HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2008.08.07AGENDA
B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
AUGUST 7, 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 Update
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Commission and Council Recommendations for Street Tree Policy
Changes
a) Approval of Official Street Tree Lists
b) Draft List of "Themed" Blocks
c) Draft new "Themed" Block Policy
VII. REPORTS
1. Staff
2. Chairperson
3. Commissioners
Next Regular Meeting:
Thursday, September 4, 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. orQ.
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.
STAFF REPORT
SURLINGAME
AGENDA
ITEM # _
MTG.
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED
BY Q
DATE: May 13, 2008
APPROVED
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION'S MEETING
AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLAN TO HAVE STREETS
WITH THEMED TREES
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council support the recommendations of the
Beautification Commission after reviewing the minutes and attachments from the Beautification
Commission meeting and hearing from the public.
BACKGROUND:
At its April 3, 2008 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, including 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).
The City Council discussed the item at their April 7t' meeting, directed staff to not plant any more street
trees unless the requested tree was the same species as at least 50% of the trees on the block. The item
was reaffirmed by Council at their April 21" meeting. The Council also directed that the item be placed
on the Beautification Commission's May 2008 agenda.
The Beautification Commissioners, at their May 5h meeting, heard testimony from four individuals and
five emails regarding a plan to create tree themed streets throughout the City. The in-depth discussions
included a wide variety of points associated with the plan including predominate tree planting, existing
"themed" streets, diseases and monocultures, property owner choice, vacant planting sites in the City, "good" trees with
tall canopies, "grand" trees, diversity, ornamentals, evergreens, recommended changes to existing tree lists, reducing
smaller trees from lists and adding taller species, limitations of planter strip widths in the City, ADA compliance,
"meandering" sidewalks, existing "themes" vs. sidewalks, delays in planting, impacts on Tree City USA status and use
of Green Trees grant funds.
The Commission reached consensus on the following points for recommendation to the City Council:
• Retain existing "themed" streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing with existing specie, if
the dominant tree on the street is a tall tree even if it disrupts sidewalks
• Do not create "themed" streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners
to choose off of the appropriate tree list
• Revisions be made by staff to the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the
tallest, most significant canopies
• Retain "ornamentals" and "evergreen" tree species that have the tallest, most significant canopies
on the official tree lists
• Include some larger species from 6' planter strip list to the 3-6' planter strip list where possible
or change dimensions of planting strip requirements
• Create larger planting spaces throughout the City where possible
• Only remove and replace trees when an existing tree must be removed
• Tree planting should begin as soon as possible
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Amended Street Tree Policy Proposal
B. Minutes from the May 5, 2008 Beautification Commission Meeting
C. Emails included in the Commission Packet
D. Street Tree Planting Plan
E. City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts
F. Staff Options for Planting Larger Stature Street Trees
G. Letter to Residents on April 2008 Street Tree Planting List
Attachment "X'
AIVIEN DEID STREET TREE POLICE' ~PROPOSAL
® REVIEW POLICY RVIPLEMENTATION OF BURLINGAiVIE'S URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
PLAN, FOCUSING ON AREAS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT (SEE EXCERPTS BELOW).
a 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 SIDEWALES
CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED LATER ON WITHIN CITY SETBAM IN ORDER TO
ACCOMMODATE PLANTING GRANDER TYPES OF TREES IN NARROWER STRIPS.
VISUALLY ASSESS NEIGHBORHOODS TIT -AT HAVE FEW OR NO TREES AND SELECT THREE
(3) SPECIES, (INCLUDING TWO (2) TYPES THAT WILL BE GRAND IN STATURE AND
APPROPRLATE WHERE NO OVER -WIRES EXIST) FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSIDER -
NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE PROGRAM- AND IF INTERES`rf-D, HAVE THEM RErJ-RN
A POSTCARD WITH THEIR CHOICE. ABOVE ALL, CHANGE THE CURRENT POLICY WHICH
.ALLOWS HOMEOWNERS TO SELECT THEIR OWN STREET TREES
M
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Attachment `B"
MAY 5, 2008
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson
Carney.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Carney, Benson, Ellis, Grandcolas, Lahey (arrived @ 6:05p), and McQuaide
Absent: Commissioner Wright
Staff: Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, Supervisor Disco, and Admin. Secretary Harvey
Guests: Pat Giomi (1445 Balboa), Jennifer Pfaff (615 Bayswater), Elizabeth Watson (2305 Poppy), David Ferenc
(City of San Mateo)
NIINUTES — The minutes of the April 3, 2008 Beautification Commission were approved as corrected to read: (Pg.
3/3�Paragraph) Recommendation on Suspension of Current Street Tree Planting for New Plan Evaluation:
Superintendent Richmond noted that this item as well as the proposal will be on the April 7' Council agenda ... and
(4` Paragraph), It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairperson Carney and Commissioners Lahey and
McQuaide attend the April f Council meeting on behalf of the Commission. Added to read: (Pg. 4/under Reports.
Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended all the Arbor Day tree planting ceremonies at the elementary schools as
well as the Centennial Tree planting in Washington Park.
CORRESPONDENCE
Memorandum from City Attorney Anderson, dated March 20, 2008, to All City Commissions and Boards regarding the
Ralph M. Brown Act.
Letters dated April 5, 2008, from property owners at 17 & 18 Clarendon appealing the denial of the removal of certain
Oak trees at 15 Clarendon Road.
Copy of letter to property owners on the April 2008 street tree planting list, informing them that Council directed
postponement of the April 2008 tree planting until a citizen's proposal to change the current street tree selection
process/planting policies could be reviewed by the Beautification Commission for further recommendation to the
Council.
Copies of letters from five property owners, commenting on the delayed April 2008 planting, as well as addressing
components of the proposal to change the current street tree selection process/planting policies.
Copy of: City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts. (Data obtained for City's tree inventory software)
Staff Report from Superintendent Richmond, dated April 23, 2008, to the Beautification Commission commenting on
components of the proposal to change the current street tree selection process/planting policies in the City of
Burlingame.
Copies of Suggestions for Changes to Street Tree Policies and Plantings from Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff dated May
1, 2008, (received at the May 1, 2008 Beautification Commission meeting).
The Atmospheric Value of Trees submitted by Commissioner Grandcolas, (received at the May 1, 2008 Beautification
Commission meeting).
FROM THE FLOOR
None.
OLD BUSINESS
Business Landscape Award Election - Action
�-- Commissioner Benson reported that the Landscape Award Committee received two nominations from the community:
1) Solo Bambini, 1150 Howard Avenue, and 2) Broadway Grill, 1400 Broadway. Commissioner Benson reported that
the Committee recommends the award be presented to Solo Bambini because the property added custom made pots and
plants with attractive colors, was well maintained, and was well coordinated with the neighboring property.
Commissioner Lahey also noted that the business had a unique charm and was "eye catching". After a brief discussion,
Commissioner McQuaide moved that Solo Bambini be the recipient of the 2008 Business Landscape Award; seconded,
\... Commissioner Ellis. Motion carried 6 — 0 —1 (absent/Wright).
Business Landscape Award Election — Action (Contd.)
Commissioner Lahey stated a letter would be sent to the winning business informing them of the Commissions decision
and of the award presentation at a future Council meeting. She also noted that artist Dale Perkins would be contacting
the owners of Solo Bambini regarding the pen and ink illustration to be provided to the winning business.
Proposed Changes to the. Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies —
SuperintendentRichmond stated that the Commission is in receipt of the Staff Report dated April 23'a as well as the
City of Burlingame Street Tree Statistics, of which, along with letters from 5 property owners commenting on the
delayed April planting components of the proposal, would be reviewed together with Supervisor Disco's recommended
additions and changes to the existing Official Street tree lists. He added that Director Schwartz would be facilitating
the gathering of comments from the Commission as well as from the public before Commission decides on its
recommendation to Council. He noted that the Commission is also in receipt of additional information received at
tonight's meeting from Pat Gionii and Jennifer Pfaff.
Superintendent Richmond and the Commission reviewed the Staff Report, dated April 23, 2008, addressing
information relevant to the suggestions raised by the proposal: Dominant Species, Planting Strip Limitations,
Inventory Upgrade, and Status of Current Tree Planting Programs. Street Tree Statistics was then reviewed as well as
correspondence received from 5 property owners, most of which reflected disappointment with the postponement of the
April tree planting, generally expressing property owners having choice in tree selection as part of the process, but not
necessarily wanting predominate species on blocks to determine those selections.
Supervisor Disco then presented to the Commission his recommended revisions to the Official Street tree lists and
commented that he generally added and retained species on each list that had larger, taller canopies that could be
supported by the existing planter strips. He removed species that were smaller in scale, weaker in structure, or had a
high rate of pest/disease issues. He also stated that he retained "ornamentals" and "evergreens" because there should
be a mix of trees in the urban forest. He noted that of the 45 species currently being offered for street tree planting, the
recommended selection had now been reduced to 33 different species. Supervisor Disco concluded that purchasing
availability from local vendors is "key", and that he would continue researching to make further recommendations as
other species become available. Superintendent Richmond stated that a new inventory system is needed by a qualified
company that would at the same time, be able to include new attributes, but is not something that could be efficiently
conducted by volunteers or staff. He noted that current removal and replacement had been stalled by the current
process. He added that staff now also needs to begin the process with property owners for the fall 'Green Trees' grant
selection and planting.
Chairperson Carney then opened and Director Schwartz facilitated the meeting discussion from the Commission and
public regarding the proposed changes to the street tree selection/planting policies.
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, stated that property owners have been able to choose what has been planted in the City -
owned planter strips since 1972 which she believes has created a "mish mash" of trees throughout the City. She stated
that she hopes property owners will have "limited" choice because streets and planter strips belong to the City, and that
"themed" streets be retained noting that few streets had "themes".
Ms. Pfaff explained that property owners are transient and should not be able to choose the type of tree in the city -
owned property, and that "ornamental" trees should be removed from the tree lists because they are not long lived,
noting however, that retaining "evergreens" on the list is o.k. because they do help to add a mix. With regard to
sidewalk issues, Ms. Pfaff commented that the old sidewalks did not have rebar like the newer sidewalks and have less
movement, and that the extra money should be spent to enlarge the planter width so that larger trees can be planted.
Pat Gion i, 1445 Balboa, stated that letters from the City should be sent to homeowners who live on blocks with "no
theme" by giving the homeowners on the block 3 choices (selected by staff); the winning selection would then be the
"theme" tree for the block or area. Ms. Giomi concluded that policy should be changed so that every block in the City
would have a "themed" planting.
Elizabeth Watson, 2305 Poppy Drive, commented that the homes in Burlingame are very individual, and each has "a
look", adding that she lost the city -owned Oak tree during the past storm and that the Oak tree gave a grand look to her
�... home, noting that nothing would replace it. Ms. Watson commented that she researched all 15 trees on the list she
received, as to the size and shape of the tree, before making her selection and that she would really react if she had only
3 trees to choose from.
Proaosed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies — (Contd.)
Ms. Watson continued that she does not think the City should dictate to property owners shade or no shade, or color or
no color; that there are so many different reasons why a homeowner would choose a particular tree in front of their
home, that having a choice of the type of tree is a critical part of her house and is integral with her property value, as
well as how a tree impacts her well-being and comfort. Ms. Watson concluded that she would strongly disagree if she
could not have that "choice", and that she would also find only having 3 choices of trees very offensive.
David Ferenc, stated he lives in San Mateo, is a tree man and works in Burlingame, but had previously lived in
Burlingame for 46 years. He stated that Burlingame is a wonderful community and the most beautiful example of
diversity of tree species can be found in Washington Park. Mr. Ferenc added that because of pest and disease and the
lack of interesting diversity he is totally against monocultures on blocks and thinks entire streets should have diversity.
Following the comments, Chairperson Carney closed the discussion to the public and brought the item back to the
Commission only.
Director Schwartz facilitated while the Commission discussed the different components of the proposal, including
predominate tree planting, existing "theme&" streets, diseases and monocultures, property owner choice, vacant
planting sites in the City, "good' trees with tall canopies, "grand" trees, diversity, ornamentals, evergreens,
recommended changes to existing tree lists, reducing smaller trees from lists and adding taller species, limitations of
planter strip widths in the City, ADA compliance, "meandering" sidewalks, existing "themes" vs. sidewalks, delays in
planting, impacts on Tree City USA status, use of Green Trees grant funds, etc.
Following the facilitation and the discussion it was a consensus of the Commission that after review and consideration
of the proposal, the following recommendation be made to Council:
• Retain existing "themed" streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing with existing specie, if the dominant
tree on the street is a tall tree even if it disrupts sidewalks
• Do not create "themed" streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners to choose off
of the appropriate tree list
• Revisions be made by staff to the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the tallest, most
significant canopies
• Retain "ornamentals" and "evergreen" tree species that have the tallest, most significant canopies on the
official tree lists
• Include some larger species from 6' planter strip list to the 3-6' planter strip list where possible or change
dimensions of planting strip requirements
• Create larger planting spaces throughout the City where possible
• Only remove and replace trees when an existing tree must be removed
• Tree planting should begin as soon as possible
Chairperson Carney thanked Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff for their work. Ms. Pfaff asked Supervisor Disco to reassess
the purchasing availability of the Accolade Elm and the Zelkova, that they may be more accessible. Supervisor Disco
responded that he would research availability of those species again.
REPORTS —
Superintendent's Report
1. Removals:
a. Two Hawthorns failed in the heavy winds two Saturdays back.
b. There were two trees on Easton that Kevin Kielty strongly suggested be removed in the near future —
one a pine with a dead top and a cypress with an irregular top and continuous limb drop. Bob will
keep you updated as any planning unfolds.
2. First search for new Superintendent did not result in a job offer to a candidate; the process has begun again.
Superintendent Richmond will be doing projects for Director Schwartz as a partial interim measure. Parks is
�... also filling other openings—Leadworker, Tree Worker, Park Maintenance Worker.
3. Parks tree crew is prnming current grid section.
4. Thanks to the Commission from Superintendent Richmond for all the productive time together. Best wishes as
the Commission continues to work on issues of great importance to Council and the entire community.
REPORTS — (Contd.)
Commissioner McOuaide
Commissioner McQuaide commented that she will miss Tim Richmond that he had been very helpful during her term
as chairperson of the Commission and has appreciated his support over the years.
Commissioner Grandcolas
Commissioner Grandcolas submitted The Atmospheric Value of Trees information sheet explaining the economic and
environmental value tree play due to the oxygen production and carbon removal in the atmosphere. He reported that
the Green Ribbon Task Force will have a booth on May 18`h at the Fresh Market and invited any. of the Commissioners
to join him in handing out information with regard to trees. Superintendent Richmond commented that the Parks
Division has flyers that addresses the benefits of trees in the environmental that Commissioner Grandcolas may wish to
use.
Commissioner Grandcolas then thanked Tim stating he had been extremely helpful to the Commission and would be
missed very much.
Commissioner Lahev
Commissioner Lahey stated that she has enjoyed Tim's input and guidance and that she has learned a lot from his
insight and knowledge.
Chairperson Ellis
Commissioner Ellis thanked Tim and has appreciated all his help to the Commission over the years_
Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended the Training Workshop for Commissioners that was recently conducted.
Commissioner Benson
Commissioner Benson reported that she attended the planting day on Burlingame Avenue on April 6th, planted 28
Lavender plants in the Broadway "bulb outs" renovated the Mills Canyon Kiosk, cleaned up the entrances to Mills
Canyon, and announced that on Friday, May 9`300 ninth graders will be visiting the Mills Canyon for a nature walk.
Commissioner Benson thanked Tim for helping to revive the Friends of Mills Canyon group by working with them.
There being no farther business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Karlene Harvey
Recording Secretary
Attachment "C"
PARKS -Purvey, Karlene
L.- From: 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 of
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 grant
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 Burlingan
hills 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
PA.'K_3-Harvey,. Karlene
�. .... ........ ........
From: sparatte [sparatte@mindspring.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:10 AM
T o: PAPKS-P.ichmond, Tim; GU -Parks
Qui�'riact: Pe-vValuation of tree policy - i ip ct on Current Policy
Dear Tire Richmond and Beautification Commission Members —
i am writing vou. Tim; at this time to follow-up on our phone call-Testerday. We spoke regarding the
current re-evaluation of City- of Buriingame's street tree selection policy. In particular, i am referring to
street trees that are under primary utility lines. It is my understanding that the current policy allows for
selection of street trees by property 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.
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 a1ier a large branch fell during the January storm.
When both trees were removed, i carefully selected replacements, following the current protocol. As
You xilou,, i have been in active discussions with the Citv's Parks Division continually since January
re_gardina tree removal; selection and tree planting. I consulted with the City of Burlingame tree
arborist, further consulted with a well blown local landscape architect, Tun Redman (Poiyscapes),
utilized the Official Street Tree List, reviewed my short list of preferred trees by driving around
rurlinaarne 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. T was informed that these trees would be planted in April. Though out, I have
spoken with Carlene about procedure, process, and timing.
.#lttouzh T 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
existing policy would continue until a change, or new police, has been approved by the City of
Burlingame. i am surprised that a current policy can so easily be derailed. In January, i made a
decision to have my trees removed based on the current policy., assurance that new trees would be
planned in April, and based on the fact that i would have input into the tree selection process. I might
have made a di Brent decision if I knew this would be "on -hold" or an undetermined length of time and
that the current selection process could be in jeopardy. It is obvious that careful analysis went into the
0§cial Street Tree List — Trees ro be used under Primmy Utilin; 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 cn
mold.
I am disappointed that a current policy and well as procedures could so easily be changed by a small
group of citizens. There are many of us that do not want "themed street" and would live in Irvine and
not Burlingame_ if we wanted such conformity. I have been a resident of Hale Drive for over 12 years
and eri oy the t11YGrJiLV uiat iTij% unique neighborhood has to offer. T choose to purchase a home on this
paricula7 street because of its beauty, diverse mature trees, proximiry to `tile 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. 1 would suggest that the Citv follow current policy until a new policy has
actually been adopted.
%--.1 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 litter the sidewalk. In brief, I put in many hours on the computer
trying to come up with the tree from the !ist that would best fit the look, style, and harmony of my
house forthe 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 infonning 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 well-being of the homeowner for many years to come.
O.� Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Watson
2305 Poppy Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010
F.n-9A1-i99�
Page 1 of 1
11 .. DARKS -Harvey, Karlene
From: Phyllis Lverson [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 DO 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(cbearth link. net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
on
OR
PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
From: Shirley [shirleig ctiearthlink.net]
�•.� Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:38 PM
To: 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 Park
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 polio
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 anc
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 gooc
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
smaller, 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 tw
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 cherr
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 whateve
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 somethin
�j else on which to spend their time. The world is in a mess, but Burlingame's trees are
not!
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 650-243-8447. I hope to be.a
the meeting on May 1st, but my husband is having surgery that day so this may not be
possible.
Respectfully _yours,
Attachment "D" ii
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.
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.)
ill. 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.
What is done with current plantings that defeat the dominant tree
�..
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.
L 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 trees.
The offerings will be specific to the zones being planted.
2. Acknowledge that certain portions of the City are best left with diverse plantings;
focus on target single species areas (existing "themed" blocks).
I
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.
's,
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
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 to be planted. Staff needs a consistent response for these 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?
Attachment "E"
Citv of Burlingame Street Tree Facts
13,000 + City -owned Street Trees (park trees & other City -owned trees not included)
238 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)
M
Attachment "F"
Staff Options for Planting Larger Stature Street Trees
Several options already exist for planting larger stature street trees.
Infrastructure Based Stratagies
(Costello/Jones 2003)
• Curving sidewalks
• Pop -outs (remove curb and extend planting area into street)
• Nonstandard size slabs (39"min sidewalks)
• Monolithic sidewalks (rubber)
• Increase right-of-way (move sidewalk to City property line)
• Eliminate sidewalk
• Create tree islands
• Narrow streets
Tree -Based Strategies
(Costello/Jones 2003)
Species Selection:
• "Many arborists regard species selection as a key consideration in tree root -pavement conflicts"
(Harris, Clark, and Matheny 2004)
• Infrastructure damage can be reduced by selecting the proper tree species appropriate for the
planting space.
• Avoid species found to have shallow -rooting characteristics under local conditions. (one species
may work good in one location and not the other based on soil conditions)
• Refer to the root flare diameter or diameter at ground level (DGL) when determining the planting
space.
• Species list should take into consideration root characteristics based on field observations.
Materials Strategies
(Costello/Jones 2003)
• Reinforce concrete with rebar, mesh or fiber
• Expansion joints close to trees
• Thicker slabs
• Pervious concrete
• Flexible concrete joints and flexible sidewalks
Alternatives to Concrete
• Asphalt
• Recycled rubber
Mulch
• Pavers
• Decomposed granite and compacted gravel.
Root zone Based Strategies
• Root barriers (plastic)
• Root paths (narrow trenches filled with loam where roots can grow)
• Steel plates
• Gravel (1-1.5" crushed gravel installed under pavement)
• Foam underlay(backing under concrete that protects slab)
• Structural soil
• Polyethylene sheets (installed vertically)
Recent studies show that plastic root barrier and poly sheets were the most effective in preventing
infrastructure damage. Structural soil, gravel, and foam underlay were least effective.
All these products work better in well drained soil. The study was done in moderately drained clay loam
soil.
The study also showed that installation of any kind of treatment is best done at time of sidewalk or tree
installation. It was determined that the combination of vertical root barriers and underpavement
treatments may reduce the risk of damage to pavement even further. (Arborculture & Urban
Forestry —May 2008)
Redwood City Program
Design Modifications
• Curve sidewalks
• Replace with Monolithic
• Move curb into street
• Reduce sidewalk width to 39"
Other choices
• Remove sidewalk
• Eliminate curb
• Ramp sidewalk over roots
Policy Changes
• Modify planting sites to provide largest area
• Plant vacant sites
• Notify public of work that is scheduled
• Trees planted at the discretion of the City.
• Phase removals over time to lesson impact
• Avoid planting small trees
Attachment "G"
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216
�1
recreationkburlin _ a� me. org
April 21, 2008
Resident
(Address)
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
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 parks@.burlingame.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