The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2004.05.06NOTICE B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MAY 612004 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL Conference Room A 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA A GENDA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2004 MEETING `-' M. 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 A. Appeal of the Denial to Remove a Cedar Tree @ 1915 Broadway B. Public Education Regarding Tree Practices & Policies Sub Committee Status/Update & Discussion C. Tree Trimming Policies Under Public Utilities Sub Committee Status/Update & Discussion VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Volunteer Maintenance Proposal B. Review of Spring Garden Seminar VII. REPORTS A. Parks & Recreation Director B. Parks Superintendent C. Chairperson D. Commissioners CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME,YA'k,e, PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME "y 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Y ° 9 m Telephone (650) 558-7300 • Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 d ; Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org April 5, 2004 Richard & Nina Hoskinson 1915 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO DENY THE REMOVAL OF A PROTECTED CEDAR TREE @ 1915 BROADWAY - BURLINGAME Due to schedule conflicts, the Beautification Commission was unable to obtain a quorum for the April 1 st meeting. Therefore, in was necessary to cancel the meeting and postpone any action on your appeal to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 6, 2004. We apologize for this inconvenience. Should you wish to attend the May 6`, meeting to address the Commission regarding your appeal, please note that the Commission meets at City Hall, 501 Primrose `— Road, in Conference Room A, at 5:30 p.m. Your item will be placed at the beginning of the meeting following any items "From the Floor". Sincerely, A Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent TR/kh CC: Frederich & Anna Mertl P.O. Box 178 Truckee, CA 96160 Trevor & Frances Collins 1901 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 Lori Weinberg 1149 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY o� CITE' OF RURLINGAME B U R L I N G A ME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT _ 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 h Telephone (650) 558-7300 • Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 CDRpOR,ATED,Aa Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org`'°--" March 24, 2004 Richard & Nina Hoskinson 1915 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL FOR THE REMOVAL OF A PROTECTED CEDAR TREE @ 1915 BROADWAY - BURLINGAME We are in receipt of your letter appealing the denial for the removal of a protected Cedar tree at the above address. The meeting will be held at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Burlingame Beautification Commission on Thursday, April I" at 5:30 p.m. The Commission meets at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, should you Aish to attend and address the Commission regarding this matter. Sincerely, f�G Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent 1"211 CC: Frederich & Anna Mertl P.O. Box 178 Truckee, CA 96160 Trevor & Frances Collins 1901 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 Lori Weinberg 1149 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame Beautification Commission: We wish to appeal the denial of our request to remove the cedar tree from our property. The tree in question has become extremely large and the roots are causing our patio to crack, it is lifting the concrete and cracking the wall around the children's play areas. It is also beginning to cause cracks in our neighbor's patio. We have had an Arborist out to check the possibility of removing the offending roots and he told us that cannot be done without harming the tree. He suggested trimming the top of the roots but, from past experience with other trees on our property, this is only a temporary solution in that the roots grow back in a couple of years and we, again, will have to remove the patio in order to trim the roots. We believe the most cost effective solution for both us and our neighbor is to have the tree removed. We do not have any objections to planting another tree in an area where property damage can not occur. Attached are letters from our neighbors stating that they do not `-' have any objections to the removal of the tree from our property, Sincerely, Richard and Nina 1-loskinson 1915 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 MAR-24-04 09:03 AM ALVIN WILSON 0!?*21 km 1707 429 0526 F.0i r- . U;s March 18 , 11. 00 4 To Whom Tt May Co-IrWern, I recelved the h:t'wr from the Cil.�, of Burlingame Parks and Rec,leatioz, Department advislkq tne that Richard and Nina Hosicins,on wished to rcivww� the cedar tree from their property at 1915 Broad -way. I do not hwve an1v objcetlontu thin rcinoving the tree. In fact T would Prefer *hat it b� rcmoved. The tree has become so I artV that th.� roots have began cracking our patio and the tree is so addic drat nothingwifl grow In okir yard where it hangs Over the fCftCe, I AOL[d like it removed b.cforc it daniag.--s our proipeay any furthor. Sincerelly, Anna Mort! P.O. Bux 1178 Truckee, CA 96160 March 18, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: I received the letter from the City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department advising me that Richard and Nina Hoskinson wished to remove the cedar tree from their property at 1915 Broadway. I do not have any objections to them removing the tree. `.. Sincerely, Trevor Collins 1901 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 ON 4 FROM . FAX HO. May. 1-7 200"3 05:08AM P1 KAP--19-2004 09!45 AM P.61 fi /March 18, 2004 r r To Whom It May Concern: I received the letter from the City of Burlingame Parks and RecreWon Department advising me that Richard and Dina Hoskinson wished to remove the cedar tre4 from their property at 1915 Broadway. I do not have any objections to them removing the tree. Sincerely, /�y^F r f ! 1 Lori Weinberg 1149 Drake Avcnue Burlingame, CA. 94010 M CITY o� y/�' (CIT"CREATION ��'T1, O�FgY�,BUUTRLIINGADME �/��TT BURLINGAME PARKS y�'CREA IO DEPARTMENT v' 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Telephone (650) 558-7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 COVpORATHDO Fax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org March 3, 2004 Richard & Nina Hoskinson 1915 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE CEDAR TREE @ 1915 BROAD WA Y - BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of one Cedar tree in the back yard at the above address and have made the following determination: 1) The Cedar tree is a healthy, well-balanced, structurally sound specimen. 2) The tree is causing no significant property damage. 3) The reasons cited justifying removal of the tree does not fall within the criteria used for approval. 4) Therefore, the application has been denied. This decision may be appealed to the Burlingame Beautification Commission by filing a written appeal by March 24th, 2004. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Steven Porter City Arborist - (ISA #WC-3073) SP/kh CC: Frederich & Anna Mertl P.O. Box 178 Truckee, CA 96160 Trevor & Frances Collins 1901 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 Lori Weinberg 1149 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION �- PAM & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 BURLEVGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME,. CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: ADDRESS: (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES �Iz 0 N t FEE— CIRCUMFERENCE LOCATION ON PROPERTY :5 i -bE Y A-Wb WORK TO BE PERFORMED R crrrt OOCD REASON WORK IS NECESSARY Res KAr - Ue4zy CLOSe' Ta 6.45 6,ur A:hlD (please use back of form for additional comments) NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) MUST BE \.. SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A $25.00 CHECK TO: THE CITY OFBURLINGAME. OWNER Qt t it ,0-b /M 0 a (-%oSKi NSo � ADDRESS 19 (S 6 2p 01W At PHONE ((09) ) 3 40 - `i X4Sr ) PERMIT This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 1 T.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER CITY ARBORIST PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) will be required and may be planted any on the property. If conditions _are not feet within tit allotted time as specified in Section 11.06 080, payment of $400 for each tree into the tree replacement fiend will be required. NO replacements) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when renzoval(s) completed DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES A copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed 4;1/03 �' C �.s -� rf mac, �' �r�l�dXl�r � ��r y .t 7 � .! ! � t � t;= ._ � °. r r� -ia' 3 ,� �� tzE.� �� '$ _� �A � k _ ,1 36 � e _ �' �!4 � 1 �.. _ 4- T q p j � �� `_ � _ ,� �" �fi � _�j {. �, �' � �': .... _ 'p s' �- �a . �� ...� , � - > ,e k - �. li 1 i � 44, CITY n STAFF REPORT 6URIJ CIE oe Awico .wwt �• TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: February 23, 2004 f FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager (558-7205) BY SUBJECT: Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA ITEM # 8b MTG, DATE 3/1/04 mij It is recommended that the City Council consider a resolution in support of the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act, sponsored by the League of California Cities' political action committee, CITIPAC which is to be placed on the November 2004 Ballot. BACKGROUND: Since 1991, the California State government has taken local taxes to fund State programs and services. The "ty of Burlingame has lost over $10 million dollars since this siphoning began. This is money, which had would have gone into local street maintenance, public safety, building improvements, park improvements, and libraries. The arbitrary confiscation of local revenue increased with the State's adoption of their budget for the current fiscal year. An additional $400,000 dollars in local automobile registration revenue was eliminated. The State also set aside the 70-year old local government funding structure by putting in place a mechanism to take one- half of the city's sales tax to pay off loans that they are securing to cover the State deficit. This includes a "commitment" to keep cities and counties whole with an equal amount of property tax. This is the same commitment made in 1998 when the State started to take vehicle license revenue. In his proposed budget for the 2004-05 fiscal year, the Governor has proposed increased cuts in local revenue which would cost Burlingame an additional $0.3 million next year•, and the leadership of the State Legislature has declared their intent to stop the VFL backfill which is over $1 million dollars annually to Burlingame. All of this suggests there is a reasonable chance the State will double it's current draw of $1.3 million from Burlingame, to over $2.6 million+ Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act It is very apparent the Legislature and Governor are either unwilling or unable to protect local revenue and services. ,,_,.ien the State government repeatedly fails to address issues that are significant to the residents of California, a statewide initiative is the only recourse available to correct the problem. The specter of continued state appropriation of local revenue is the greatest threat to local residents since State inaction on rising property taxes spawned Proposition 13 in 1978. Failure to stop the State from arbitrarily taking more and more local --venue will lead to a significant deterioration of local services, quality of life, and property values. The League of California Cities, the umbrella organization for all 478 California cities, is sponsoring an initiative for the November 2004 ballot: The Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act. The initiative is also being sponsored by the California Association of Special Districts and is endorsed by The Executive Committee of the California State Association of Counties. The purpose of this initiative is very simple: to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds should be taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted, or otherwise used to fund State government operations and responsibilities. This initiative does not impose any new taxes. It does not take funds away from any other service or program. It will not restore what our communities have already lost. It will simply put voters in control to decide whether they want any more of their local taxes to go to State to balance their budget which were mismanaged during better financial times. The attached resolution supporting this measure is recommended for adoption. The resolution also directs the Council and staff to provide impartial informational materials on the initiative as provided for by State law and encourages Burlingame residents to become well informed on the initiative and its potential impacts on local services. Residents wishing to find out more about the initiative may go to the League of California Cities website www.cacities.or . Attachment: 1. Guest Editorial "State Takes the Shift.- Taxpayers Get the Shaft" by Arne Croce 2. Graph showing the Percent of Personal Income growth between cities and the State. 3. Comparison of State and City Revenues adjusted for constant dollars. 4. Initiative Language for the "Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act' State Makes the Shift. Taxpayers Get the Shaft Arne Croce, City Manager City of San Mateo For the past twelve years, the Governor and State Legislature have been bleeding the quality of life and property values from the residents and businesses of California. This hidden cost to local taxpayers goes by the confusing, bureaucratic name of "ERAF Shift "ERAF' stands for "Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund." This name gives the impression that your local tax dollars are going to provide additional funds for education. This is not the case. ERAF does not provide one cent of additional revenue to our local schools. The State has a constitutional mandate to fund education at a minimum level from State revenue. With the ERAF shift, the State takes local property tax dollars from cities and counties to meet its obligation for school funding. With this scheme, the State is able to use other revenue to fund State programs and services. It is sort of like stealing your neighbor's car, so you can use the money you would spend on a car to build a new swimming pool! This shift began in 1992 as a "temporary" measure for the State to balance its budget during the recession. Interestingly, the shift continued even when the State was rolling in surpluses during the late 1990's. This shift hurts local property owners by the steady erosion of the city services that `— maintain the quality of life in our communities and contribute to high property values. Every year, the City of San Mateo loses over $2.5 million in local property taxes to this "shift". This is money that should be spent on paving local streets, making our public safety facilities seismically safe, maintaining local parks, and providing library services. Over the past 12 years, this has cost City of San Mateo taxpayers approximately $30 million of local services and programs. The Governor's proposed budget for 2004/2005 would increase this annual shift by $700,000 from the City of San Mateo. ERAF is more than a shift of money. It is also a shift in responsibility and control. By taking away our local money, State legislators and the Governor have shifted the unpopular decisions of budget cuts and tax increases to local council members and county supervisors. By taking away local money, the State is assuming control over the use of this money from local voters and locally elected officials. The cities, counties, and special districts of California have said "enough". After working unsuccessfully with the State over the past 12 years to restore the integrity of local control and revenue, an initiative has been developed for voters for the November 2004 ballot: The Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act of 2004. This initiative is very simple and democratic. It does not raise taxes. It does not take money away from education or other government services. It does not even return the billions of dollars taken from our communities over the past 12 years. The initiative simply provides that should the State ever again seek to take local taxes and use them for State OR purposes, they must place the proposal on the ballot for the voters to decide. This measure will restore the ability of voters to determine how they want their local taxes spent. The San Mateo City Council has endorsed The Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act of 2004. This will be the most significant vote for local taxpayers since property taxes were capped in 1978. Just as Proposition 13 protected local homeowners by putting the brakes on runaway property tax increases, this initiative will put the breaks on the State government's insatiable appetite for local taxes. Failure to stop the State will result in decreased quality of life and property values in our communities and the loss of local control. OR California General Fund Spending Mow., 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% ' State revenues as a percentage of total state personal Income; City revenues as personal income of city residents. SOURCES: Govemor's Budget Summary (state $), State Controller reports (city $), Calif Dept of Finance (population #s), US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (personal income data), computations by Coleman Advisory Services. up 21% wn California State and City Revenues Per Capita - Constant 1999-00 Dollars $2,632 $2,500 $2,000 $1,882 Other Revenues $247 Tobacco $32, $1,500 Personnel Income Tax $550 Insurance VLF & Reg $109 Estate Tax $43 Sales & Use $500 Tax $593 Liquor $16 Bank & Corp $9241 $0 State 1977-78 $1,279 Cities 1977-78 Rvenues $260 Dbacco $35 Personnel Income ,.,.Tax $1204 i ,". Insurance $3811111"NINN-<1:-.... ='VLFg $152 Estate Tax $3 ales & Us Tax $705 Sank & Corp $19 State 2000-01 $1,170 L A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE LOCAL TAX FUNDS WHEREAS, state government annually seizes over $800 million in city property tax funds (ERAF) statewide, costing cities over $6.9 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years and seriously reducing resources available for local public safety and other services; and WHEREAS, in adopting the state budget this year the Legislature and Governor appropriated local vehicle license fee backfill and redevelopment property tax funds that are needed to finance critical city services such as public safety, parks, street maintenance, housing and economic development; and WHEREAS, the deficit financing plan in the state budget depends on a local property and sales tax swap that leaves city services vulnerable if the state's economic condition fails to improve; and WHEREAS, the adopted state budget assumes an ongoing structural budget deficit of at least $8 billion, putting city resources and services at risk in future years to additional state revenue raids; and WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that state leaders will continue to use local tax funds to balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor to do so; and WHEREAS, the voters of California are the best judges of whether local tax funds should be diverted, confiscated, shifted or otherwise taken to finance an ever-expanding state government; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Voting Delegates of the League of California Cities at its September 10 2003 meeting voted to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative to empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax funds to fund state government; and WHEREAS, the League has requested that cities offer support for a November 2004 ballot initiative that will allow voters to decide whether state government may appropriate local tax funds to fund state government operations and responsibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Burlingame that the City hereby expresses its strong support for a statewide ballot initiative to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds may be taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted or otherwise used to fund state government operations and responsibilities; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Council and staff are authorized to provide impartial informational materials on the initiative as may be lawfully provided by the city's representatives. No public funds shall be used to campaign for or against the initiative; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the residents of the City are encouraged to become well informed on the initiative and its possible impacts on the critical local services on which they rely; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the city manager (or clerk) is hereby directed to send a copy to the Executive Director of the League of California Cities. ADOPTED this day of , 200_ DATE: March 22, 2004 �— TO: BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSIONERS FROM: TIM RICHMOND, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT RE: VOLUNTEER MAINTENANCE PROPOSALS The April 1, 2004 meeting agenda includes a proposal by a community group to organize groups to plant and maintain annuals in the existing planter boxes on Burlingame Avenue. The Beautification Commission is the appropriate Commission for the consideration of the proposal. The agenda item has two parts. The first will be a general acceptance of the concept, as well as a definition of the degree of involvement by the Commission. The second portion will involve hearing the general elements of the proposal for Burlingame Avenue. It has not been fully developed at this time, but the basic plan and an experimental proposal are available for consideration. The Commission will need to take action on both portions of the agenda item, unless more time is required for consideration. Volunteer maintenance does have precedents in the City. The Commission has worked actively with groups interested in performing cleanup work on areas owned by Cal Trans. The Commission met with success in that endeavor, although it was a lengthy and painstaking process. Setting up similar programs within the City will involve many of the same issues, but will be much less time consuming. Such projects may have particular value in an era of declining City revenue and staff reductions. ACTION ITEMS A. AFFIRMATION OF CONCEPT OF VOLUNTEER MAINTENANCE PROPOSALS FOR CITY OWNED FACILITIES. Findings will include degree of involvement by the Commission in the implementation of the proposals. The Commission will hold a hearing to discuss the merits of the general concept of volunteer maintenance projects. The task of the Commission, should it affirm the concept, will be to define its involvement in the proposal process and its implementation. In its simplest form this would mean hearing individual proposals as they arise and affirming or denying them. The Commission may or may not elect to receive updates from the volunteer groups in order to judge the success of each proposal. The Commission may also elect to make contingent approvals with a review of the success or failure of the projects after a defined period. The Commission may choose additional routes of involvement. The Commission may assume that legal/safety requirements that conform to City standards will be a basic requirement of each proposal. B. AFFIRMATION OF A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL TO PLANT AND MAINTAIN THE PLANTS IN VACANT PLANTING BOXES ON BURLINGAME AVENUE. The Commission will hear the proposal, ask questions, and hear public comment. It will then act on the proposal in the light of its decision in A above. IDEAS TO PROMOTE TREE POLICIES WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2004 COMMISSION MEETING 1) Conduct presentations or inform Realtors and Title Companies Burlingame's Tree Policies and Ordinances, emphasizing the benefits and value trees add to properties. 2) Girl and Boy Scouts hand out flyers regarding policies and ordinances as well as the importance of trees in this community at Art in the Park and/or the Art and Wine Festival. 3) Display table with tree ordinances, flyers, and other pertinent information with regard to Burlingame's trees. 4) Post ongoing announcements on Cable Televisions Bill Boards 5) Follow through with the planting of one free tree per address. 6) Educate Contractors & Landscape Architects via flyers when applying for business licenses in the City. (Arborist Porter noted that policies and procedures are included through the plan check process.) 7) Consider warnings be placed on Business Licences that state violation of the City's Tree Ordinances could result in license revocation. 8) Neighborhood precinct walk handing out flyers door to door and promoting tree planting. 9) Flyers, ordinances, etc. at table/booth at Music in the Park and Art in the Park. 10) Develop and provide for a 5 year protection plan on required tree plantings for Commercial and Residential. 11) Resurrect the Landscape Award, presenting at a Chamber event or Lions Club event. 12) Cultivate a good perspective about trees and the overwhelming benefits through public education and through newspaper articles. Remind people why we are known as the "City of Trees" and why we have been awarded the prestigious Tree City USA award for the last 25 years. 13) Commissioners conducting presentations at the elementary schools one week prior to Arbor Day to promote and encourage art work and or poster contests for the Arbor Day event. Expanding and broadening the Arbor Day event i.e., promotional flyers, refreshments, com- munity participation, etc. 14) Put information with regard to City and Private Tree ordinances and contact info. 15) Encourage public to have their email address placed on the "City's Email List" by contacting the City Clerk, Ann Musso, at City Hall. 3/10/04 4 PARKS -Harvey, Karlene From: PARKS -Richmond, Tim Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:12 AM To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene Subject: BBC May meeting Kar, Attached is the material that I presented at the meeting. Use it in whatever way assists you. Tim April 1, 2004 Beautification Commission Appeal -appeal appears to be based on conditions 1 and 7 of the review process: "...proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways..." and "The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain." Not a health, disease or structure issue. Reminder: City Arborist only considers disease, health, structure issues as well as damage to permanent structures, such as the house foundation. The Commission, however, may consider other issues. Volunteer projects. A group approached the Department with an idea for a volunteer maintenance, beautification project. The Director asked that the Commission consider and recommend on the general concept of volunteer projects. There are general provisions within the Beautification Ordinance that appear to encompass such projects: (b) Recommend, develop, sponsor, and implement programs and activities to promote community awareness and participation in city s,, beautification; (h) Recommend or comment on plans and programs for the uniform planting, care and maintenance of street trees and of shrubs, grass plots and other ornamental or beautifying plantings upon the streets and highways; (i) Recommend or comment on plans and programs for the development and beautification of the public parks, parkways and buildings belonging to, or leased by, the city; If the concept is established, the Parks Division will filter out projects that fail to comply with City standards, legal requirements, or violate safety regulations. Parks will also not approve situations that will necessitate overtime or Division expenses that are more than incidental. After considering the concept and hearing public comment the Commission may elect to pass the following recommendation: Recommend that subject to Council comment/approval the Commission hear, consider, and approve or reject volunteer beautification/maintenance proposals. If passed, Director Schwartz will use the recommendation in any way that he finds appropriate in his communications with Council. Task 2, presuming an affirmative vote on part one, is to consider and specify the degree of involvement that the Commission will take in the process. Does the Commission wish to see a written plan; does it wish to hear and •onsider updates; does it wish to evaluate the success of each proposal? How will it assure that the projects assist City Departments, rather than creating additional work for field operations crews? The Commission may elect to make final decisions at a later meeting. Task 3 will be to hear the proposal that prompted the above discussion and approve, disapprove or table the proposal in its current stage of development. The presentation tonight is a sketch of the proposal as it now stands with a sub proposal designed to test its viability. Parks Supervisor Bob Disco met with Stephen Hamilton on site and together they put together a provisional test plot idea. Bob is available for Staff comment along with Stephen, who is here with his proposal in its current state. The experiment is currently occurring as a volunteer project under Parks Division supervision. SPRING GARDEN SEMINAR FEEDBACK/EVALUATION The seminar was held on March 13 in the morning. The speaker was certainly an expert in her field and made a lively and passionate presentation. There was a good question and answer exchange. There were nine members of the public in attendance apart from Staff and Commissioners. The seminar was advertised by news release, in the Recreation brochure, by distributed flyers, by banner over Burlingame Avenue, and word of mouth. Participants had the option of advanced sign up for the class. Attendance represents a continuation of the decline that we have witnessed over the last few years. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT 1. Soil injection for aphid control on selected City street trees completed. Now performing selected fertilization with injection/tank. �. 2. Burlingame Avenue Downtown Improvement Committee is formulating plans for the Avenue. Mayor O'Mahony suggested that a Beautification Commissioner would be a good addition to that group. Acting Chairperson Lauder attended the April 27 meeting. 3. Park Supervisor Bob Disco tested for and was awarded Certified Arborist certification. 4. Cal Trans representatives made a presentation to Council on Monday, April 4 about the removal of the 11 Eucalyptus trees on El Camino. 5. The Spring tree planting list is complete. 35 trees were planted in April. The next planting will be in October. 6. Bids were opened March 31 for the contract to install the vegetation screen on the east side of California Drive north of Dufferin. The project was approved in 1999 by Council before the BART project began. It involves removal of the existing plants, except for several native oaks to be replaced with shrubs, trees, and an irrigation system. 7. Grand Opening for the new playground at WP occurred on April 17. 8. Council passed an ordinance giving property owners responsibility for sidewalk repairs fronting their property. Commission will discuss the possible effects of the new ordinance on its work at future meetings. 9. A view ordinance concept was mentioned at the last Council meeting. BBC will likely be involved in any such discussions. 10. Steve met with PG&E rep regarding a power line/tree issue. In the course of their conversation, she offered to come to a future Beautification Commission meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern (either from the floor or as an agenda item). Steve is working with Rector Motors on the replacement of landscape trees that blew down L