reflects values that were input at that time. The inventory has
been updated in a piecemeal fashion as trees were removed and replaced. There is also some corrupt
data in the inventory. The corruption occurred during a power outage. Inventories are best done by
contract, where the contractor goes to each site, inputs current data (City selects values to be identified)
on a hand held computer, and downloads the entire inventory onto the City computer. All companies
that offer the service are capable of providing a GPS compatible inventory. GPS compatibility would
allow the inventory to be overlaid on the Public Works field maps. Volunteer inventory upgrades
would be vulnerable to differing inputs by different volunteers. An example of this can be seen is the
recently submitted volunteer survey of the current seasonal planting list. The volunteers listed Maple
as the dominant tree on Hale. There are few, if any, maples on Hale, which is clearly dominated by
Liquidambars. Extensive training would likely be required before the inventory. Any voluntary
inventory would also require input of new data into the current program by Staff, which would be labor
intensive. The resulting upgraded inventory would also lack GPS compatibility.
Status of current programs
A. Tree City USA
1.
Program presumes ongoing tree operation including tree planting.
2.
Extensive delays in re instituting planting would at some point jeopardize
the recognition. Timeliness in resolving the issue is important.
B. Tree Planting Grant
(Green Trees for the Golden State)
1.
Eligible trees must be over and above the City's normal planting program.
City will meet that requirement by planting trees in previously vacant
L
planting spaces.
2.
Eligible plantings are time constrained. They must be planted and
invoiced by the end of March 2010, less than two years from now. Phase I
Planting was to begin in November 2008 of this year and prior notification
to property owners was to occur in May for feed back and tree selection so
the Contract planting could be arranged by September/October. Staff needs
to move forward with communications with eligible property owners.
Current reevaluation has stopped that process.
3.
As mentioned previously Staff plans to offer limited choices for this
program in order to make it workable. This is a possible convergence
point with a revised limited planting plan.
C. Current removal and replacement program
1.
Currently suspended pending hearing of new plan.
2.
Normally Staff notifies property owners when the removal of a tree is
indicated and sends an Official street tree list for selection for the next
scheduled planting. That process is now delayed, as well as the April
planting of replacement trees that have already been selected by the
property owners. Staff is beginning to hear from property owners who
have participated in the process and are now expecting the trees that they
have selected Ll/ Ve p1CL11Led. Staff heeds a cV l l sl j LCI lL ICSFU11aC IM L11cJe
residents.
3.
Delaying ongoing planting may at some point create a negative momentum
�.,.
and send a de facto message that it's OK to have no replacement tree.
SUMMARY OF CRITICAL QUESTIONS
What are the units for which a dominant tree is required? Blocks? Multiple block streets?
Neighborhoods? How are these mapped/assigned?
Does the City wish to continue using lists of trees based on planting area widths? Does it wish to
modify those lists? What criteria will be used in assigning tree species to planting strips with specific
widths?
How can the City continue to actively plant trees while a new plan is being debated and implemented?
Tree planting is currently effectively frozen.
What costs are being deferred or assigned to the future? Is this an acceptable practice?
Where is consensus desired? The proposal and its first oral iteration (4/3/08 Beautification
Commission meeting) seem to be at variance. In the oral presentation the idea was forwarded that tree
choices be removed from property owners completely. Who decides which species will be dominant
for a particular unit of the City that currently lacks a dominant tree? Whose expertise will be entrusted
with the choice? How is neighborhood or community support for the dominant tree achieved?
What will the process look like for deciding upon and implementing a new plan? How long will
planting be delayed by this process?
DOCUMENT 3
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
x 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216
�t recreationkburlin ag me. org
April 21, 2008
Resident
Burlingame, CA 94010
The City of Burlingame's City Council and Beautification Commission have been approached by a
group of citizens which is requesting the re-evaluation of the current policy of the selection of street
trees by property owners. Its proposal focuses on restoring a "themed" streets approach whereby no
street will have more than three different species, pre -determined by a consensus of the neighborhood.
The specific points in the proposal are:
• Review the policies related to selection of trees in the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan
• Postpone the April 2008 planting to ensure the planting is done in conjunction with the long
range plan being developed, including potentially updating the street tree inventory
• Reassess the current street tree lists with the goals of continuing the dominant trees and having
the larger, "grander" trees replace the smaller, "ornamental" trees where possible
• Assess the areas that have few or no street trees and allow the neighborhood to select up to three
�•.- species that can be planted
M
The Beautification Commission will consider the proposal at its next meeting and make a
recommendation to the City Council. Pending the outcome of these meetings, the Council has directed
staff to only plant street trees on streets where a dominant theme already exists and where the choice is
consistent with that theme. City staff has surveyed your block and found no dominant tree in place.
Therefore, we will delay the scheduled tree planting in front of your property until after Commission
and subsequent City Council meetings.
You are invited to attend the Beautification Commission meeting and provide comment. The meeting
will be held in Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, on Thursday, May 1, 2008 beginning at
6:00pm. If you are unable to attend the meeting but would still like to make comment to the
Commission, you may send a letter to the Beautification Commission, 850 Burlingame Avenue,
Burlingame, CA 94010 or an email to parks Burlingame..org. All letters and emails will be shared
with the Commission and public at the meeting.
If you wish to contact City staff with specific questions regarding this proposal, you may call either
myself or the Parks Superintendent, Tim Richmond, at (650) 558-7330 or send an email to
parksgburlin ag me.org. We would appreciate your input to this process.
Sincerely,
Randy Schwartz
Director of Parks & Recreation
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
DOCUMENT 4
�. DATE: APRIL 2, 2008
TO: BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
FROM: TIM RICHMOND — PARKS SUPERINTENDENT
RE: APRIL 3, 2008 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM IV (2)- Recommendation on Suspension of Current
Street Tree Planting for New Plan Evaluation
BACKGROUND:
The Parks Division routinely plants City Street Trees three times per year —winter,
spring, and fall. Past practice of a summer planting was abandoned several years ago.
The action was taken because a considerable number of young trees were not receiving
adequate water to survive their first summer. The Division depends upon property
owners to routinely water trees they have selected.
Spring planting would normally be occurring at this time. Planting this year, however,
has been suspended at the request of citizens wishing to review the entire tree planting
program in the City. The request is based on the belief that tree selection should be
limited and specific to defined neighborhood character. Council will consider the
planting suspension at its April 7 meeting.
Currently 60 property owners have selected trees for planting fronting their properties.
The majority of the 60 property owners have actively participated in the selection
process. They have chosen trees from the planting lists for selections appropriate to the
planting strip width at their respective addresses. A minority of selectors have simply
deferred to the choice of the Parks Supervisor. Several property owners are arriving at
the selection process through the Planning/Building permit system. Parks Division Staff
actively interacts with any selector who wishes to see tree samples or discuss the
merits/limitations of the various choices. A number of the property owners are interested
in selecting trees that complement their current or proposed landscaping.
While a delay would allow for evaluation of the current planting practices, it would also
push tree planting into the indefinite future. The current spring planting would likely be
pushed forward into the fall. The institution of a new plan may also delay the beginning
of additional projected tree planting, which is funded by a State Grant. The Grant funded
program for up to 450 trees must be completed by March 2010. It is over and above, not
a substitute for, the City's regular replacement planting program.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Commission move, second, discuss, and vote on the following
motion:
1 move that the Beautification Commission recommend to Council that the spring
2008 Street Tree planting (be or not be) suspended until the Street Tree Planting
program can be fully evaluated.
Findings are required.
DOCUMENT 5
PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
•om: dschen5@stanford.edu
-Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:08 AM
To: GRP-Parks
Cc: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene; dquinnchen@yahoo.com
Subject: Burlingame Trees and Homes
To Whom it May Concern,
We are home owners in Burlingame, and we recently had a tree removed from the front of our
home (on the planter strip) because it was sick.
The tree its self was an ornamental and small tree.
We have chosen a tree from the recommended list of trees (Chinese
Hackleberry) as a new replacement tree- but are dismayed to learn that this process has
been delayed.
After understanding the reasons for the delay, we have the following comments.
We like the idea of "tree themes" for Burlingame streets. We also like the idea of grand
trees. However, the idea that such trees would be mandatory does not seem to be within
the spirit of America, let alone Burlingame. By making such tree selection mandatory,
would clearly disregard the effects of such a planting on our existing homes. In this
case, such a mandatory tree clearly could affect the amount of light that enters our home
(we have a huge array of windows in the front of home,.original to 1926) and affect our
extensive front garden (by throwing it into shade). Furthermore, our home was built very
far forward on our lot, so a big tree could directly impact our home itself. Finally, an
overly large tree could also limit our view of the Bay, and the openness of the Burlingame
ills as they descend down toward the Bay.
I would suggest that rather than enforcing mandatory plantings, that Burlingame
incorporates the spirit of the proposal at hand, and provides suggestions for new
plantings. Thus, when a tree is removed or a space for a new planting is determined,
Burlingame could suggest that a particular tree will be planted, and that the particular
tree would be perfect for that spot because it would be part of a specific theme that is
important to us as Burlingame residents. However, if the home owner has reason to choose
a different tree, that such a selection would be accommodated. This approach would likely
achieve the goals of the proposal without sacrificing our society's respect for the needs
of individuals.
I'll look forward to the results of these discussions- however, I hope we do not end up
going down the path of strict enforcement. Such a path is seldom the right choice to
achieve an end result- even if we all agree in the desire to reach that end.
Thanks for your consideration,
Daniel Chen and Deborah Quinn -Chen
Burlingame
650 743 1270
`1
1
PARKS-Hiarvey, Kariene
From: sparatte [sparatte(o)mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:10 AM
To: PARKS -Richmond, Tim; GRP-Parks
G
Ppp q r _i r
vuvj2w�: -GV GIt �JgUVn ."+i tr e pv�icy ,,.pace+ on i P vu Qy
Dear Tim _Richmond and Beautification Commission Members —
I am writing you. Tim; at this time to follow-up on our phone call yesterday. We spoke regarding the
current re-evaluation of Citv of Burlingame's street tree selection policy. In particular, i am referring to
street trees that are under primary utility lines. It is my understandina that the current policy_ allows for
selection of street trees by properly owners with Guidance and final approval from the City. This
process allows for personal choice within pre -determined City guidelines. I am writing to the
Beautification Commission to provide my comments regarding the re-evaluation of the current policy.
I am unhappy that this re-evaluation is putting the current policy, as well as prior tree selection,
approvals; and tree planting on hold. I lost two trees recently, one as a direct result of damage to roots
when the City of Burlingame installed new water line access boxes and the second one when it was
considered potentially unhealthy after a large branch fell during the January storm.
When both trees were removed, i carefully selected replacements, following the current protocol. As
you know. I have been in active discussions with the Citv's Parks Division continually since January
re?aiding tree removal; selection and tree planting. I consulted with the City of Burlingame tree
arborist, further consulted with a well known local landscape architect, Tim Redman (Polyscapes),
utilized the Official Street Tree List, reviewed my short list of preferred trees by driving around
Burlingame and looking at existing trees (from Tree Site Locations on the City "Official Tree List") and
conducted further research on the internet. i carefully and thoughtfully selected two pre -approved trees
from the provided list. I was informed that these trees would be planted in April. Though out, I have
spoken with Carlene about procedure, process, and timing.
Although have followed the current procedures and protocol, in place for 2008, I am now told that all
everything is '`on hold" due to a request by a Group of citizens. I would hope and expect that the
e,6stina policy would continue until a change, or new policy, has been approved by the City of
Bur]inaame. I am suprised that a current policy can so easily be derailed. In Ianuary, I mad- a
decision to have my trees removed based on the current policy. assurance that new trees would be
planted in April, and based on the fact that I would have input into the free selection process. I might
have made a different decision if i knew this would be "on -hold' for an undetermined length of time and
that the current selection process could be in jeopardy. it is obvious that careful analysis went into the
Of
ciaZ Street Tree List — Trees to be used under Primafy Ui'hzy Lines. Yet. it appears that this list has
no value while the City of Burlingame listens to a "group of citizens" and puts the current policy on
hold. V
i am disappointed that a current policy and well as procedures could so easily be changed by a small
group of citizens. There aremany of us that do not want `•themed street" and would live in In=ine and
not Burlingame, if we wanted such conformity. !have been a resident of Hale Drive for over 12, years
_L hiat ilb- i ood hoo to n or i cnnnoe t� ni„rr.hace a hpt P_. On thT$ a11U eilloy the dlvGr sl l�' t11a.� lily iiiuqu�. n�.i`aavi�ruvvu uo v v��.... r. _n
particular street because of its beauty, diverse mature trees, proximity to "the triangle of trees" of Hale
and Benito. and neighborhood character appeal. i did not purchase it looking for a "themed" street.
quite the opposite actually.
Please consider my input. I would suzaest that the City follow current policy until a new policy has
actually been adopted.
Sincerely
April 28, 2008
Dear Parks Services of Burlingame:
I have received and read your letter concerning a proposed change that might limit my selection
of a replacement tree from what has previously been offered, and as such I am writing to make a
plea regarding the replacement of the tree that fell at my house, 2305 Poppy Drive, on January 5,
2008.
By way of background let me explain what has taken place since that date. On January 5, 2008,
my grand old oak tree, that stood at my house on city property between the sidewalk and street,
fell as a result of the wind and rain storms on that date. The city kindly and promptly came to
chop up and eliminate the tree over the next several days. I was informed that I would be able to
choose from a list of about 18 tree options that was mailed to me by the city to have it soon
replaced.
Over the next month I did my due diligence in researching all the trees listed on the mailing sent
to me. I researched their sizes and shapes to imagine the shade and view provided. I researched
the leaves, with their color changes throughout the seasons, to imagine which colors would best
complement the colors of my house and the adjacent landscaping. I researched the type of debris
(nuts, acorns, berries) that might litterthe sidewalk. In brief, I put in many hours on the computer
trying to come up with the tree from the list that would best fit the look, style, and harmony of my
house for the benefit of both myself and my neighbors.
I placed the order for the replacement tree in February, 2008 and was told the tree would be
planted "sometime in April". Throughout the first 3 weeks of April, I made sure every day that my
car was not parked in the way of the tree delivery and installment. And each day I came home,
like an expectant mother, anticipating with excitement the arrival of my new tree.
All that changed on April 23, when I arrived home to a letter in the mail informing me that the
plans were on hold. The letter admitted that there is NO DOMINANT pattern of tree on my street
as assessed by the city. Yet the installation of my tree is in question.
It seems quite unfair at this point, with all that has happened to date and with the build up of
expectations, to delay and even possibly to change what tree options may be available to me.
This is especially true given that there is no established pattern of existing or ingoing trees on my
street. I feel that with all that has transpired to date, I should at least be grandfathered into getting
the tree that already has been planned and ordered for my house. The only acceptable
alternative at this point would be to replace the tree with the exact same type of tree that fell (an
oak).
As an aside, I would separately voice the opinion that while it is charming to have trees that are
similar and complementary lining a street, I do not feel that a tree that complements the street but
sacrifices the look, style, and feel of ones own home is worthwhile. I have many times had out-of-
town guests visit me on Poppy Drive, and they have given high praises to the variety and
uniqueness of each house, each garden, each uniquely tailored landscape. We live on a beautiful
street, and that is because everyone has the power to manicure his or her home and to maintain
a personal style and flare that works for each house. By forcing people to fit into a plan to beautify
a street may actually be forcing them into a plan that disrupts the look of their home, not only
decreasing curb appeal, and thereby decreasing property value, but also causing disharmony to
the comfort and ell -being of the hnmanw or fnr many yaarc +n nnma
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
".1 Sincerely,
Elizabeth Watson
2305 Poppy Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-291-1223
Page 1 of 1
PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
�.. ........ ......... _......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ................
From: Phyllis Everson [peverson@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 6:00 PM
To: GRP-Parks
Subject: Selection of Street Trees
I received your letter dated April 21, 2008, regarding the delay in planting the tree in front of my
home. The dominant tree in my neighborhood is the Liquid Amber. I ISO NOT want this tree
replanted in front. It has seed pods that fall and are dangerous to walkers. Their root system
ruins the street, curb, sidewalk and lawns. In a perfect world it would be "nice" to have
conformity with all "grander" trees, but I feel we need to weigh the cost of maintaining the tree
and the damage the root system can do.
Respectfully,
Phyllis Everson
1121 Cabrillo Avenue
Phyllis Everson
peverson@earthlink. net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
a/29/2009
PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
From:.
Shirley [shirleig c@earthlink.net]
ant:
Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:38 PM
o:
GRP-Parks
Subject:
Tree selection by property owners
Dear Mr. Richmond, Mr. Schwartz and the Beautification Commission, I was very upset and
concerned this week to receive a letter dated April 21st from the City of Burlingame Parks
and Rec Dept stating that a proposal is in the works to re-evaluate the current policy of
tree selection in Burlingame. I can't imagine why the group of citizens who are
requesting this evaluation are causing all this trouble in an attempt to rewrite a policy
that is not broken!
I have never heard any complaints against the current policy. I love the fact that we
have a variety of trees on all the streets, that I can go for a walk in our fair city and
look at all the different barks, leaves, flowers and canopies and I believe that the
property owners, who all pay taxes,. should have a say in the trees that they have to care
for and look at every day, rather than have this decision imposed upon them.
.I agree that the streets that currently have "theme trees" look lovely, but these trees
are decades old and it would take years and years to develop this look in newly planted
trees. In addition, in the current state of climate instability, it is really NOT a good
idea to have all the trees on one street be of the same variety, or even up to 3
varieties, due to the viruses that can decimate one type of tree, thus leaving the whole
street with dead and dying trees. An example of this is the disease of the great elm
trees and, more recently, of the live oaks.
Another problem I have with the proposed policy is that the larger trees have roots that
tend to crack the sidewalks and cause problems with the roads and require more
maintenance. We had 2 trees outside our house that had impacted the sidewalk. A city
crew had to replace the sidewalk. That work resulted in the roots of the trees being cut
and compromised, resulting in the death of the trees and the need for replacement. The
maller, ornamental trees would be less likely to cause these problems.
'also, do we want to wait for years and years for these larger, slower growing trees to
mature after planting? Many houses would have turned over their owners several times
before the trees matured.
In addition to the above, I feel the homeowners who are asked their opinion will take on
"ownership" of the trees because they are included in the choice. This is important if
the trees are to survive, as the owners do need to water and care for the trees.
As for the possibility that trees actually be removed to make way for the planting of
"theme" trees, I am so angry that I cannot even go there. I'm gong to be charitable and
hope that I misheard!
IF the commission decides, which I sincerely hope it does not, to entertain this
ridiculous scheme I would respectfully request that the two trees that are in line for
replacement outside my house be exempted form this approach. As referred to above, our two
dying trees were removed last December. My husband and I had a lot of fun looking at the
possibilities for our new trees and, after careful consideration, we decided on two cherry
trees. We actually ordered two more mature trees and agreed to pay an extra fee so that
the trees would be more mature on planting. Very unfortunately for us in light of this
problem, the trees were not delivered in January and our planting was put off until April.
Every day I have come home hoping for the new trees to be planted, only to be confronted
with this letter this week. As we were promised new trees in January by the city and
spent much time picking out our trees, I believe that we should be able to get our cherry
trees as soon as the city is able to do this and that we should not be subject to whatever
new rules are developed. We want trees outside our house, not bare land, and we don't
want to have to wait ages for this issue to be resolved!!!
I would respectfully suggest the the group of citizens making this proposal find something
else on which to spend their time. The world is in a mess, but Burlingame's trees are
ot!
lease feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 650-243-8447. I hope to be.at
the meeting on May 1st, but my husband is having surgery that da.y so this may not be
possible.
Respectfully yours,
Shirley Eigenbrot
Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1823 amending Chapters 6.24,
6.30, 6.36, 6.38, 6.40, 6.42, and 18.07 to provide that the fees for permit applications and renewals will be
set by City Council resolution and amending Chapter 6.36 to explicitly provide for annual inspections of
taxicabs; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor O'Mahony directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Resolution No. 41-2008 approving revisions to 2008
Master Fee schedule for City services; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke on Item 8.a.: James Peters, 18 Bloomfield Road; Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut
Avenue; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. There were no further
comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. REPORT ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION'S MEETING AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLAN TO HAVE STREETS WITH THEMED TREES
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council support Beautification Commission
recommendations for the plan to have streets with themed trees.
Council discussion followed: owners should have more than three choices for non-themed streets; citizens
like a variety of trees on the street; choices would depend on planting strip size and dominant tree; should
use root barriers and two stakes for new plantings; request remove Liquid Amber specie from list; the City
should make the selection for non-themed streets since street trees are part of the City's infrastructure;
"themed street" means similar types of trees; need to work with homeowner on selection.
Mayor O'Mahony opened comments from the floor. The following citizens spoke: Mark Grandcolas, 754
Walnut Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor.
Council concurred with all of the Beautification Commission's recommendations; however, there were
conflicting requests to incorporate into Recommendation #2: give homeowners a choice of only two or three
trees or give homeowners more choices. P&RD Schwartz stated that this item will be discussed further with
the Beautification Commission, including types of options, preparing a new inventory, adding width data,
and working with the homeowners on the overall canopy effect on their streets.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. RESOLUTION NO.42-2008 ACCEPTING 2008 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM BY
C.F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC.
DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 42-2008 accepting improvements of Street
Resurfacing Program 2007 by C.F. Archibald Paving, Inc., City Project No. 81670.
b. RESOLUTION NO.43-2008 ACCEPTING TROUSDALE DRIVE TRANSMISSION
PIPELINE PROJECT BY SHAW PIPELINE, INC.
3
Burlingame City Council May 19, 2008
Approved Minutes