Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2025.5.01Beautification Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Burlingame Community Center 850 Burlingame Avenue 6:30 PMThursday, May 1, 2025 Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Burlingame Beautification Commission Meeting will be held via Zoom in addition to in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting. To Attend the Meeting in Person: Location: Burlingame Community Center, 850 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame, California 94010 To Attend the Meeting via Zoom or Phone: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86788064316?pwd=JjohroDr6vSQNbrOXwBCfIXROytoil.1 Webinar ID: 867 8806 4316 Passcode: 708214 Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Webinar ID: 867 8806 4316 Passcode: 708214 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdRk2IDVmg To Provide Public Comment in Person: Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Public Address Request Form" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provisions of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/24/2025 May 1, 2025Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda To Provide Public Comment via Email: Members of the public may provide written comments by email to parksadmin@burlingame.org. Emailed comments will not be read out loud, but they will be noted for the record. Your email should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting. Please note if your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. Emailed public comments that are received by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 1, 2025, will be included in a supplemental packet that will be sent to the Beautification Commission prior to the meeting and published on the website here: https://www.burlingame.org/189/Beautification-Commission 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES February 6, 2025 Draft BBC Minutesa. Draft MinutesAttachments: March 6, 2025 Draft BBC Minutesb. Draft MinutesAttachments: 4. CORRESPONDENCE 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. OLD BUSINESS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/24/2025 May 1, 2025Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda Discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts and Potential Revisions to the Theme Block Lists a. Staff Report Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Attachments: 7. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Denial of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1320 Vancouver Ave. a. Staff Report Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Attachments: Review and Discussion of the Feasibility of Reactivating the Adopt-a-Tree Programb. Staff Report Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Attachments: Award of Arbor Day Poster Competitionc. Staff ReportAttachments: 8. REPORTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/24/2025 May 1, 2025Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda Next Regular Meeting: June 5, 2025 Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Community 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 Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/24/2025 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes February 6, 2025 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Batte. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Batte, Commissioners Bauer, Chu, and Damico, Kirchner Absent: None Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Bauer made a motion to approve the December 5, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chu and was approved. 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT Constance Quirk, resident of Lexington Way, expressed her desire to have the emailed Correspondence and Public Comments read aloud at all public meetings to ensure the live audience is made aware of other residents' concerns. Further, she would like online viewers to have the option of participating in the meeting by raising their hands and being allowed to make comments or ask questions. She believes it is important to get people involved and their voices heard, and she feels that many barriers have been put in place to prevent this from happening. PRESENTATION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. Chair Rotation Secretary Flores presented the staff report. The Commissioners accepted their new roles and Chair Chu led the proceedings for the remainder of the meeting. 2. Business Landscape Award, Residential Sustainable Landscape Award, and Multi-Family Landscape Award Chair Rotation Secretary Flores presented the staff report. Commissioner Kirchner accepted his role as Committee Chair and Commissioner Damico as Vice Chair. 2 3. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist’s Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1325 El Camino Real Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He explained that the request originally came in for three trees growing between 1321 and 1325 El Camino Real, with the majority of the trunk and canopy residing on 1325 El Camino Real. He confirmed that the middle tree was undersized and not subject to the permit requirements specified in our Municipal Tree Ordinance. The applicant commented on his concern about the risk of failure due to structural tree issues. An independent arborist report was submitted as supplementary documentation. Based on Arborist Holtz’s site observations of the trees and the impact to the driveway at the rear of 1325 El Camino Real, it appeared that the trees met the threshold for removal. He explained his observations of the poor form and location of the trees and stated that the neighborhood impact was not significant although it did impact the view from 1321 El Camino Real. Arborist Holtz summarized the findings of the independent arborist. Further, he explored the site history and conditions dating back to 2011, before the development of 1321 El Camino Real, and the continual pruning away from that site, increasing the off-balance growth of the trees. The reasons listed above meet the criteria for removal of our Tree Ordinance. Arborist Holtz stated the City received two appeals to his decision to approve the removal of the trees. He explained there are many reasons to retain Coast Live Oak Trees and that decisions to approve the removal of trees are never made lightly. He spoke of the benefits these trees are to 1321 El Camino Real, such as barriers to light and noise pollution. Although the City requires replacement trees to be planted, it will not replace mature and established trees equally. These were the primary reasons listed on the appeals. Chair Chu opened the floor to Public Comment. Seeing none, he closed Public Comment. Property owners of 1321 El Camino Real, Scott and Martha Ann Milliken, spoke of their appeal to the City Arborist’s decision. They stated that the trees were located entirely within their property, not on both sides of the property line. They provided construction drawings and a site map showing their property's trees. They explained that care and adjustments were made during construction to protect the trees and perform routine yearly maintenance. They expressed their belief that if 1325 El Camino Real maintained the trees on their side of the property, it may have resulted in similar looking trees on both sides. Further, they explained that having the trees remain is an important part of their tenants’ quality of life. The Milliken’s asked the Commission to consider an effective maintenance plan for 1325 El Camino Real instead of their removal. The 1321 El Camino Real tenants Mia and Gunther Nacke presented their appeal. They explained the trees were a reason to live in the townhouse and their unit specifically. Mrs. Nacke researched previous appeals and noted that a high-risk factor was common in the denied appeals. She stated that in the 10 years they have resided at 1321 El Camino Real, they have not seen any tree maintenance conducted by 1325 El Camino Real. Ms. Nacke spoke of a different tree to the east of their unit that they were more concerned about during storms, unlike the trees closest to their unit. It would dramatically change their environment and ask that a maintenance plan be considered first. Mr. Nacke stated that he was a general contractor, and his comments stem from technical and engineering perspectives. He stated that the trees are very stable and do not pose a danger. He agreed that there is little space to drive through on the neighboring property but stated that the rear resident confirmed it is not as big of an issue as the fence at the front of the property. Also, it is his understanding that the tree struck by the car occurred due to space limitation, which is no longer an issue. Mr. Nacke shared his belief that the current driveway issues could be handled with minor 3 repairs. Also, he spoke of the current benefits to the ecosystem and the negative impact of removing the trees, such as a dramatic change to the atmosphere, including noise pollution, and its impacts on wildlife and young families. The original applicant and owner of 1325 El Camino Real, Mehdi Shahmirza, stated that he had not previously been made aware of the site map showing the location of the trees not on his property but on 1321 El Camino Real. He explained that the trees are in his driveway and that tree growth will eliminate access to the driveway and important clearances, such as fire truck access. He spoke of his desire for removal due to safety concerns and explained that he also enjoys the Oak trees' beauty. Mr. Shahmirza stated he is happy to plant more trees on his property or at 1321 El Camino Real if preferred. Chair Chu opened the floor to Commission Discussion. Chair Chu stated that ownership of the trees needed to be established before any decision could be made and asked to see the construction drawings. Director Glomstad explained that a certified site survey would be necessary to confirm the location of the trees rather than a site plan. Arborist Holtz explained that the evidence of construction drawings that included a site plan was only now being introduced, and the City did not have any information to verify property lines. He stated that if the trees were located at 1321 El Camino Real, the liability of the trees failing would also reside with them. Commiss ioner Kirchner asked whether a civil engineer drew the drawings being presented. Mr. & Mrs. Milliken confirmed they were and had previously been submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. Commissioner Kirchner asked whether a neighbor could petition to have trees removed that are not on his property. Arborist Holtz confirmed that they would not be able to. He explained that while conducting a site visit, the trees would appear to be on 1325 El Camino Real because the site improvement s were completed on the opposite side of the trees, leading a person to conclude the property lines exist where the improvements stopped. Commissioner Kirchner inquired whether 1325 El Camino Real would be subject to the 25% pruning restriction to mitigate any potential issue. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the general rule when it comes to trees on property lines is that the neighbors can prune up to 25% of the tree so long as it does not structurally alter or destabilize the tree. He explained that 1325 El Camino Real could trim up to 25% of the canopy, but seeing as 80% of the canopy hangs over their property, they would not be able to achieve the same type of clearance as 1321 El Camino Real. Chair Chu asked whether the continued pruning and maintenance on 1321 would encourage growth over 1325 El Camino Real to look more balanced. Arborist Holtz said the trees have been regularly directionally pruned away from 1321 El Camino Real toward 1325 El Camino Real, creating significant flaws. He stated that continued pruning to train it back could work, but it is not within the Commission's or Staff's purview to require anyone to comply. Commissioner Damico asked why it was not previously possible for 1321 El Camino Real to prune on the other side of the trees to reduce any risk of future toppling. Arborist Holtz stated that many appeals are emotion based and stem from neighbor issues. He confirmed that many scenarios could occur if neighbors communicated and worked together to remedy the situation without involving the City. He explained that 1321 El Camino Real would need permission from 1325 El Camino Real to enter the property, but 1325 El Camino Real was not obligated to allow someone to trespass on their property. He understands that 1321 El Camino Real has directionally pruned their side of the trees, expecting that 1325 El Camino Real would 4 prune their side. There is no obligation for either property owner to take any action, but the liability would lie with the property owner of the site where the tree trunk is located. Furthermore, if 1325 El Camino Real believes the trees impede access, it becomes a civil issue between both property owners. Commissioner Damico referenced the photograph provided, which shows an SUV that narrowly fits, and expressed her concern about safety vehicles being able to get through. City Arborist Holtz agreed with Commissioner Damico but pointed out that the wheels of the SUV are on 1321 El Camino Real and a surveyor would need to verify where the property line lies and whether access to the rear of the property at 1325 El Camino Real is at all possible, barring a lack of easement agreement. Commissioner Kirchner asked whether the trees would heal from the vehicular damage they had endured. Arborist Holtz confirmed that Oak trees were very good compartmentalizers of decay; however, every impact introduces the potential for decay or can be a terminal disease such as sudden oak death. Commissioner Bauer asked whether there was any imminent danger. City Arborist Holtz stated that he did not view anything that would prompt the evacuation of a home. He viewed the site conditions and what is stated in the City’s Municipal Code and determined that the challenges with the tree outweighed the benefits of retaining them. He understood and agreed that there would be a large impact on 1321 El Camino Real and that his decision was not made lightly. Chair Chu and Arborist Holtz agreed that if the ownership of the trees belongs to 1321 El Camino Real and they decided to retain them, the liability that has been confirmed by the public notice of increased risk of the trees, the professional assessment that was conducted, and the City agreeing that the trees meet the threshold for removal would fall on them as well. Commissioner Batte asked whether the ownership of the trees was still in question. Director Glomstad suggested that the item be returned to the Commission once a survey has been presented to confirm ownership. Mr. Shahmirza addressed the Commission and stated that he had not previously seen the 1321 El Camino Real drawings showing the trees on their property. Commissioner Bauer asked whether he had a survey demonstrating the trees on his property. Mr. Shahmirza did not currently have a survey of his property. Mr. Milliken asked whether Mr. Shahmirza had permission to cut more than 25% of the tree canopy. Arborist Holtz confirmed that trimming more than 25% would be considered excessive pruning and require a permit. The active permit could be modified to an excessive pruning permit, but would require permission from whoever is determined to be the owner. Chair Chu asked what documentation could be obtained to verify ownership. Director Glomstad stated that an official or certified site survey would be needed to verify property lines. Secretary Flores stated that either property owner could also research the property’s public records filed with the Building and Planning Departments to see if a survey was previously filed and formally request copies. Chair Chu asked whether the smallest of the three trees was protected by diameter size and was a protected species. Arborist Holtz confirmed the City does not have protected species, only tree size. However, Oak and Redwood trees typically require an independent arborist report as supplemental documentation for their permit application because both species can live a long time and are significant contributors to our community. Commissioner Damico asked whether the two owners had discussed shared maintenance responsibilities of the trees. The properties shared offline feedback. Arborist Holtz shared that the City pays for conflict resolution services through the County of San Mateo and is available at no cost to Burlingame residents. 5 Commissioner Bauer made a motion to postpone any decision until further evidence of ownership is provided by either the applicant or appellant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Damico and was approved. 5-0 4. Themed Block Discussion Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He provided a history and background on themed blocks and spoke of the Easton Drive petition that occurred approximately a year and a half ago. He confirmed that the current discussion did not include Easton Drive but focused on themed blocks in general. He explained that a themed block is an area with one defined species, either already established or a shift over time, but clarified that the City is not clear-cutting trees to plant any specific tree. He spoke of the challenges themed blocks posed, such as lack of species diversification, utility conflict, and maintenance cost. Although there are main issues to consider, he does not believe we will experience devastation such as a pest attack in the near future. Arborist Holtz explained that the item presented today is an introduction for Commissioners to ask questions and request additional information or ideas from staff about possible modifications. Further, he stated that out of the 938 blocks in Burlingame, 122 of them are themed blocks. Of the 122 themed blocks, 70 have utilities. He estimated that a quarter of the trees planted in the City are in utility conflicts. Commissioner Bauer inquired about the replacement options for themed block streets. Arborist Holtz confirmed that they only have one dominant species per themed block, although changes have been made to those dominant species in some circumstances, such as the pear trees on California Drive. He explained that the Commission was being introduced to the challenges staff have experienced. Commissioner Batte asked if there was a tree that was less likely to interfere with utilities. Arborist Holtz stated that the trees on the City’s Primary Utility Plant List present the lowest potential for utility conflicts. Commissioner Batte commented on the recent fires in Southern California, which were partly caused by utility conflicts. Arborist Holtz stated that staff have received many phone calls and correspondence from residents regarding similar fears set off by insurance cancellation notices. Chair Chu asked whether there has been a consideration for having a themed block with utilities and one species for the side of the street and another for the other. According to his knowledge, Arborist Holtz confirmed that it had not occurred previously in the City. Commissioner Kirchner asked if PG&E was involved in the pruning of the trees. Arborist Holtz confirmed that PG&E contracts with different utility companies and is required to maintain a certain distance. They will prune trees to meet those requirements, often exceeding the requirements to avoid having to prune as frequently. He stated that City staff also prune trees to address overhanging branches or water sprouts that may impede pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Supervisor Burow confirmed that the clearance required by PG&E in the City’s area is two and a half feet, but trees are often pruned 12-15 feet away to avoid coming out for a minimum of two years. Further, she stated that pruning such large amounts causes water sprouts to grow much faster, an issue requiring annual inspection. Commissioner Damico asked whether the staff had received any positive feedback from themed blocks. Arborist Holtz stated that correspondence has been received in favor of themed blocks' majestic look and feel. Commissioner Bauer asked about correspondence from Newlands resident Cathy Baylock and whether her block was removed from the themed block list. Arborist Holtz explained that the Newlands block was inexplicably dropped off the themed block list by error but that the mistake was well-noted and has been updated on our list. Commissioner Damico asked how specific themes are picked. City Arborist Holtz explained that the framers of the City chose species during development, and the Commission, at the time of adoption, decided whether to continue with the established dominant species or replace it with a similar species with the same look or feel. 6 Chair Chu opened Public Comment. Burlingame resident Kristine Cannon stated that she lives on the 1300 Themed Block of Bernal Ave, which is sycamore Themed. She spoke highly of the tree maintenance performed by the City and the responsiveness of staff when residents reach out to them. She spoke in favor of themed blocks and the Sycamore tree theme. She explained that homes are purchased with the knowledge of the City-owned and maintained trees adjacent to the property, and because they like the uniformity it creates with the rest of the street, not because they want the tree species changed. She admitted that there is always a chance of issues arising, such as the Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive, but strongly supports themed blocks regardless. She thanked the Commission for its attention to the Themed Block policy and hoped they would vote to keep the parameters as they are when it comes time to vote on a decision. Resident Constance Quirck spoke in favor of themed blocks. She urged the Commission to keep the immediate area near Lexington Way as a heritage grove of Sycamore trees. She said the established themes and mature trees were key factors in purchasing a Burlingame home. The City works diligently to maintain the City street trees and she appreciates the Parks Division for their hard work. She explained that many trees have been removed in the last five years because local zoning control has been negatively impacted in California, and keeping large, themed trees softens the aesthetics of the City. She spoke of the Plant-A- Tree program and how she learned the need for and importance of deep-watering young trees to ensure their growth, such as the 10-year-old Sycamore she has in front of her property. Burlingame resident and Historical Society member Jennifer Pfaff spoke in favor of themed blocks. She provided a history of how tree species were determined and planted in the 1900s and how the choice of replacement trees stemmed from the hope that the residents would be more invested in the trees' watering needs. She stated that themed blocks comprise less than a quarter of the City’s streets and are typically intersected by non-themed streets, providing some diversity. The importance of the City’s Themed Block policy could not be understated. They are memorable City assets that strengthen the visual cohesiveness of many neighborhoods. She spoke of the extensive development on lots that leave little room for landscaping and trees, such as the last two homes that were approved through the Site Development process that are not required to plant any trees because there is no space to do so; making the importance of our City street trees much higher than it has ever been. Chair Chu closed Public Comment and Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Kirchner spoke of his fondness of the themed streets and stated his inclination to keep the Themed Block Policy and its parameters as is. He spoke of the historical aspects of themed blocks and does not believe any modification is necessary. He would like staff to elaborate on the issue and more information about the themed streets facing utility conflicts. He agreed with Chair Chu on exploring different options for those blocks and the sides of the street affected. Commissioner Bauer inquired whether the topic arose as an informational session or whether action to remove themed block designations was the end goal. Arborist Holtz confirmed that aside from public comments staff received, Council Member Brownrigg expressed concern about our practice of planting large canopy trees under utility lines and them becoming a perennial conflict. If the Commission would like more information on any challenge presented, staff can research and bring it back to the Commission for 7 review and consideration. The Commission may also feel that no further discussion is needed. Commissioner Bauer asked whether Carol Avenue was a themed street. Arborist Holtz confirmed that although the Palm trees are designated as historic trees, Carol is not a themed block nor are Palm trees planted by the City as new or replacement trees. Commissioner Kircher explained that Carol Avenue was developed in 1905, and the Palm trees were there before the homes. City Arborist Holtz explained that the City owns and maintains approximately 17,000 trees, 2,600 being themed trees, amounting to 15% of City trees being dedicated to Themed trees. Further, 3,740 trees are located under utilities, 600 being themed areas. Chair Chu reiterated the option of having two different species of trees where there are utility lines on one side. He stated that having large trees under utility lines kept pruned may create a bad example for residents who do not know they are pruned that way due to the utility conflicts and may lead them to believe they are approved pruning practices. Director Glomstad confirmed with the Commission that they would like staff to bring back options and ideas focused on utility conflicts and themed blocks. Arborist Holtz emphasized that the public has expressed a desire to be more informed when making decisions that affect them, which increases the amount of public outreach on this topic. REPORTS Supervisor Burow reported that tree plantings as part of our seasonal street tree plantings are steadily on the rise, and there has also been an increase in plantings in new locations that either have not had a tree in a long time or have never had one. Arborist Holtz stated that city trees are holding up well in the current weather events we’ve experienced and thanked the Commission and Council for investing in the major preventive tree work to protect our community. Director Glomstad explained that the rule of no longer reading public comments out loud during Commission meetings came directly from the City Council and cannot be changed at a Commission level. Commissioner Kirchner provided the Commission and staff drafts of the new Trees of Burlingame publication for review, edits, and feedback. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Director Glomstad confirmed Themed Blocks, with guidance provided by the Commission, will be back on a future agenda. Chair Chu said he would like the Adopt-a-Tree program discussed at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for March 6, 2025. Respectfully submitted, 8 Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes March 6, 2025 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Chu. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chu, Commissioners Bauer, Damico, and Kirchner Absent: Commissioner Batte Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES None CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT Jennifer Pfaff, Burlingame Historical Society member, reported that the didactic panels previously presented to the Commission arrived at the Community Center, and installation, dependent on Parks Staff availability, will be the next step. PRESENTATION None OLD BUSINESS 1. Landscape Award Update Commissioner Kirchner provided the rest of the Commissioners with a list of all previous Residential Sustainability Landscape Award, Business Landscape Award, and Multi-Family Landscape Award winners. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts and Potential Revisions to the Themed Block Lists Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He explained that the specific concern that Council Member Brownrigg brought forth was the consideration of changes to planting large canopy trees under utility lines. Currently, the City’s Themed Block List’s designated species take precedence over the Primary Utility Line Street Tree Plant List. Arborist Holtz stated that utility conflict trees grow to heights that interfere with overhead primary electrical conductors or have root infrastructure that interferes with underground gas transmission lines. He confirmed that the primary concern is the overhead conductors, where topping or directional pruning occurs. Further, although staff receive calls about sewer and water conflicts, they are not typically of significant consequence. Arborist Holtz explained that utility companies that practice directional pruning will not allow tree branches to overhang the top of their lines, which prevents the tree from enveloping and coming back together. He 2 stated that the City experiences more topping situations, which require City staff to conduct side pruning to ensure that the required clearances are met. Large canopy trees repeatedly topped due to utility pruning experience injuries that aren’t allowed to heal, and decay may spread further down the trunk. Also, whole branches may fail because they are constantly stripped of leaves. Arborist Holtz stated that the large canopy species on the Themed Block List are Red Maple, Red Oak, and Sycamore trees. According to the City’s tree inventory, there are approximately 2500 Themed Block tree sites, 600 located at sites with primary utilities. Further, approximately 300 of those trees are large canopy trees that present primary utility conflicts. Arborist Holtz stated that the Commission may choose to leave the Themed Block List unchanged but also presented the revision opportunities to modernize the City’s policy. He shared a depiction from the Arbor Day Foundation that shows trees planted under utility lines at a mature height of 25 feet or less. Commissioner Bauer asked whether it was possible to select trees that were smaller yet similar species to the Themed street they would be planted on instead of giving property owners several choices from the approved Primary Utility Street Tree List. Arborist Holtz confirmed that it was an option and provided an example of planting Trident Maple trees on Red Maple Themed Blocks on the side of the streets where overhead utility conflicts exist. He explained that staff could gather more information on suitable and similar alternatives to bring back to the Commission for further consideration. Also, he explained to the Commission the availability of growth regulators to limit response growth; however, he would not recommend their use, stating it would be a significant number of applications to apply the chemicals. Arborist Holtz spoke of previous plans to work with PG&E using growth regulators along Airport Boulevard for the Sycamore trees planted under utilities. However, PG&E felt that due to their experience in other areas, it was not worth the labor to do so. Supervisor Burow confirmed that PG&E’s previous experience using the growth regulators did not work at the level they wanted them to or did not work at all, so they removed them as an option altogether. Arborist Holtz confirmed with Commissioner Bauer that her suggestion of having a smaller alternative was valid, and staff could investigate options more in-depth for the three large canopy tree species where utility conflicts are most seen. Commissioner Kirchner inquired about the estimated time frame for the change to occur for the Themed trees under utility lines. Arborist Holtz stated that the majority would likely be replanted within 50 years. Commissioner Kirchner asked for confirmation that the Themed portion of the ordinance was not up for discussion but instead only the Themed trees under utility lines. City Arborist Holtz confirmed. Commissioner Damico asked whether the option in the staff report allowing property owners to pick their replacement tree for sites under utility was from a specific list of Themed trees. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the second option would allow property owners to select from the approved Primary Utility Street Tree List shown on Exhibit D. Chair Chu asked if a smaller tree could have more biomass than a larger canopy tree that is continually topped and reduced in size. Arborist Holtz stated that having large trees pruned yearly negates the environmental benefit of the tree. Although he is unsure if a smaller tree would have a greater biomass, it may have a net positive effect versus a larger tree that requires significant maintenance. Chair Chu opened the floor to Public Comment. Alice Davis, a Burlingame resident, spoke in favor of changing Themed Blocks with utility conflicts. As a resident of Sanchez, she experienced the removal of two Liquidambar trees by PG&E due to an 3 underground gas line conflict and a chronic threat to the overhead utility lines. She stated that the roots were very destructive to the sidewalk, landscaping, and hardscape of her front yard. The Parks Division staff reached out to her regarding planting the replacement street trees, and she was originally told that she could pick a species from the approved Primary Utility Line Street Tree List. Later, it was discovered that she was a part of Themed Block, and two Sycamore trees would be planted instead of her choice of smaller canopy tree. She expressed her strong protest against the planting of the two Sycamore replacement trees. Due to her allotted speaking time running out, Ms. Davis provided the rest of her notes to be shared with the Commission. Jennifer Pfaff, Themed Block resident, spoke in favor of keeping the Themed Block policy unchanged. She spoke of her concern about the general degradation of Burlingame’s City of Trees designation and lamented the issue of losing large trees because there is no room left for trees to be planted on developed lots. Ms. Pfaff inquired about the possibility of planting large trees similar to the Citriodora on Easton in a toggled manner to help avoid future utility issues. Lastly, she stated that many Sycamore trees were pollarded when they were first planted and asked whether that was an option for the side of the Themed streets located under utility lines. Cathy Baylock, former Council Member and Themed Block resident, spoke in favor of keeping large canopy trees on Themed Blocks, such as the Sycamore trees on Newlands Avenue. She stated that the quasi- pollarding method used on the side of Newlands Avenue under utility lines has worked and created shorter trees on one side of the street. Although Sycamore trees are not the most aesthetic tree, she spoke highly of the conformity of a Sycamore Themed street. It would be a mistake not to find a way to continue pruning them to keep them out of the utility lines and said that the trees have managed well against these hard pruning methods. Constance Quirk, a Burlingame resident of Lexington Way, spoke in favor of keeping the Themed Block policy unchanged. With the extensive development the City is experiencing, she appreciates the softness that Themed Blocks bring to overdeveloped areas. She also stated her appreciation to City staff for all the maintenance work. Stephanie Lee, a Bloomfield Road resident, loves the appearance of Themed streets but spoke in favor of modifying the Themed Block with a utility conflict with an option such as the one suggested by Commissioner Bauer of a similar tree to that of the rest of the Themed Block but on a smaller scale, allowing for the continuation of the Themed visual. She expressed concern about Themed streets having a species specific Themed that could wipe out all the trees. Also, she inquired whether the City was aware of any plans to underground utilities by PG&E that would allow the City to keep large canopy trees. Chair closed Public Comment. Arborist Holtz addressed comments posed during Public Comment. He stated that a monoculture is a drawback to a Themed Block area and is always a concern. He spoke of the Polyphagus Shot-Hole Borer currently affecting Sycamore trees in San Jose, which warrants more research. Further, he confirmed that he is unaware of any PG&E plans for underground utilities aside from the City’s efforts to purchase credits for El Camino Real. Residential areas are not a high priority for PG&E. Arborist Holtz confirmed that Easton Drive is not up for discussion but confirmed that Easton Drive planter strips are uniquely large and the option to move or plant trees in such a manner is not available on other streets with the standard planter 4 strip size. Lastly, he explained that the pruning practice of pollarding that occurred in the City through the 1960s-1980s is still an approved pruning standard through the ISA and ANSI, although very labor intensive and not a practice he would recommend. When you pollard a tree, it forces a growth of smaller branches to push out very fast, and the growth could be poorly attached. He explained that Sycamore trees have done very well in retraining themselves with strong attachments. He would be very concerned if this pruning method were done on an Oak or Eucalyptus tree because the attachments would be weakly attached and have a greater likelihood of failure. Commissioner Damico inquired about a specific correspondence that was sent via email that referenced the hardship property owners face due to added yard maintenance and debris removal costs . Arborist Holtz stated that he has communicated with the property owner who sent the referenced email and summarized her concerns about leaves clogging gutters and miscellaneous debris, such as twigs and leaves dropping in the fall on the lawn. He confirmed that the City does not assist with yard maintenance, and it falls on the property owner to maintain any debris on their private property, although the street sweeper does take care of leaves left in the street. He explained that the community values the importance and benefits of trees and understands that there may be inconveniences that arise because of large trees. Commissioner Damico asked about the probability of a species specific disease infecting a species in Burlingame today and whether it will be a bigger concern in the future. Arborist Holtz confirmed a possibility and increased risk when there are greater concentrations of the same tree species. However, the probability of this being a current issue or concern is lower, with the exception of the Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer currently affecting sycamore trees in higher numbers and thus represents an elevated risk. Supervisor Burow shared what she has learned about the shot hole borer and noted that a Palm pest is currently affecting San Diego. Commissioner Chu inquired about planting in a toggled manner and whether that is an option to help trees grow and bypass utility lines. Arborist Holtz confirmed that shifting sidewalks away from power lines to plant trees is unique to Easton because of the wide planter strips. Further, he explained that PG&E would likely not agree with directional pruning that allows the tree to come back and grow over the utility lines because their primary concern is to protect their asset. Supervisor Burow confirmed that few approved trees are allowed to grow next to power lines such as Redwood and types of cedar trees, because once they are trimmed, they will not continue to grow back in that area, and the risk of a limb falling on a line is significantly reduced. In most other cases, PG&E will top the tree because it is easier. Chair Chu reiterated that the Commission may choose to leave the current policy as it stands, modify the Themed tree only in the locations with utility conflicts, or give homeowners with utility conflict options from the approved Primary Utility Line Street Tree List. Commissioner Kirchner asked for further clarification on whether the smaller option tree under utility lines could also be a Themed species. Chair Chu confirmed that is how the second option is defined. Commissioner Bauer stated that she favors the appearance of Themed streets, as she imagines many residents do. She is not in favor of letting a homeowner on a Themed Block with utility conflict pick a replacement tree from the approved street tree list and is inclined to support a smaller Themed species for the Themed street areas in the affected areas to ensure a cohesive look. Commissioner Damico asked if finding a similar smaller version of the three large canopy species causing utility conflicts was feasible. Arborist Holtz stated that staff are not currently familiar with the available options and whether they would make suitable alternatives, but staff can research further and come back with more information and options for the Commission to view and discuss. He understands the passion Themed Blocks invokes in residents, and although he does not want to prolong the subject, he wants to ensure due diligence is performed on the matter, and additional staff research is a feasible ask. 5 Commissioner Chu stated that if a smaller species similar in look is not found, there could still be a smaller species that harmonizes with the rest of the Themed Block. Commissioner Bauer also reflected on the solution this may be for the possible pest problem because it breaks up only one species. Commissioner Kirchner expressed his inclination to keep the Themed Block ordinance in its current state and not make any changes, dealing with any issues as they arise. Commissioner Bauer stated that utility conflicts were a current issue. Commissioner Kircher questioned whether it was a big enough issue to warrant a change. Commissioner Damico stated that it may become a bigger issue in the coming months or years and would prefer to continue the discussion and make a recommendation to the Council. Director Glomstad suggested Arborist Holtz come back with one to two replacement options for the three large canopy Themed Block tree species causing utility conflicts. Commissioner Bauer agreed it would be helpful to see visuals of the possible replacement species and proposed the item be brought back for discussion at a future meeting. Chair Chu made a motion to postpone the discussion to allow City Arborist Holtz to present similar and smaller trees as suitable replacements for the large canopy Themed Block species experiencing utility conflicts. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bauer and was approved. 4-0-1 REPORTS Arborist Holtz reported that the largest of the two private trees discussed during the February meeting as part of the appeal to the Private Tree Removal Application filed by 1325 El Camino Real failed eight days after the meeting. It was caught failing and was removed before it hit any structure. The appellant and neighboring property that claimed ownership filed an emergency tree removal application, and a permit was issued retroactively. Also, he reminded the Commission of the Arbor Day celebration scheduled for Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 11 a.m. at Murray Field. Supervisor Burow reported removing a Western Catalpa City tree on Balboa that involved bees and explained the process taken to remove and relocate the bees safely before the removal. Arborist Holtz explained that the resident was very concerned with the possibility of losing the tree and that efforts were exhausted to try and retain the tree, but it was structurally compromised, and the likelihood of failure was significant. Commissioner Kirchner inquired about the measurement taken for a tree with multiple trunks to determine if it is a protected-sized tree. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the City ordinance states that the measurement is taken where the multiple trunks attach, typically closer to the base. Commissioner Kirchner thanked Commissioner Bauer for providing her edits to the Trees of Burlingame book. Further, he provided a partial list of significant Burlingame trees that could be included in the publication. He asked for any additions to be sent his way. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for April 3, 2025. 6 Respectfully submitted, Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: March 6, 2025 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Carlie Burow, Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7335 Subject: Discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts and Potential Revisions to the Theme Block Lists RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Commission review the staff report, receive public comment, and approve one of the following options: • Modify Themed Block plantings that create Utility Conflicts by designating a new Themed Species for locations in conflict • Modify Themed Block plantings that create Utility Conflicts by allowing property-owners to select from the City’s tree list for Primary Utilities for locations in conflict • Leave current Themed Block designation as is BACKGROUND On March 6, 2025, staff presented a discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts (Exhibit A). The Commission received public comment and discussed potential revisions related to Themed Blocks (Exhibit B). The primary utility conflicts with Themed Block designated species occur with Red Maples (Acer rubrum), Red Oaks (Quercus rubra), and London Planetrees (Platanus acerifolia) growing to heights that present safety issues with overhead primary electrical conductors. The result is a topped tree that cannot grow to its intended form and requires frequent inputs in the forms of inspections and utility pruning by utility contractors, followed by corrective pruning from City staff. The culmination of this discussion was that staff was directed to further research the possibility of designating species that would not present utility conflict in the future but would still retain the look and feel of existing Themed block designations that do present utility conflict issues. DISCUSSION Staff have researched alternative species that may resemble existing features of the current designated Themed Block Species that present overhead utility conflict. These species are generally shorter in stature and should not exceed a height of 25’. Red Maple Replacement Options The current Red Maple is a fast-growing upright tree. The tree has a smooth, grey-colored bark. Leaves are green in the spring and summer and turn red with the fall leaf drop. Being a maple, this species has a moderate need for water and can have aggressive rooting. The Red maple typically grows to heights of 40-60’. One alternative tree to consider is the Shangtung Maple (Acer truncatum) (Exhibit C). This specimen grows to a height of 25’ and has been recommended by some nurseries as a street tree under electrical utility wires. This tree also has green leaves in the spring and summer, though these leaves appear glossy compared to the Dull green of the Red Maple. The Shangtung Maple also has bright red leaves in the fall and is pest and disease- resistant. This species is available from one of the local wholesale tree suppliers. The Moosebark Maple (Acer pensylvanicum) is a smaller stature maple native to the Eastern United States. This specimen can often take on a more shrubbery form. Spring and summer leaves are dull green, which matches the appearance of a Red Maple. However, fall leaves become yellow. This tree is also prone to sun scorch in areas of full sun. This species was unable to be sourced locally. Red Oak Replacement Options The current Red Oak grows at a moderate pace. This specimen tends to grow in broad form, eventually reaching heights that present overhead utility conflict. This species is deciduous, with green leaves in the spring and summer that turn brown in the fall. One smaller oak species that may appear similar is the Gambel Oak (Quercus gambelli) (Exhibit D). The Gambel Oak is native to the Southwest. It often appears shrubby in its natural form. This species will require significant training and pruning by staff to establish itself as a street tree in the urban environment. The Gambel Oak is susceptible to fungal diseases anthracnose and powdery mildew, similar to Red Oaks. The Gambel oak produces green leaves in the Spring and Summer that turn brown in the fall. This species can be sourced through a local wholesale nursery. Another alternative is the Dwarf Chinkapin Oak (Quercus prinoides). This species is a smaller-stature species native to the Eastern United States. These trees produce a heavy crop of acorns starting at a young age. These trees do not tolerate root pruning well. Spring and summer leaves are oval-shaped and green in color. Fall leaves turn brown. This species is not readily available from local wholesale suppliers. London Planetree The current London Planetree is a fast-growing upright tree that can reach heights of 80’. The City currently plants the ‘Columbia’ variety as these have the greatest disease resistance to the common fungal diseases anthracnose and powdery mildew. These trees have strong vertical growth, often presenting utility conflict within 5 years. Aplen’s Globe Planetree (Platanus acerifolia ‘Alpen’s Globe’) is a dwarf variety planetree (Exhibit E). This is a newly developed European variety. This variety mimics the same look as the current Planetrees existing in Burlingame but is grafted to a dwarfing rootstock to limit the tree's growth. We have been unable to source this species in the United States. Another variety researched is the Platanus acerifolia ‘Mirkovec’. This is another European variety with similar attributes desired. It, too, cannot be sourced in the United States. If no suitable smaller-stature Planetree is available, an alternative maple species as listed above could be considered. Staff have had difficulty sourcing trees that were once readily available. Staff consults with four local wholesale nurseries to bulk purchase Street trees. In the last several years, the nursery industry has shifted priorities to focus on providing species in the highest demand. Trees that were once readily available are seemingly nowhere to be found locally. This leaves staff ordering small saplings from out of state and growing them in the Parks Yard nursery. The result is smaller specimens being planted in designated Themed Block areas and greater staff time procuring and growing Themed Block Species. In preparation for the Thursday, May 1, 2025 Beautification Commission Meeting, the City has noticed this subject via the City E-news, social media, and mailing to over 3,700 residents and property owners that live in Themed Block areas. The cost of this mailing was over $1,700. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact will likely be lower long-term costs due to the increased maintenance and removal needs of trees in conflict with utilities. However, costs of procuring and planting designated Themed Block species may increase depending on the species designated by the Commission. EXHIBITS A. March 6, 2025 Staff Report B. Draft Minutes of the March 6, 2025 Beautification Commission Meeting C. Shangtung Maple Data Sheet D. Gambel Oak Data Sheet E. Alphen’s Globe Planetree Data Sheet STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: March 6, 2025 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Carlie Burow, Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7335 Subject: Discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts and Potential Revisions to the Theme Block Lists RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission review the staff report, receive public comment, and approve one of the following options: •Modify Themed Block plantings that create Utility Conflicts by designating a new Themed Species for locations in conflict. •Modify Themed Block plantings that create Utility Conflicts by allowing property owners to select from the City’s tree list for Primary Utilities for locations in conflict. •Leave current Themed Block designation as is. BACKGROUND A street tree Themed Block is a block in which one dominant species of street tree is established and maintained indefinitely. Once a themed block is established and a tree is removed for any reason, the tree would be replaced with a tree of the established theme species. Themed Blocks were originally established during the development phase of certain neighborhoods. The concept was memorialized when the idea for establishing Themed Blocks was first introduced to the Council by two interested citizens who wanted to help maintain the historic and aesthetic look and feel of several blocks with a dominant tree species. The idea was referred to the Beautification Commission for consideration. In April 2008, the Beautification Commission heard the proposal, which included discussion on several topics, including the following: width of available planting areas, altering current planting lists, changing how street trees are selected by district/block/neighborhood, (re)introducing the concept of a dominant species, updating the tree inventory, and potential elimination of tree EXHIBIT A categories from planting plans (ornamentals and evergreens). In May 2008, then Parks and Recreation Director Schwartz facilitated a discussion between the Commission and community members. As a result of that discussion, the Commission made the following recommendations to the City Council. • Retain existing 'themed' streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing them with existing species if the dominant species on the street is of tall form. This is regardless of disruptions to sidewalks. • Do not create 'themed' streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners to choose from the appropriate tree list. • Staff should revise the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the tallest, most significant canopies. • In addition, retain 'ornamentals' and 'evergreen' tree species with the tallest, most significant canopies on the official tree lists. • Include some larger species from the 6' planter strip list to the 4-6' planter strip list where possible, or change the 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 replacements should be planted as soon as possible. As a result of the Beautification Commission action and Council consensus, staff prepared a Draft Themed Block List and Policy for Establishing a Themed Block that was presented at the August 7, 2008, Beautification Commission meeting. The Themed Block List and Policy were approved at the September 4, 2008 Beautification Commission meeting. The policy included: • The Beautification Commission will recommend "Themed Blocks" to the City Council. • To petition the Beautification Commission for a new themed block, a property owner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 2/3 of the property owners. • Forms for the "Petition" will be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department Office. • Petitions shall be forwarded to the Beautification Commission for recommendation to the Council to establish a new "themed" block. • If approved, staff will determine the species theme in collaboration with the property owners. • Selected "themed" species will replace existing trees only when removing an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. Ninety-eight blocks were designated as Themed Blocks. Since then, the City and the residents have added 24 additional Themed Blocks, totaling 122 (Exhibit A). The ability to remove a block from Themed Block designation was added later. Presently, if a block would like to remove the Themed Block designation, 75% of property owners must agree to remove the entire block for the matter to be considered (Exhibit B). EXHIBIT A Themed Blocks add a benefit to the community that includes honoring the intended look of a developed area. Themed Blocks can create an aesthetic look and feel with a memorable uniformity. Themed Blocks can also have challenges, such as fast and widespread disease or insects. Having a single species increases the likelihood that one disease or insect would create a mass loss of trees that can devastate an entire block. Additionally, requiring a large canopy tree due to themed block designation in a location that has confined growing space can create a continual conflict. This includes the tree’s inability to grow to the typical species size due to overhead utilities. These trees cannot reach their intended size and require significant and frequent maintenance resources from the City and utility providers to reduce risk. DISCUSSION The increased concern about trees and utility conflict was discussed during the public process of updating the municipal tree code. Challenges with obtaining or maintaining insurance in the community have occurred due to the size, species, and proximity of the tree to the structure and electrical conductors. Several members of the community expressed this concern during public comment. During the public discussion, Councilmember Brownrigg expressed concern about the conflict between trees and overhead utilities. It was suggested that the Beautification Commission discuss this challenge and seek a sustainable resolution. Utility providers and urban forest professionals have long espoused the “Right Tree in the Right Place” principle (Exhibit C). This implores a sustainable approach to tree planting and planning by considering specific site conditions to ensure the successful growth of that tree for the community to enjoy with minimal input. Some of these considerations include climate and water needs, pest susceptibility, the likelihood of known challenges with species branches, trunk, and root failures, growing space for the root mass underground, and growing space for the trunk and branches overhead. Pacific Gas & Electric (PGE) has removed City-owned trees at their discretion to protect both overhead electrical conductors and underground natural gas pipes. The California PUC gives PGE and other utilities direction and authority to protect their utilities by maintaining certain clearances. The City has general policy of replacing each tree that is removed. The City follows planting list practices whereby certain tree species are designated for certain areas dependent on planter strip size, overhead utilities, or hillside planting area. Additionally, if there is a themed block designation, the City must replace it in accordance with the themed block designated species. Some of these large canopy species, such as Red Maple, Red Oak, and Sycamore, begin to present conflict within ten years. in locations where overhead utilities exist. Replanting a large canopy Themed Block tree where utility conflict exists goes against modern arboriculture recommendations and expends greater resources on the part of the City and utility providers. In areas where a Themed Block designation does not apply, and overhead utility challenges exist, the City utilizes a street tree primary utility list (Exhibit D). This list includes species that do not EXHIBIT A grow as tall and/or grow at a slower rate than other larger canopy species. This principle balances the goals of the Community to create a sustainable urban forest, and the utility providers need to protect their utility infrastructure and public safety. However, in designated Themed Block locations, staff are required to plant a tree that continues utility conflict. Staff propose that in areas of utility conflict, a large canopy tree such as Platanus acerifolia (Sycamore/ London Plane), Acer rubrum (Red Maple), or Quercus rubra (Red Oak), a change to the Themed Block designation for these areas should occur. This can be accomplished by reverting choice to the property owners from the City Street Tree list for Primary Utility Areas, or the Commission can specify specific species for these locations. At present, there are over 2,500 Themed Block trees. Approximately 600 of these trees have a utility conflict (Exhibit E). Of these locations, about half are designated as large Themed Block species that include Platanus acerifolia (Sycamore/ London Plane), Acer rubrum (Red Maple), or Quercus rubra (Red Oak). These species generally have fast growth and achieve utility conflict within 10 years of the initial planting. These are the sites that present the greatest conflict and require additional resources to mitigate. In preparation for the Thursday, March 6, 2025 Beautification Commission Meeting, The City has noticed this subject via the City E-news, social media, and a mailing to over 5,000 residents that live in Themed Block areas. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact will likely be lower long-term costs due to the increased maintenance and removal needs of trees in conflict with utilities. EXHIBITS A. Current Themed Block List B. Themed Block Policy Form C. “Right tree, Right Place” Principle D. City Tree Planting List for Primary Utility Locations E. City Street Tree Locations with Primary Utilities EXHIBIT A Street Theme Recommendation 1600 Adeline Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1700 Adeline Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1800 Adeline Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1900 Adeline Sycamore Retain Themed Block 2000 Adeline Sycamore Retain Themed Block 500 Almer Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 800 Alpine Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1000 Balboa Liquidambar Replace w/ Trident Maple 1400 Balboa Catalpa Retain Themed Block 1600 Balboa Liquidambar Replace w/ Trident Maple 100 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 200 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 300 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 400 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 500 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 600 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 700 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 800 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 900 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 1000 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 1100 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 1200 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 1300 Bayswater Gingko Retain Themed Block 1200 Bellevue Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 1300 Bernal Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1400 Bernal Sycamore Retain Themed Block 300 Bloomfield Sycamore Retain Themed Block 400 Bloomfield Sycamore Retain Themed Block 300 Burlingame Ave Camphor Replace w/ Red Maple 400 Burlingame Ave Camphor Replace w/ Red Maple 500 Burlingame Ave Camphor Replace w/ Red Maple 800 Burlingame Ave Camphor Replace w/ Red Maple 850 - 1000 Burlingame Ave Lemon-Scented Gum Retain Themed Block 1500 Burlingame Ave. Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1200 Cabrillo Liquidambar Replace w/ Trident Maple 400 - 1100 California Dr. P. Calleryana `Chanticleer' = (9 blocks)Replace with ‘European Hornbeam’ 1100 Cambridge Elm Retain Themed Block 300 Channing Sycamore Retain Themed Block 200 Chapin Ln. Sycamore Retain Themed Block 300 Chapin Ln. Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1600 Chapin Ave. Sycamore Retain Themed Block 400 Chatham Sycamore Retain Themed Block 300 Clarendon Red Oak Retain Themed Block City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • parksadmin@burlingame.org City Street Trees – Themed Blocks (Revised 01.2024) Exhibit A EXHIBIT A 1500 Columbus Red Oak Retain Themed Block 300 Concord Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 600 Concord Sycamore Retain Themed Block 700 Concord Sycamore Retain Themed Block 500 Corbitt Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1100 Cortez Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1200 Cortez Sycamore Retain Themed Block 800 Crossway Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 400 Cumberland Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1400 Desoto Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1100 Douglas Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1100 Drake Sycamore Retain Themed Block 300 Dwight Red Oak Retain Themed Block 1500-2000 Easton Euc. Globulus = (6 blks.) Replace w/ Lemon-Scented Gum 800 Edgehill Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 1300 Edgehill Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 1400 Floribunda Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 1500 Floribunda Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 500 Francisco Sycamore Retain Themed Block 2100 Hillside Sycamore Retain Themed Block 2200 Hillside Sycamore Retain Themed Block 2300 Hillside Sycamore Retain Themed Block 2400 Hillside Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1200 Laguna Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1300 Laguna Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 1400 Laguna Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 300 Lexington Sycamore Retain Themed Block 500 Lexington Sycamore Retain Themed Block 600 Lexington Sycamore Retain Themed Block 800 Maple Linden Replace w/ Trident Maple 400 Marin Sycamore Retain Themed Block 500 Marin Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1600 McDonald Way Liriodendron Replace w/ Red Maple 1100 Mills Sycamore Themed Block 1200 Mills Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1300 Mills Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1400 Mills Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1500 Newlands Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1400 Oak Grove Red Oak Retain Themed Block 100 Occidental Sycamore Retain Themed Block 200 Occidental Sycamore Retain Themed Block 300 Occidental Sycamore Retain Themed Block 400 Occidental Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1100 Oxford Elm Retain Themed Block 1100 Palm Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1200 Palm Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1300 Palm Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1400 Palm Sycamore Retain Themed Block 700 Plymouth Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1100 Sanchez Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1200 Sanchez Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1300 Sanchez Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1400 Sanchez Sycamore Retain Themed Block 1600 Sherman Sycamore Retain Themed Block EXHIBIT A 1700 Sherman Sycamore Retain Themed Block 10 Stanley Liriodendron Replace w/ Trident Maple 100 Stanley Liriodendron Replace w/ Trident Maple 200 Stanley Liriodendron Replace w/ Trident Maple 2100 Trousdale Modesto Ash Replace w/ Raywood Ash 1100 Vancouver Catalpa Retain Themed Block 500 Vernon Sycamore Retain Themed Block 600 Vernon Liquidambar Replace w/ Red Maple 700 Vernon Sycamore Retain Themed Block 700 Winchester Dr. Sycamore Retain Themed Block 800 Winchester Dr. Sycamore Retain Themed Block EXHIBIT A City of Burlingame Petition to Apply for Establishment, Modify or Remove a Street Tree Themed Block (Only this form can be used to gather signatures) Definition of a Street Tree Themed Block: A street tree themed block is defined as a block in which one defined species of street tree is established and maintained indefinitely. Once a themed block is established and a tree is removed for any reason, the tree would be replaced with a tree of the established theme species. The Beautification Commission and City Council use the following criteria when considering establishment of a themed block: the percent of predominant tree species, health and disease tolerance of the species, amount of tree diversity, mix of species, age, aesthetic look on the block, current tree canopy, future canopy potential, width of the street, and the width of planter strips. Policy to Establish, Modify or Remove a Themed Block The Beautification Commission will recommend “Themed Blocks” to the City Council. To petition the Beautification Commission for a new themed block a property owner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 2/3 of the property owners on the block. To petition the Beautification Commission to modify a specific themed block tree species or Remove a specific block from the Themed Block List, a property owner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 75% of the property owners on the block. Forms for the “Petition” will be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department office. Petitions shall be forwarded to the Beautification Commission for recommendation to the Council to establish, modify or remove a themed block. A public hearing will be set by the Beautification Commission and notification will be sent by staff to all property owners o n the block. If approved by the Beautification Commission and/or the City Council, staff will determine the species theme in collaboration with the property owners. Selected “themed” species will replace existing trees only when removal of an existing tree is deemed necessa ry according to City policy. Street and Block Requested for Consideration: ________________________________________________________ Mark One: Establish _______________Modify _______________Remove a Themed Bock_____________________ Street Tree Species Desired: _______________________________________________________________________ Street Tree Themed Block Signature Form Property Owner Statement: I am the property owner at the address listed below and I support the Beautification Commission and City Council in ____establishing this block as a Street Tree Themed Block, ____modifying this themed block Street Tree or ____removing this themed block Street Tree within the City of Burlingame. Revised 1/2016 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature Exhibit BEXHIBIT A Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature EXHIBIT A Exhibit CEXHIBIT A TREES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES Height at Botanical Name Common Name Maturity Description Trident Maple 20'-25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; roundish crown; glossy, three lobed leaves; fall color. Australian Willow 25'-30' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; graceful branches; fine textured leaves. Gingko biloba Maidenhair tree 30'-50' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth; fan shaped leaves turn yellow in fall; spreading, almost umbrella form. Jacaranda Blue Jacaranda 20'-50' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; large spreading canopy with mimosifolia breathtaking purple flowers lasting upwards of 2 months. Koelreuteria Chinese Flame Tree 20'-35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow bipinnata flowers; leaves yellow in fall, drop late. Koelreuteria Golden Rain Tree 20'-35' DECIDEUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow flowers; paniculata leaves reddish in spring, light green in summer. Crape Myrtle 20'-30' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; spring foliage light green and "Tuscarora"bronze, fall yellow; dark pink flowers. Laurus nobilis Saratoga Sweet Bay 15'-25' EVERGREEN: Glossy olive green leaves, rounded and dense canopy, fragrant cream flowers in spring, great for pollinators. Magnolia 20'-40' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; white flowers; similar "St. Mary"to Southern Magnolia but smaller. Parkinsonia Sonoran Palo Verde 20'-35' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth, rounded canopy, bright yellow florida flowers lasting up to four months. Parrotia persica Persian Ironwood 20'-40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth, autumn gold fall color, clusters of 'vanessa'tiny red flowers in early spring. Chinese Pistache 30'-40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; dark green leaves, brilliant fall color. Plumeria Frangipani 20' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth with beautiful, fragrant flowers, waxy leaves. Chinese Tallow 35' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round crown; outstanding fall color. Subject to availability. Sapium sebiferum Lagerstroemia indica Acer buergeranum Geijera parviflora Magnolia grandiflora Official Street Tree List 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 parksadmin@burlingame.org Pistachia chinensis City of Burlingame | Parks Division Exhibit DEXHIBIT A Address Street SideType Tree CommonName BotanicalName 1600 ADELINE DR SIDE 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1721 ADELINE DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1721 ADELINE DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1801 ADELINE DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1801 ADELINE DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1901 ADELINE DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1901 ADELINE DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1915 ADELINE DR FRONT YAR 1 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 1915 ADELINE DR FRONT YAR 2 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1915 ADELINE DR FRONT YAR 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1915 ADELINE DR FRONT YAR 4 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1915 ADELINE DR SIDE 2 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 522 ALMER RD FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 525 ALMER RD FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 525 ALMER RD FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 831 ALPINE AV FRONT 7 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 831 ALPINE AV FRONT 8 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 833 ALPINE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 833 ALPINE AV FRONT 2 ENGLISH WALNUT Juglans regia 833 ALPINE AV FRONT 3 RED OAK Quercus rubra 833 ALPINE AV FRONT 4 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1001 BALBOA AV FRONT 1 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1601 BALBOA AV SIDE 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1601 BALBOA AV SIDE 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 101 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 COAST LIVE OAK Quercus agrifolia 105 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 109 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 109 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 113 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 117 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 AUSTRALIAN WILLOW Geijera parviflora 117 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 AUSTRALIAN WILLOW Geijera parviflora 201 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 205 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba Exhibit EEXHIBIT A 205 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 209 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 213 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 221 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 301 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 301 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 SAMUEL SOMMER MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 'Samuel Sommer' 301 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 3 SAMUEL SOMMER MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 'Samuel Sommer' 305 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 JAPANESE FLOWERING CHERRY Prunus serrulata 305 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 305 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 3 CHINABERRY Melia azedarach 309 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 313 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 401 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 405 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 409 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 411 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 501 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 501 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 505 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 509 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 511 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 512 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 AUTUMN GOLD GINKGO Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' 512 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 AUTUMN GOLD GINKGO Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold' 515 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 515 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 521 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 603 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 CHINESE FLAME TREE Koelreuteria bipinnata 603 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 CHINESE FLAME TREE Koelreuteria bipinnata 605 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 609 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 609 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 611 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 611 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 611 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 3 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba EXHIBIT A 615 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 615 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 615 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 3 VACANT SITE Vacant site 701 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 705 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 AUSTRALIAN WILLOW Geijera parviflora 709 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 709 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 711 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 715 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 721 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 807 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 809 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 811 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 811 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 815 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 817 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 821 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 925 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 925 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 925 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 3 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 925 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 4 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 925 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 5 VACANT SITE Vacant site 998 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 ARISTOCRAT PEAR Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' 998 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 CHANTICLEER PEAR Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' 1105 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1107 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 JAPANESE FLOWERING CHERRY Prunus serrulata 1110 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1113 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1115 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1155 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1201 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1201 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1215 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1215 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora EXHIBIT A 1215 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 3 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1305 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1307 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1311 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1317 BAYSWATER AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1210 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1210 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 3 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1218 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1218 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1220 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1220 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1224 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1236 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1236 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 2 JACARANDA Jacaranda mimosifolia 1236 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 3 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1236 BELLEVUE AV FRONT 4 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 301 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 301 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 321 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 321 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 325 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 325 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 340 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 401 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 401 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 424 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 430 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 431 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 431 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 435 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 435 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 440 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 449 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 450 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 453 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 457 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 461 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 465 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 469 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 473 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 477 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 481 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 485 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 489 BLOOMFIELD RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 500 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 CAMPHOR TREE Cinnamomum camphora 501 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 CAMPHOR TREE Cinnamomum camphora 505 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 CAMPHOR TREE Cinnamomum camphora 509 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 509 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 511 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 511 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 JAPANESE MAPLE Acer palmatum 515 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 521 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 801 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 801 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 BRONZE LOQUAT Eriobotrya deflexa 805 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 809 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 COAST REDWOOD Sequoia sempervirens 809 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 VACANT SITE Vacant site 809 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 3 BIGLEAF MAPLE Acer macrophyllum 809 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 4 TANBARK-OAK Lithocarpus densiflorus 811 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 811 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1501 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1513 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1517 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1519 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1525 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1529 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 1533 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1537 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1537 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1538 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1538 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 4 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1541 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1545 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1549 BURLINGAME AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 3 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 4 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 5 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 6 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 7 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 8 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 9 COAST LIVE OAK Quercus agrifolia 85 CALIFORNIA DR SIDE 10 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 301 CHANNING RD FRONT 1 SILVER MAPLE Acer saccharinum 301 CHANNING RD FRONT 2 SILVER MAPLE Acer saccharinum 307 CHANNING RD FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 2 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 3 ENGLISH HAWTHORN Crataegus laevigata 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 4 ENGLISH HAWTHORN Crataegus laevigata 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 5 ENGLISH HAWTHORN Crataegus laevigata 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 6 ENGLISH HAWTHORN Crataegus laevigata 1601 CHAPIN AV FRONT 7 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1617 CHAPIN AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1617 CHAPIN AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1617 CHAPIN AV FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1617 CHAPIN AV SIDE 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1617 CHAPIN AV SIDE 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1617 CHAPIN AV SIDE 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 301 CHAPIN LN FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 310 CHAPIN LN FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 310 CHAPIN LN FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 316 CHAPIN LN FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 316 CHAPIN LN FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 320 CHAPIN LN FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 320 CHAPIN LN FRONT 2 VACANT SITE Vacant site 324 CHAPIN LN FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 328 CHAPIN LN FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 328 CHAPIN LN FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 301 CLARENDON RD SIDE 1 CAMPHOR TREE Cinnamomum camphora 1508 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1512 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1516 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 OAK Quercus spp. 1520 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1524 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1528 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 SHUMARD RED OAK Quercus shumardii 1532 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1588 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 AUSTRALIAN WILLOW Geijera parviflora 1588 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 2 NICHOLS WILLOW LEAFED PEPPER Eucalyptus nicholii 1592 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1596 COLUMBUS AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 510 CORBITT DR FRONT 1 EVERGREEN PEAR Pyrus kawakamii 535 CORBITT DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 539 CORBITT DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 543 CORBITT DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1477 CORTEZ AV SIDE 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1477 CORTEZ AV SIDE 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1478 CORTEZ AV SIDE 1 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1478 CORTEZ AV SIDE 2 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1478 CORTEZ AV SIDE 6 LOCUST Robinia spp. 1478 CORTEZ AV SIDE 7 LOCUST Robinia spp. 1478 CORTEZ AV SIDE 8 LOCUST Robinia spp. 815 CROSSWAY RD FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 843 CROSSWAY RD SIDE 1 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana EXHIBIT A 843 CROSSWAY RD SIDE 2 EVERGREEN PEAR Pyrus kawakamii 843 CROSSWAY RD SIDE 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1407 DESOTO AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1408 DESOTO AV FRONT 1 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1110 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1110 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1111 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1116 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1120 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SYCAMORE Platanus occidentalis 1120 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 2 COLUMBIA PLANE Platanus X hispanica 'Columbia' 1121 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 COLUMBIA PLANE Platanus X hispanica 'Columbia' 1124 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 1124 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 2 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 1128 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1132 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1134 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1134 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1138 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1138 DOUGLAS AV FRONT 2 VACANT SITE Vacant site 305 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 305 DWIGHT RD FRONT 2 RED OAK Quercus rubra 309 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 321 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 323 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 325 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 332 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 333 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 EVERGREEN PEAR Pyrus kawakamii 336 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 340 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 341 DWIGHT RD FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1501 EASTON DR FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1505 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1505 EASTON DR FRONT 2 NO REPLANT No Replant 1509 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora EXHIBIT A 1601 EASTON DR FRONT 1 BLUE GUM Eucalyptus globulus 1605 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1609 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1613 EASTON DR FRONT 1 EUCALYPTUS Eucalyptus spp. 1616 EASTON DR FRONT 1 EUCALYPTUS Eucalyptus spp. 1705 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1709 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1709 EASTON DR FRONT 2 YUCCA SPECIES Yucca spp. 1715 EASTON DR FRONT 1 EUCALYPTUS Eucalyptus spp. 1719 EASTON DR FRONT 1 EUCALYPTUS Eucalyptus spp. 1805 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1809 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1809 EASTON DR FRONT 2 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1815 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1905 EASTON DR FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1905 EASTON DR FRONT 2 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1905 EASTON DR FRONT 3 STUMP Stump 1907 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1907 EASTON DR FRONT 2 CALIFORNIA PEPPER Schinus molle 1908 EASTON DR FRONT 3 STUMP - NOT ACCESSIBLE Stump - not accessible 1911 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 1912 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 2001 EASTON DR FRONT 1 BLUE GUM Eucalyptus globulus 2001 EASTON DR FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 2001 EASTON DR FRONT 3 BLUE GUM Eucalyptus globulus 2017 EASTON DR FRONT 1 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 2017 EASTON DR FRONT 2 LEMON-SCENTED GUM Corymbia citriodora 815 EDGEHILL DR FRONT 1 MAYTEN TREE Maytenus boaria 1315 EDGEHILL DR FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1315 EDGEHILL DR FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1315 EDGEHILL DR FRONT 3 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1315 EDGEHILL DR FRONT 4 CALIFORNIA BAY Umbellularia californica 1323 EDGEHILL DR FRONT 1 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 1416 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua EXHIBIT A 1422 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 MAYTEN TREE Maytenus boaria 1440 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1446 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1446 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1452 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1452 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1452 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 3 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1452 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 4 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1500 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1500 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1500 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 3 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1500 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 4 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1500 FLORIBUNDA AV MEDIAN 1 CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM Phoenix canariensis 1508 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1508 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 1512 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1512 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1512 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 3 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1520 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1520 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1528 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1528 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1532 FLORIBUNDA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 501 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 501 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 4 EUROPEAN WHITE BIRCH Betula pendula 508 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 512 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 512 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 520 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 524 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 526 FRANCISCO DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 41 HIGHLAND AV SIDE 1 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 1920 HILLSIDE DR SIDE 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 700 HOWARD AV SIDE 1 PURPLE-LEAF PLUM Prunus cerasifera EXHIBIT A 700 HOWARD AV SIDE 2 STONE FRUIT Prunus spp. 700 HOWARD AV SIDE 3 PEACH Prunus persica 1210 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 NO REPLANT No Replant 1215 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1225 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1229 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1233 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1237 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1241 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1245 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1245 LAGUNA AV FRONT 2 ASH SPECIES Fraxinus spp. 1321 LAGUNA AV FRONT 2 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1325 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1329 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1333 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1337 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1337 LAGUNA AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1341 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1345 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 EVERGREEN PEAR Pyrus kawakamii 1349 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1349 LAGUNA AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1355 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1355 LAGUNA AV FRONT 2 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1355 LAGUNA AV FRONT 3 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1355 LAGUNA AV FRONT 4 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 1411 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1415 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 SILK TREE Albizia julibrissin 1421 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 YOSHINO CHERRY Prunus yedoensis 1423 LAGUNA AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 500 MARIN DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 501 MARIN DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 528 MARIN DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1109 MILLS AV FRONT 1 IDAHO LOCUST Robinia ambigua 'Idahoensis' 1109 MILLS AV FRONT 2 PINK LOCUST Robinia ambigua EXHIBIT A 1201 MILLS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1201 MILLS AV FRONT 2 PINK LOCUST Robinia ambigua 1205 MILLS AV FRONT 1 PINK LOCUST Robinia ambigua 1205 MILLS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1209 MILLS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1213 MILLS AV FRONT 1 RAYWOOD ASH Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' 1213 MILLS AV FRONT 2 RAYWOOD ASH Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' 1217 MILLS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1301 MILLS AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1305 MILLS AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1309 MILLS AV FRONT 1 WESTERN CATALPA Catalpa speciosa 1313 MILLS AV FRONT 1 WESTERN CATALPA Catalpa speciosa 1313 MILLS AV FRONT 2 WESTERN CATALPA Catalpa speciosa 1405 MILLS AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1409 MILLS AV FRONT 1 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1409 MILLS AV FRONT 2 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1031 MORRELL AV SIDE 1 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1031 MORRELL AV SIDE 2 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1500 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1500 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1500 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1528 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1532 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1540 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1540 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1540 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1546 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1546 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1548 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1551 NEWLANDS AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1201 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1209 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1210 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 SCARLET OAK Quercus coccinea 1217 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra EXHIBIT A 1217 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 2 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1221 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 2 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1225 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1235 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1239 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1239 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 2 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1245 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1245 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 2 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1265 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1269 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1275 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1285 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1285 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 2 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1407 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 1419 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1449 OAK GROVE AV REAR 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1457 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 AUSTRALIAN WILLOW Geijera parviflora 1459 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1463 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 1491 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1493 OAK GROVE AV FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra 101 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 105 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 109 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 109 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 115 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 115 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 117 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 117 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 121 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 121 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 125 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 125 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 129 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 129 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 133 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 139 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 139 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 141 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 145 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 149 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 149 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 153 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 157 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 157 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 211 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 245 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 245 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 300 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 300 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 300 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 300 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 4 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 300 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 5 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 340 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 344 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 344 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 344 OCCIDENTAL AV FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1101 OXFORD RD SIDE 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1101 OXFORD RD SIDE 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1101 OXFORD RD SIDE 3 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1112 PALM DR FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1112 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1116 PALM DR FRONT 1 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 1116 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1120 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1124 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1128 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1132 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 1133 PALM DR FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1136 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1140 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1140 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1144 PALM DR FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1204 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1204 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1208 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1208 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1308 PALM DR FRONT 1 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1312 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1316 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1316 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1404 PALM DR FRONT 1 MAYTEN TREE Maytenus boaria 1404 PALM DR FRONT 2 MAYTEN TREE Maytenus boaria 1408 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1408 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1421 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1429 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1430 PALM DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1430 PALM DR FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1430 PALM DR FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1430 PALM DR FRONT 4 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1430 PALM DR FRONT 5 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 49 PARK RD SIDE 1 FLOWERING PLUM Prunus blireiana 49 PARK RD SIDE 2 FLOWERING PLUM Prunus blireiana 1104 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1104 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1108 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1112 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1120 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1120 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 2 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1202 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1208 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 1212 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1220 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 1220 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1220 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 3 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 1220 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 4 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1220 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 5 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1220 SANCHEZ AV SIDE 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1300 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1308 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 1308 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 2 BLOODGOOD PLANE Platanus X hispanica 'Bloodgood' 1312 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1316 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1332 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1336 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1340 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1344 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1349 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1404 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1404 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1408 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1412 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1418 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1420 SANCHEZ AV FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 1700 SHERMAN AV FRONT 1 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1700 SHERMAN AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1700 SHERMAN AV FRONT 3 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1700 SHERMAN AV FRONT 4 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 1 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 2 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 3 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 4 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 5 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 6 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 7 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica EXHIBIT A 1720 SHERMAN AV FRONT 8 CRAPE MYRTLE Lagerstroemia indica 37 STANLEY RD FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 40 STANLEY RD FRONT 2 AMERICAN SWEETGUM Liquidambar styraciflua 40 STANLEY RD SIDE 1 MAIDENHAIR TREE Ginkgo biloba 117 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 RED MAPLE Acer rubrum 121 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 129 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 133 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 133 STANLEY RD FRONT 2 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 137 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 137 STANLEY RD FRONT 2 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 209 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 213 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 CHINESE TALLOW TREE Triadica sebifera 217 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 221 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 221 STANLEY RD FRONT 2 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 221 STANLEY RD FRONT 3 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 225 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 229 STANLEY RD FRONT 1 TULIP TREE Liriodendron tulipifera 229 STANLEY RD FRONT 2 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1104 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 1 GOLDENRAIN TREE Koelreuteria paniculata 1104 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 2 GOLDENRAIN TREE Koelreuteria paniculata 1108 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 1 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1112 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 1 GOLDENRAIN TREE Koelreuteria paniculata 1112 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 2 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA Magnolia grandiflora 1116 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 1 WESTERN CATALPA Catalpa speciosa 1116 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 2 WESTERN CATALPA Catalpa speciosa 1120 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 1 TRIDENT MAPLE Acer buergeranum 1120 VANCOUVER AV FRONT 2 WESTERN CATALPA Catalpa speciosa 1486 VANCOUVER AV SIDE 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1486 VANCOUVER AV SIDE 2 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 1486 VANCOUVER AV SIDE 3 ORNAMENTAL PEAR Pyrus calleryana 1486 VANCOUVER AV SIDE 4 PURPLE-LEAF PLUM Prunus cerasifera 600 VERNON WY FRONT 1 RED OAK Quercus rubra EXHIBIT A 719 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 723 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 SYCAMORE Platanus spp. 727 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 731 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 735 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 739 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 743 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 747 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 751 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 755 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 VACANT SITE Vacant site 801 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 805 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 808 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 3 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 809 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 813 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 817 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica 821 WINCHESTER DR FRONT 1 LONDON PLANE Platanus X hispanica EXHIBIT A 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes March 6, 2025 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Chu. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chu, Commissioners Bauer, Damico, and Kirchner Absent: Commissioner Batte Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES None CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT Jennifer Pfaff, Burlingame Historical Society member, reported that the didactic panels previously presented to the Commission arrived at the Community Center, and installation, dependent on Parks Staff availability, will be the next step. PRESENTATION None OLD BUSINESS 1.Landscape Award Update Commissioner Kirchner provided the rest of the Commissioners with a list of all previous Residential Sustainability Landscape Award, Business Landscape Award, and Multi-Family Landscape Award winners. NEW BUSINESS 1.Discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts and Potential Revisions to the Themed Block Lists Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He explained that the specific concern that Council Member Brownrigg brought forth was the consideration of changes to planting large canopy trees under utility lines. Currently, the City’s Themed Block List’s designated species take precedence over the Primary Utility Line Street Tree Plant List. Arborist Holtz stated that utility conflict trees grow to heights that interfere with overhead primary electrical conductors or have root infrastructure that interferes with underground gas transmission lines. He confirmed that the primary concern is the overhead conductors, where topping or directional pruning occurs. Further, although staff receive calls about sewer and water conflicts, they are not typically of significant consequence. Arborist Holtz explained that utility companies that practice directional pruning will not allow tree branches to overhang the top of their lines, which prevents the tree from enveloping and coming back together. He EXHIBIT B 2 stated that the City experiences more topping situations, which require City staff to conduct side pruning to ensure that the required clearances are met. Large canopy trees repeatedly topped due to utility pruning experience injuries that aren’t allowed to heal, and decay may spread further down the trunk. Also, whole branches may fail because they are constantly stripped of leaves. Arborist Holtz stated that the large canopy species on the Themed Block List are Red Maple, Red Oak, and Sycamore trees. According to the City’s tree inventory, there are approximately 2500 Themed Block tree sites, 600 located at sites with primary utilities. Further, approximately 300 of those trees are large canopy trees that present primary utility conflicts. Arborist Holtz stated that the Commission may choose to leave the Themed Block List unchanged but also presented the revision opportunities to modernize the City’s policy. He shared a depiction from the Arbor Day Foundation that shows trees planted under utility lines at a mature height of 25 feet or less. Commissioner Bauer asked whether it was possible to select trees that were smaller yet similar species to the Themed street they would be planted on instead of giving property owners several choices from the approved Primary Utility Street Tree List. Arborist Holtz confirmed that it was an option and provided an example of planting Trident Maple trees on Red Maple Themed Blocks on the side of the streets where overhead utility conflicts exist. He explained that staff could gather more information on suitable and similar alternatives to bring back to the Commission for further consideration. Also, he explained to the Commission the availability of growth regulators to limit response growth; however, he would not recommend their use, stating it would be a significant number of applications to apply the chemicals. Arborist Holtz spoke of previous plans to work with PG&E using growth regulators along Airport Boulevard for the Sycamore trees planted under utilities. However, PG&E felt that due to their experience in other areas, it was not worth the labor to do so. Supervisor Burow confirmed that PG&E’s previous experience using the growth regulators did not work at the level they wanted them to or did not work at all, so they removed them as an option altogether. Arborist Holtz confirmed with Commissioner Bauer that her suggestion of having a smaller alternative was valid, and staff could investigate options more in-depth for the three large canopy tree species where utility conflicts are most seen. Commissioner Kirchner inquired about the estimated time frame for the change to occur for the Themed trees under utility lines. Arborist Holtz stated that the majority would likely be replanted within 50 years. Commissioner Kirchner asked for confirmation that the Themed portion of the ordinance was not up for discussion but instead only the Themed trees under utility lines. City Arborist Holtz confirmed. Commissioner Damico asked whether the option in the staff report allowing property owners to pick their replacement tree for sites under utility was from a specific list of Themed trees. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the second option would allow property owners to select from the approved Primary Utility Street Tree List shown on Exhibit D. Chair Chu asked if a smaller tree could have more biomass than a larger canopy tree that is continually topped and reduced in size. Arborist Holtz stated that having large trees pruned yearly negates the environmental benefit of the tree. Although he is unsure if a smaller tree would have a greater biomass, it may have a net positive effect versus a larger tree that requires significant maintenance. Chair Chu opened the floor to Public Comment. Alice Davis, a Burlingame resident, spoke in favor of changing Themed Blocks with utility conflicts. As a resident of Sanchez, she experienced the removal of two Liquidambar trees by PG&E due to an EXHIBIT B 3 underground gas line conflict and a chronic threat to the overhead utility lines. She stated that the roots were very destructive to the sidewalk, landscaping, and hardscape of her front yard. The Parks Division staff reached out to her regarding planting the replacement street trees, and she was originally told that she could pick a species from the approved Primary Utility Line Street Tree List. Later, it was discovered that she was a part of Themed Block, and two Sycamore trees would be planted instead of her choice of smaller canopy tree. She expressed her strong protest against the planting of the two Sycamore replacement trees. Due to her allotted speaking time running out, Ms. Davis provided the rest of her notes to be shared with the Commission. Jennifer Pfaff, Themed Block resident, spoke in favor of keeping the Themed Block policy unchanged. She spoke of her concern about the general degradation of Burlingame’s City of Trees designation and lamented the issue of losing large trees because there is no room left for trees to be planted on developed lots. Ms. Pfaff inquired about the possibility of planting large trees similar to the Citriodora on Easton in a toggled manner to help avoid future utility issues. Lastly, she stated that many Sycamore trees were pollarded when they were first planted and asked whether that was an option for the side of the Themed streets located under utility lines. Cathy Baylock, former Council Member and Themed Block resident, spoke in favor of keeping large canopy trees on Themed Blocks, such as the Sycamore trees on Newlands Avenue. She stated that the quasi- pollarding method used on the side of Newlands Avenue under utility lines has worked and created shorter trees on one side of the street. Although Sycamore trees are not the most aesthetic tree, she spoke highly of the conformity of a Sycamore Themed street. It would be a mistake not to find a way to continue pruning them to keep them out of the utility lines and said that the trees have managed well against these hard pruning methods. Constance Quirk, a Burlingame resident of Lexington Way, spoke in favor of keeping the Themed Block policy unchanged. With the extensive development the City is experiencing, she appreciates the softness that Themed Blocks bring to overdeveloped areas. She also stated her appreciation to City staff for all the maintenance work. Stephanie Lee, a Bloomfield Road resident, loves the appearance of Themed streets but spoke in favor of modifying the Themed Block with a utility conflict with an option such as the one suggested by Commissioner Bauer of a similar tree to that of the rest of the Themed Block but on a smaller scale, allowing for the continuation of the Themed visual. She expressed concern about Themed streets having a species specific Themed that could wipe out all the trees. Also, she inquired whether the City was aware of any plans to underground utilities by PG&E that would allow the City to keep large canopy trees. Chair closed Public Comment. Arborist Holtz addressed comments posed during Public Comment. He stated that a monoculture is a drawback to a Themed Block area and is always a concern. He spoke of the Polyphagus Shot-Hole Borer currently affecting Sycamore trees in San Jose, which warrants more research. Further, he confirmed that he is unaware of any PG&E plans for underground utilities aside from the City’s efforts to purchase credits for El Camino Real. Residential areas are not a high priority for PG&E. Arborist Holtz confirmed that Easton Drive is not up for discussion but confirmed that Easton Drive planter strips are uniquely large and the option to move or plant trees in such a manner is not available on other streets with the standard planter EXHIBIT B 4 strip size. Lastly, he explained that the pruning practice of pollarding that occurred in the City through the 1960s-1980s is still an approved pruning standard through the ISA and ANSI, although very labor intensive and not a practice he would recommend. When you pollard a tree, it forces a growth of smaller branches to push out very fast, and the growth could be poorly attached. He explained that Sycamore trees have done very well in retraining themselves with strong attachments. He would be very concerned if this pruning method were done on an Oak or Eucalyptus tree because the attachments would be weakly attached and have a greater likelihood of failure. Commissioner Damico inquired about a specific correspondence that was sent via email that referenced the hardship property owners face due to added yard maintenance and debris removal costs . Arborist Holtz stated that he has communicated with the property owner who sent the referenced email and summarized her concerns about leaves clogging gutters and miscellaneous debris, such as twigs and leaves dropping in the fall on the lawn. He confirmed that the City does not assist with yard maintenance, and it falls on the property owner to maintain any debris on their private property, although the street sweeper does take care of leaves left in the street. He explained that the community values the importance and benefits of trees and understands that there may be inconveniences that arise because of large trees. Commissioner Damico asked about the probability of a species specific disease infecting a species in Burlingame today and whether it will be a bigger concern in the future. Arborist Holtz confirmed a possibility and increased risk when there are greater concentrations of the same tree species. However, the probability of this being a current issue or concern is lower, with the exception of the Polyphagous Shot-Hole Borer currently affecting sycamore trees in higher numbers and thus represents an elevated risk. Supervisor Burow shared what she has learned about the shot hole borer and noted that a Palm pest is currently affecting San Diego. Commissioner Chu inquired about planting in a toggled manner and whether that is an option to help trees grow and bypass utility lines. Arborist Holtz confirmed that shifting sidewalks away from power lines to plant trees is unique to Easton because of the wide planter strips. Further, he explained that PG&E would likely not agree with directional pruning that allows the tree to come back and grow over the utility lines because their primary concern is to protect their asset. Supervisor Burow confirmed that few approved trees are allowed to grow next to power lines such as Redwood and types of cedar trees, because once they are trimmed, they will not continue to grow back in that area, and the risk of a limb falling on a line is significantly reduced. In most other cases, PG&E will top the tree because it is easier. Chair Chu reiterated that the Commission may choose to leave the current policy as it stands, modify the Themed tree only in the locations with utility conflicts, or give homeowners with utility conflict options from the approved Primary Utility Line Street Tree List. Commissioner Kirchner asked for further clarification on whether the smaller option tree under utility lines could also be a Themed species. Chair Chu confirmed that is how the second option is defined. Commissioner Bauer stated that she favors the appearance of Themed streets, as she imagines many residents do. She is not in favor of letting a homeowner on a Themed Block with utility conflict pick a replacement tree from the approved street tree list and is inclined to support a smaller Themed species for the Themed street areas in the affected areas to ensure a cohesive look. Commissioner Damico asked if finding a similar smaller version of the three large canopy species causing utility conflicts was feasible. Arborist Holtz stated that staff are not currently familiar with the available options and whether they would make suitable alternatives, but staff can research further and come back with more information and options for the Commission to view and discuss. He understands the passion Themed Blocks invokes in residents, and although he does not want to prolong the subject, he wants to ensure due diligence is performed on the matter, and additional staff research is a feasible ask. EXHIBIT B 5 Commissioner Chu stated that if a smaller species similar in look is not found, there could still be a smaller species that harmonizes with the rest of the Themed Block. Commissioner Bauer also reflected on the solution this may be for the possible pest problem because it breaks up only one species. Commissioner Kirchner expressed his inclination to keep the Themed Block ordinance in its current state and not make any changes, dealing with any issues as they arise. Commissioner Bauer stated that utility conflicts were a current issue. Commissioner Kircher questioned whether it was a big enough issue to warrant a change. Commissioner Damico stated that it may become a bigger issue in the coming months or years and would prefer to continue the discussion and make a recommendation to the Council. Director Glomstad suggested Arborist Holtz come back with one to two replacement options for the three large canopy Themed Block tree species causing utility conflicts. Commissioner Bauer agreed it would be helpful to see visuals of the possible replacement species and proposed the item be brought back for discussion at a future meeting. Chair Chu made a motion to postpone the discussion to allow City Arborist Holtz to present similar and smaller trees as suitable replacements for the large canopy Themed Block species experiencing utility conflicts. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bauer and was approved. 4-0-1 REPORTS Arborist Holtz reported that the largest of the two private trees discussed during the February meeting as part of the appeal to the Private Tree Removal Application filed by 1325 El Camino Real failed eight days after the meeting. It was caught failing and was removed before it hit any structure. The appellant and neighboring property that claimed ownership filed an emergency tree removal application, and a permit was issued retroactively. Also, he reminded the Commission of the Arbor Day celebration scheduled for Thursday, March 13, 2025, at 11 a.m. at Murray Field. Supervisor Burow reported removing a Western Catalpa City tree on Balboa that involved bees and explained the process taken to remove and relocate the bees safely before the removal. Arborist Holtz explained that the resident was very concerned with the possibility of losing the tree and that efforts were exhausted to try and retain the tree, but it was structurally compromised, and the likelihood of failure was significant. Commissioner Kirchner inquired about the measurement taken for a tree with multiple trunks to determine if it is a protected-sized tree. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the City ordinance states that the measurement is taken where the multiple trunks attach, typically closer to the base. Commissioner Kirchner thanked Commissioner Bauer for providing her edits to the Trees of Burlingame book. Further, he provided a partial list of significant Burlingame trees that could be included in the publication. He asked for any additions to be sent his way. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for April 3, 2025. EXHIBIT B 6 Respectfully submitted, Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary EXHIBIT B Scientific Name Acer truncatum Common Name Shantung Maple Common Name: shantung maple  Type: Tree  Family: Sapindaceae Zone: 4 to 8  Height: 20.00 to 25.00 feet  Spread: 15.00 to 20.00 feet  Bloom Time: April  Bloom Description: Greenish yellow  Sun: Full sun to part shade  Water: Medium  Maintenance: Low  Flower: Insignificant Leaf: Good Fall Tolerate: Drought EXHIBIT C striped maple Aceraceae Acer pensylvanicum L. symbol: ACPE Leaf: Opposite, simple, orbicular, 5 to 8 inches long, 3-lobed (resembles a goose foot), serrated margin; green above and paler below. Flower: Species is dioecious; yellow-green, bellshaped, 1/4 inch long, appear in long, hanging slender clusters in late spring. Fruit: Paired, wide-spreading samaras, 3/4 to 1 inch long, in hanging clusters, ripen in late summer and early fall. Twig: Moderately stout, green changing to red or reddish brown, smooth; reddish buds narrowly ovoid, stalked, valvate. Bark: When young, smooth gray-green with prominent white lengthwise stripes, older bark becomes reddish brown. Form: Small tree or large shrub up to 30 feet tall. Looks like: mountain maple - red maple Additional Range Information: Acer pensylvanicum is native to North America. Range may be expanded by planting. See states reporting striped maple. External Links: USDAFS Silvics of North America USDAFS Additional Silvics USDA Plants Database EXHIBIT C © Copyright by Mountain States Wholesale Nursery 2005 Visit our website at www.mswn.com for more information. Quercus gambelii Gambel Oak Gambel oak is native over a wide range in the southwestern U.S. and Mexico, from 4000' to 8000' in elevation. Usually found in dense thickets, its size varies from 5 foot shrubs to 50 foot trees, depending upon available moisture and deer browsing. With adequate moisture, Gambel oak can grow 2 feet per year. It performs best in areas where temperatures cool off at night, such as Albuquerque, NM Las Vegas, NV and colder locations. Infrequent, deep irrigations are best, since root rot can occur in heavy water-logged soils. In very sandy, well-drained soils more frequent irrigations will be needed. It has deeply-lobed, deciduous leaves and rough, grey bark. AT A GLANCE SUMMARY SIZE (H X W) 15-30 feet x 15-30 feet FLOWER COLOR Green FLOWER SEASON Spring EXPOSURE Full sun WATER Low GROWTH RATE Slow HARDINESS -30º F, USDA Zone 4 PRUNING To shape EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT D All the knowledge. Almost all of the trees. https://www.vdberk.com/trees/platanus-hispanica-alphen-s-globe/ Platanus ×hispanica 'Alphen's Globe' Height 4-5 m Width 3-6m Crown round/spherical, half-open crown Bark and branches flaking, greygreen Leaf green Flowers yellowgreen, flowers in May Fruits brown Spines/thorns None Toxicity usually not toxic to people, (large) pets and livestock Soil type clayed soil, loamy soil, sandy soil, peaty soil Paving tolerates paving Winter hardiness zone 6a (-23,3 to -20,6 °C) Wind resistance good Other resistances resistant to frost (WH 1 - 6), can withstand wind, resistant to de-icing salt Application narrow streets, tree containers, roof gardens, small gardens, patio gardens Shape clearstem tree, multi-stem treem This fairly recent Dutch selection is distinguished from the species by the smaller size of the crown. It is usually grafted on a stam causing it to assume the shape of a large sphere. It shows strong growth and its eventual height very much depends on the height of the graft. The broad leaf has 3 - 5 sharply serrated lobes and is slightly hairy on the underside. In the autumn the leaves turn colour to a brownish yellow. Is very resistant to hard surfaces. It also supports pruning well, even in old wood. It is important to use a tree stake for support at the sapling stage. Stands up well to wind. For narrow streets, small gardens and squares. Winter Winter hardiness zone: 6a © Copyright Boomkwekerij Gebr. Van den Berk B.V. 2025 EXHIBIT E Platanus orientalis Platanus orientalis 'Mirkovec''Mirkovec' TYPES OF PLANTING Tree types: standard trees USE Location: street, avenue, square, park, central reservation, large garden, small garden, cemetery | Pavement: none, open, sealed CHARACTERISTICS Crown shape: rounded | Crown structure: dense | Height: 6 - 10 m | Width: 4 - 8 m | Winter hardiness zone: 6B - 9B ASPECTS Wind: tolerant to wind | Soil: loess, sabulous clay, peaty, heavy clay, light clay, sand, loamy soil, all soils | Nutrient level: moderately rich in nutrients, rich in nutrients | Soil moisture level: moist | Light requirements: sun, partial shade | pH range: acidic, neutral, alkaline | Extreme environments: tolerant to salt spray PLANTKENMERKEN Flowers: heads, discrete, pendulous | Flower colour: yellow-green | Flowering period: May - May | Leaf colour: green, buds bright green | Leaves: deciduous, palmate, dissected, dentate, lobate | Autumn colour: bronze-red | Fruits: striking, capsule | Fruit colour: brown | Bark colour: brown, green, grey | Bark: peeling | Twig colour: cinnamon-brown | Twigs: bare Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) EXHIBIT E 1 / STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: May 1, 2025 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Subject: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Denial of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1320 Vancouver Ave. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission review the City Arborist's decision to deny the removal of a protected private Coastal Redwood tree at 1320 Vancouver Ave. The Commission can either: 1. Uphold the City Arborist’s decision. 2. Reject the City Arborist's decision and approve the tree’s removal. 3. Request more information to make a determination at a future meeting. BACKGROUND An application to remove one protected private Deodar Cedar tree and one protected private Coastal redwood tree was received from the property owner at 1320 Vancouver Ave. (Exhibit A). The application listed reasons for removal due to structural damage to a private residence caused by the tree. The Applicant also submitted an arborist report from Monster Tree Service (Exhibit B) and a letter of support from the adjacent property (Exhibit C). The arborist report listed the mature Deodar Cedar tree as having poor to fair structure and health. Additionally, this tree is listed as having a low live-crown ratio, has been topped due to location near primary utility conductors, and has suppressed growth due to its growing location in proximity to the Coastal Redwood tree. The City Arborist viewed site conditions and verified the Deodar Cedar as an unlikely candidate for retention. Due to site conditions and species behavior, the City Arborist concurs that removing and replacing the Deodar Cedar tree is the best risk mitigation effort. The arborist report lists the Coastal Redwood tree as having fair health and poor structure. The arborist report also states the tree has been topped, has a cavity at the base, has been suppressed by the adjacent Deodar Cedar tree and is a species know to have aggressive root systems. Upon City Arborist site inspection, it was determined that no visible damage or threat to the residential structure was evident. The redwood tree exists at a distance of 13.5 feet from the structure. There was limited cracking observed in the stucco and foundation in this area, however these cracks observed are consistent with observations of the structure significantly further away Appeal of protected Tree Removal at 1320 Vancouver Ave. May 1, 2025 2 from the tree location, indicating cracking is likely not due to the tree. Absent additional evidence provided, tree removal due to structural damage is not a factor in this instance. The Coastal Redwood tree was observed to have been recently pruned. The pruning appears to have consisted of reducing the length of lateral branches. This type of pruning typically causes the redwood tree to flush out new growth, resulting in “bushy” branching. The removal of the end- weight and thus the leverage effect on these branches reduces the likelihood of failure. The remaining conditions of the redwood tree, as referenced in the arborist report, could not be verified. The City Arborist did not find reasons that would cause a significant likelihood of failure. Therefore, the requested removal of the Coastal Redwood tree was denied. This information was shared with the Applicant. The Applicant disagreed with the City Arborist's findings and has exercised their right to appeal to the Beautification Commission (Exhibit D). DISCUSSION Coastal Redwood Trees Coastal Redwood trees are generally regarded as long-lived species with a low likelihood of significant failure. The species is a large, coniferous species that often contributes significantly to the neighborhood. Growing redwood trees in the urban environment can present challenges. Their need for high water consumption often leads to root intrusion into utilities and structural spaces. The species can tolerate root pruning well, though mitigation efforts are often temporary and performed based on specific site conditions. Reason for the Appeal The primary reason for the appeal of the City Arborist's decision to deny the removal of the Coastal Redwood is concern about the risk of failure of the tree. Denying the removal of this tree requires the Applicant to continue maintaining the tree and to accept a degree of risk. The Applicant is not comfortable with this risk and requests permission to lawfully remove the tree. The Applicant’s supplied arborist report includes a history of branch failures, “cavity” at the base of the trunk, and a history of “topping”. See Photos (Exhibit E). City Arborist's Reason to Deny Removal The Applicant has not demonstrated a significant likelihood of failure of the tree or any of its parts. The likelihood of branch failure is low due to recent pruning activities undertaken by the Applicant’s contractor. Whole tree failures of Coastal Redwood trees are rare. While this specimen does have a compromised trunk flare, there does not appear to be evidence of decay associated with a cavity. Rather, the area of compromise appears to be an old wound due to construction activity. The margins of the wound are healthy with significant callous wood developing. The callous wood is biologically stronger than any other wood a tree produces. No evidence was observed or presented by the Applicant about this area having a compromised root flare. Lastly, the statement that this specimen has been topped appears inaccurate. Because the recent branch pruning is causing bushy growth, the City Arborist is unable to view the condition of the topping. The arborist report also stated the tree was not climbed for inspection. All observations have been made from the ground. However, Google Earth imagery appears to show that this tree is in a natural and unaltered form. A Google Maps image from 2022 shows what appears to be the development of co-dominant trunks at approximately 80’. This co-dominant Appeal of protected Tree Removal at 1320 Vancouver Ave. May 1, 2025 3 trunk union should be inspected. Mitigation efforts to reduce the risk of failure of one of these main stems could include cabling, structural reduction by pruning one of the stems, or removal of one. See Photos (Exhibit F). The City Arborist does not believe the Applicant provided the necessary data to support removing and replacing the Coastal Redwood tree per Burlingame's Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11.06.060 criteria, specifically, BMC 11.06.060 (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways, and other trees; and interference with public utility services; and BMC 11.06.060 (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. EXHIBITS A. Tree Removal Application B. Independent Arborist Report C. Neighbor Letter Supporting Removal of the Coastal Redwood Tree D. Appeal of the Denial to Remove the Coastal Redwood Tree E. Photos of Site Conditions F. Photos from Google Maps showing historical imagery of the Coastal Redwood Tree Private Protected Tree Removal Permit Application - Residential Permit Policies Applicant's initials * Please click here to read the Private Protected Tree Permit Guidelines and initial below to indicate you understand the conditions of applying for this permit. Per the Burlingame Municipal Code, a protected tree is any tree with a circumference of forty-four (44) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade, a tree designated as heritage or any tree regardless of size required to be planted as replacement or to satisfy development. If approved, the Private Protected Tree Removal Permit requires planting according to BMC 11.06. The species must be a single stem landscape tree(s) that reaches a mature height of 15'. Japanese maple, fruit, nut, palm, or Italian cypress trees do not satisfy this requirement. A planting plan stating species, location, and specimen size will be required if the permit is approved. If this is an emergency, a City staff member must attest to the emergency. A Private Tree Removal Permit will be required retroactively. For additional information regarding Protected Trees, visit the website here: Burlingame eCode All work must be performed by a CA state licensed tree care service (D-49) with an active City business license. All work must be performed in accordance with ANSI A-300 pruning standards. I have read the Protected Tree Permit Guidelines and agree to the conditions. M.S Initial here. EXHIBIT A Date * Property Owner's First Name * Property Owner's Last Name * Property Owner's Phone Number * Property Owner's email * Street Number * Street Name * Property Owner's Address (if different than property address) Applicant Information 3/6/2025 Larisa Khapchik Please enter number as indicated (555) 555-5555 1320 Vancouver Avenue City State / Province / Region Postal / Zip Code Country Street Address Address Line 2 EXHIBIT A How many trees need removing?* Species * Circumference:* Work to be performed * Location on property * Reason Work is Necessary * Please provide additional details for why the tree needs removing.* Contractor Name Contractor Phone Number or Email Tree Information More than 1 tree Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below Redwood - Sequoia sempervirens Circumference of the tree must be more that 44" 47.5 inches at 54 inches above the ground Removal Excessive canopy pruning (greater than 25%) Excessive root pruning (greater than 15%) Other Front Side Back Other rear right side Damaging Structure safety, and damaging structure Will have to verify before permit issuance EXHIBIT A Is this part of a building project?* Species - Tree 2 Circumference - Tree 2: Work to be performed - Tree 2: Location on property - Tree 2: Reason Work is Necessary - Tree 2: Please provide additional details for why the tree needs removing. Species - Tree 3: Yes No Tree 2 Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below Deodar Cedar - Cedrus deodara Circumference of the tree must be more that 48" 31.5 inches at 54 inches above the ground Removal Trim More Than 1/3 of Crown Other Front Side Back Other Rear right side Damaging Structure Tree 3 Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below EXHIBIT A Circumference - Tree 3: Work to be performed - Tree 3: Location on property - Tree 3: Reason Work is Necessary - Tree 3: Please provide additional details for why the tree needs removing. Circumference of the tree must be more that 48" Removal Trim More Than 1/3 of Crown Other Front Side Back Other EXHIBIT A A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) in relation to the street and structure are required. Additional documentation might be required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.)* Photograph(s) and Schematics EXHIBIT A You may upload more than one file by clicking upload again. Upload IMG_6441.jpeg 277.05KB IMG_6442.jpeg 240.42KB EXHIBIT A IMG_6443.jpeg 262.72KB IMG_6444.jpeg 283.95KB EXHIBIT A Application language Signature Payment Approved, Denied or Cancelled Approval Status Tree Permit Conditions Date Permit Issued Signature & Payment The undersigned owner of the property hereby applies for a permit to remove or excessively prune the canopy of the following protected trees(s) and has read and agrees to the conditions of a Private Protected Tree Removal Permit Application. A $439 payment is required for all Protected Tree Permit Applications $439.00 Arborist Decision Approved - 10 day appeal Emergency Removal Other EXHIBIT A Additional Documents for Upload Was there an appeal? Number of 24" box size trees required Date Permit expires Extension 1 Date Extension 1 expires Extension 2 Date Extension 2 expires Extension 3 or more (see comments) Date Extension 3 or more expires You may upload more than one file by clicking upload again. Photo of Planted Tree, City of Burlingame Arborist Letter Upload Replanting Extensions Permit Completion Complete this section once the permit has been issued and is ready to be stored in the repository. EXHIBIT A Date Completed Plant, Paid, No Planting Required or Cancelled Species Planted Replacement Planting Tree Photo APN Number Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below Upload EXHIBIT A Tree Assessment Report For Larisa Khapcjik 1320 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Submitted by Kevin Patchett Certified Arborist WE-0438A Date: February 27, 2025 Monster Tree Service of the Coast PO Box 873 Pacifica, CA 94044 Office 650 773-2090 monstertreeservice.com 2025 Kevin Patchett All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise) without written permission from Kevin Patchett EXHIBIT B Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Assignment ............................................................................................................................ 1 Limits of Assignment ............................................................................................................ 1 Tree Assessment Methods ............................................................................................... 2 Definition of a heritage tree ........................................................................................... 2 Observations ................................................................................................................... 2 Subject Tree Location ........................................................................................................... 2 Subject Tree 1-Observations ................................................................................................ 2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary Of Terms .......................................................................................................... 4 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 5 Appendix A Photographs ............................................................................................. 6 Appendix B Tree Map ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix C Arborist Disclosure Statement...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix D Certification of Performance................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A 2/27/2025 Page 1 Larisa Khapcjik, retained my services to assess the Coastal Redwood Sequoiua sempervirens tree and the Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara tree located in the back yard of 1320 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame CA 94010. The purpose of my examination was to assess the health and condition of the subject trees and determine if the trees should be removed due to their size, condition and location. The homeowner is concerned due to past branch failures in wind events and the location of these trees between her house and the neighbors and foundation damage due to invasive roots. Based on my observations and concerns about the location of the subject trees, I believe the trees cannot be saved and should be removed. The Coastal Redwood is in fair health and poor structural condition. The upper canopy is suppressed on the east side by the Deodara Cedar and is devoid of branches on the main stem from the ground to the upper canopy. This tree has been topped in the past and the branches have been reduced in the upper canopy to control the spread of the tree. There is a cavity in the base of the tree that appears to contain rodent activity. The Deodar Cedar is in poor to fair health and poor to fair structural condition. The tree has been suppressed on the west side by the Coastal Redwood. This tree has been topped in the past. Subject tree is poorly foliated with declining branches and a low live crown ratio and is located near the PG&E high voltage power lines. It is my opinion that these trees present a hazard to structure, the homes below and have become too large for their location. The Redwood has been poorly maintained in the past and has a highly invasive root system. The Cedar appears to be in decline and has also been poorly maintained. I recommend removal and replacement. Assignment Larisa Khapcjik retained my services to perform the following tasks: 1. Assess tree health and structural condition of the subject tree. 2. Determine if the subject tree is considered a Protected Tree in the City of Burlingame. 3. Determine if the subject tree s condition warrants removal or retention. 4. Document this information in a written report. Limits of Assignment I did not perform an aerial inspection of the upper canopy of the subject tree. EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 2 On January 6, 2025, I visited the site to collect information for this report. I performed a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) on the subject trees. The following outlines the procedures for collecting information for this report: 1. Identify tree species 2. Measure the diameter of the trunk at 54 inches above grade (Diameter at Standard Height) 3. Assess the health and condition of the tree 4. Assess the structural stability of the tree 5. Determine if the tree is considered a Protected Private Tree in the City of San Carlos. 6. Inspect for pest or disease. Any tree with a diameter of 14 inches and larger is defined as a private protected tree in The City of Burlingame. Subject Tree Location The subject trees are located in the right side of the rear yard at 1320 Vancouver Avenue in the City of Burlingame. (see Tree Map in Appendix B). Subject Tree 1-Observations The subject tree is a Coastal Redwood Sequoia sempervirens tree with a diameter of 47.5 inches at 54 inches above the ground. This tree is in fair health and poor structural condition. This tree is considered a Protected Private Tree per the City of Burlingame tree regulation and requires a permit for removal. The following outlines my observations. 1. The tree is suppressed on the east side by the neighboring tree and has been topped and had end weight reduction to all branches. The tree is devoid of branches on the east side. (see Photo 1 Appendix A). 2. There is a large wound on the main stem that contains rodent activity. (see Photo 2). EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 3 The subject tree is a Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodara with a diameter of 31.5 inches at 54 inches above the ground. The tree is in poor to fair health and poor to fair structural condition. This tree is considered a Protected Private Tree per the City of Burlingame tree regulation and requires a permit for removal. The following outlines my observations. 1. 1. Subject tree is poorly foliated and has been topped in the past and is suppressed on the west side. This tree has a poor live crown ratio (see Photo 3). . The Coastal Redwood tree is in fair health and poor structural condition. Subject tree has been topped and had end weight reduction performed in the past. The tree has shed large limbs in the past and has an extremely invasive root system. The tree is located within The Deodar Cedar is suppressed on the west side and the upper canopy is poorly foliated with a low live crown ratio. Subject tree has been topped in the past and is located near PG&E transmission lines. 1.The location of these trees near structure and poor cultural practices in past maintenance efforts and the extremely invasive root system of the Coastal Redwood and the evident decline of the Deodar Cedar and proximity to the and the lack of remedy by sound arboricultural practices are factors in consideration of removal and replacement of these trees. EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 4 Aerial inspection An inspection of the upper crown of the tree that requires climbing. Crown Parts of the tree above the trunk, including leaves, branches and scaffold limbs. (Matheny and Clark, 1994) Diameter at standard height (DSH) feet from the ground. (Matheny and Clark, 1994) Root crown Area where the main roots join the plant stem, usually at or near ground level. Root Collar. (Glossary of Arboriculture Terms, 2007) Root crown inspection Process of removing soil to expose and assess the root crown of a tree. (Glossary of Arboriculture Terms, 2007) Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) A method of visual assessing the condition of a tree that does not include a root crown inspection or an aerial inspection. EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 5 Matheny, N.P. and J.R. Clark. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas (2nd Edition). Pleasanton, CA. HortScience Inc., 1994. Matheny, N.P. and J.R. Clark. Trees and Development A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL. International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 Harris, R.W. Arboriculture Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1992 International Society of Arboriculture. Glossary of Arboriculture Terms. Champaign, IL Dixon Graphics, 2007 EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 6 Photo 1 EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 7 EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 8 Photo 3 c EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 9 Tree Map Appendix B EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 10 Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees. They recommend measures to enhance the beauty and th of trees and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below the ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments like any medicine cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. ____________________________________ Kevin Patchett Certified Arborist WE-0438A EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 11 I, Kevin Patchett, certify; That I have personally inspected the tree and the property referred to in this report. I have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and appraisal is stated in the attached report and the Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions within this report are my own; That my analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared accordingly to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; That no one provided Heritage professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report; That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party. I further certify that I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist, and have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the study of trees for over 50 years. Signed: ____________________________ EXHIBIT B Tree Report for Larisa Khapcjik Kevin Patchett, Certified Arborist WE-0438A Page 12 4/4/2025 Ms. Khapcjik has asked for more clarification on her request to remove the Coast Redwood from her property at 1320 Vancouver Avenue in the City of Burlingame. Subject tree is 47.5 inches in Diameter at Standard Height and can be expected to expand in diameter at a minimum of 1 inch per year. Subject tree has been topped and had major branch reduction pruning in an attempt to control limb failure in the 25years she has lived with this tree. This tree has been suppressed by the Cedar tree nearby and as a result it is devoid of branches on the side near the Cedar tree resulting in an unattractive bare trunk. This tree towers over Ms. Khaplcjiks neighbors house and she is concerned about damage, due to invasive roots and/or limb failure codominant stems in the upper canopy with a narrow branch attachment between stems which is considered a structural defect or weak point. The limb reduction pruning, results in poor attachments as the branches grow, resulting in more limb failure or a need for repeated pruning to mitigate such failure and the recurring high maintenance costs associated with such pruning. There is a wound at the base of this tree and due to the CODIT principle, basal wounds are always considered a structural defect regardless of any healing margins present. There may not be structural defects visible at present but due to the species and location of this tree these damages will occur in the future. The request for a Structural Engineers report to determine if any damage is present at this time is an expensive burden on the homeowner who will ultimately be faced with the escalating cost of removal at a later date. As arborists we are all interested in and dedicated to preserving and maintaining the urban forest. At the same time, we must use our knowledge and experience to determine trees that are a risk and burden to residents. I would encourage removal and replacement of this tree. Thank you, Kevin Patchett ISA Certified Arborist WE-0438A TRAQ Certified EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B To The City of Burlingame: We reside on Vancouver Avenue in Burlingame and we are very concerned about our neighbor’s trees. There are two large trees located in our next door neighbor’s backyard on 1320 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010. We are very concerned that these trees may fall during a storm and if so of the potential significant damage to either our homes or even cause injury to someone. In the past there have been branches falling during wind events along with an invasive root system that lead to pushing a previous property fence down. We fully support removing/cutting the trees that were recently evaluated and inspected by a certified arborist. Thank you. Roberto and Lovella Diaz Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 EXHIBIT C From:Larisa Khapchik To:Parks Admin; PARKS-Richard Holtz; PARKS/REC-Margaret Glomstad Subject:Tree Removal Application 1320 Vancouver, Burlingame Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 9:17:08 AM Attachments:Larisa Khapcjik-Tree Assessment - signed.pdf Hello Richard and Margaret, Thanks again for reviewing our application. Per your summary, you had approved only one tree’s removal. Regretfully we cannot accept it. Therefore would like to appeal your decision. We got a statement from the arborist who had done the original report addressing your summary. Please see attachment. Additionally our neighbors wrote a letter of concern supporting this appeal. We’ve been living in Burlingame for 25 years and have all the confidence that your committee will carefully review our application again prioritizing the safety of local residents. We and our neighbors are grateful for your time and consideration in this matter. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks again! Best regards, Larisa Khapchik This email is from an external source. Please take caution when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department EXHIBIT D Photos of Site Conditions at 1320 Vancouver Ave. EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E Google Maps Historical Photos of Redwood Tree at 1320 Vancouver Ave. 2022 EXHIBIT F 2015 EXHIBIT F 2011 EXHIBIT F 1 STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: May 1, 2025 From: Carlie Burow, Parks Supervisor – (650) 558-7335 Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist – (650) 558-7333 Subject: Review and Discussion of the Feasibility of Reactivating the Adopt-a- Tree Program RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Beautification Commission discuss the feasibility of reactivating the Adopt-a-Tree Program. BACKGROUND On February 6, 2025, Beautification Chairman Chu stated he was interested in reviving the Adopt- a-Tree program to assist the watering program the Parks Division engages in every year. The Beautification Commission previously led this program in the 2010s. The Commission sought volunteers and was able to gain three. The volunteers were assigned geographic areas to water. These volunteers watered with their own containers once a week for three months. Unfortunately, the commitment became overwhelming, and the watering reverted to City staff. At present, the City employs a casual employee to water young street trees. This employee works 1,000 staff hours between April and October, focusing solely on watering. DISCUSSION The City supports collaboration with volunteers to beautify or otherwise enhance services provided to the community. This effort takes significant staff time to coordinate, organize, perform, and evaluate each volunteer project. There are also challenges with utilizing volunteers. For example, staff will dedicate time to preparing for a volunteer group only to have the group cancel. Other times, a volunteer spearheads a project that is successful to the point that the leader(s) who spearheaded the project step down due to the amount of work needed to coordinate the work. The result is that staff must be responsible for the work the volunteer group was performing. This has happened recently with landscape plantings in City parking lots, Mills Canyon, the Washington Butterfly Garden, the Washington Rose Garden, and the Community Garden. Despite the challenges inherent with having volunteers, staff are always open to long-term collaborations and one-time efforts. Success has been found with one-time or annual efforts by Adopt-a-Tree Program May 1, 2025 2 the Burlingame Youth Advisory Committee, Peninsula Temple Shalom, and the Burlingame Aquatic Center. Another adoption program the City has previously tried was Adopt-a-Planter on Burlingame Ave. This program was met with little success. After eight months, staff had to take over maintenance of the planters. Staff believe the programs lacked momentum to keep people accountable, excited, or proud of their work. The Adopt-a-Tree project has a couple of challenges. Some City Street trees exist in the City Right-of-Way on private properties. Property owners and residents may find it objectionable to have a private citizen watering a tree adjacent to their property. Additionally, volunteers must supply their own water. To be effective, at a minimum, young trees should be watered at least 3-5 gallons a week. At over 8 lbs. per gallon of water, volunteers would need to carry between 24-40 lb. containers to water one tree effectively. This limits most volunteers to only being able to water trees in close proximity to their own residence. Though this may be helpful in limited scenarios, it is not likely to be effective enough to alleviate the staff's need to inspect and water young trees in the dry season. A few other agencies have tree watering programs. For example, Richmond has found success by having residents complete an application that allows a resident to choose a species, help plant and sign the application stating they will water ‘two to three times per week in the summer months and weekly during the spring and fall as needed as well as to work with the City to ensure that the tree stakes and ties are functioning correctly, as seen in Exhibit A. The success stems from the ownership of the tree, but this only works if the resident wants a tree along the City Right-of- Way or specifically in front of their residence. The City of Salinas requires an application, a tree in front of their home, and a written commitment to watering it (Exhibit B). Another option to reduce staff time watering City trees in front of residences is a robust public information campaign to encourage watering the tree(s) adjacent to their home. This approach has been used by the City of Sunnyvale (Exhibit C). If the Commission is interested in reactivating the Adopt-a-Tree program, staff suggest it focus on trees that are not planted directly adjacent to a residence. FISCAL IMPACT Likely net increase of staff time to coordinate volunteers, import and react to data collected, and public inquiries made. EXHIBITS: A- City of Richmond B- City of Salinas C- City of Sunnyvale EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A City of Salinas PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • E N V I R O N M E N TA L & M A I N T E N A N C E S E R V I C E S D I V I S I O N 426 Work St • Salinas, California 93901 (831) 758-7233 • (831) 758-7940 (Fax) Adopt‐A‐Tree Application   Dear Salinas Property Owner/Resident:  Trees make a difference in your life and in our city! They can increase your property value, reduce traffic speed,  enhance our environment, and improve one’s well‐being. The City of Salinas is offering street trees at no cost to  residents, restrictions apply. If you would like to have a tree planted at your house between the sidewalk and the  street and are willing to “adopt it” by watering and caring for it as summarized below, please fill out the following  information and submit it to the Environmental & Maintenance Services Division.   Completed forms can be mailed or dropped off at our location through the mail slot at 426 Work St Salinas, CA  93901 or emailed to the Maintenance Manager, Victor Baez. His email address is victorb@ci.salinas.ca.us. Should  you have any questions, the Maintenance Manager can be reached at (831) 758‐7105.   Here is what is required:  ______Yes, I want to adopt and maintain a street tree. By submitting this tree adoption, I am committing to  provide water necessary for my tree to thrive: 1‐2 times per week during the summer, and weekly during the rest  of the year as needed. Further, I will work with the City to ensure that the tree remains properly supported/staked.   Name:________________________________________________________________________________________  Address:______________________________________________________________________________________  Daytime Telephone Number:______________________________________________________________________  Email Address:__________________________________________________________________________________  Please note that the City of Salinas is committed to selecting the right tree for the right location. Not all sites are  suitable for street trees. Nor are all trees suitable for street locations. City staff will evaluate all Adopt‐A‐Tree  applications.  EXHIBIT B Tree Watering Requirements Watering Your New Street Trees Congratulations on your new street tree. Trees improve property values and provide shade. They also help purify our air and water. Trees even make our streets safer and quieter. Terminology Deciduous tree - A tree that loses its leaves in the fall. Deciduous trees will need less water than evergreen trees during the fall-winter months. Evergreen tree - A tree that keeps its foliage year-round. Evergreen trees may need more water in the fall- winter months if there's insufficient rainfall. Root ball - The entire mass of the tree's roots (removed from the planter and planted in the ground). Water Proper care will ensure your new tree grows to be strong and healthy. New trees need adequate water to grow. During the first year of planting a new tree needs about 5 to 10 gallons of water weekly for health. For the tree's first year this totals 260 to 520 gallons. This is a yearly cost of under $5. The first 30 days are crucial to the tree's survival. The tree's roots are still in the root ball. Apply water over the root ball and wet completely. 30 to 120 Days - The tree's roots will expand into the surrounding native soil. Tree roots only grow into moist soil. They don't grow into dry soil. Follow the watering schedule to wet the surrounding native soil. Trees and water are both precious resources. The watering schedules below will support both. Follow the correct watering schedule for your tree. Trees Planted in Spring and Summer - Watering Schedule TIMING FROM PLANTING WATER FREQUENCY WATER AMOUNT  First 30 Days 3 times per week, about every other day, directly over root ball 2 to 3 gallons each watering   30 to 120 Days 3 times per week. For one watering wet the surrounding native soil.  2 to 3 gallons twice a week. 3 to 5 gallons once per week to wet native soil.  4 to 6 months 1 to 2 days per week*2 gallons of water each watering   6 to 12 months once per week*2 to 3 gallons each watering  4/22/25, 2:52 PM Tree Watering Requirements | Sunnyvale, CA https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/homes-streets-and-property/streets-and-trees/trees/obtain-street-tree-work-permit/tree-watering-requirements 1/2 EXHIBIT C TIMING FROM PLANTING WATER FREQUENCY WATER AMOUNT Years 2 and 3 once per week, primarily May through August*3 to 5 gallons each watering  *Wet surrounding native soil at each watering. Trees Planted in Fall and Winter - Watering Schedule TIMING FROM PLANTING WATER FREQUENCY WATER AMOUNT  First 30 Days 3 times per week, about every other day, directly over root ball Deciduous trees - may only need weekly watering if there's enough rainfall Evergreen trees - may need watering 2-3 times a week if days are sunny 2 to 3 gallons each watering 30 to 120 Days 3 times per week. For one watering wet the surrounding native soil. 2 to 3 gallons twice a week. 3 to 5 gallons once per week to wet native soil. 4 to 6 months 1 to 2 times per week 2 gallons each watering 6 to 12 months once per week*2 to 3 gallons each watering  Years 2 and 3 once per week, primarily May through August*3 to 5 gallons each watering *Wet surrounding native soil at each watering. 4/22/25, 2:52 PM Tree Watering Requirements | Sunnyvale, CA https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/homes-streets-and-property/streets-and-trees/trees/obtain-street-tree-work-permit/tree-watering-requirements 2/2 EXHIBIT C 1 STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: May 1, 2025 From: Veronica Flores, Administrative Assistant II Subject: Award of Arbor Day Poster Competition RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission vote on a winner of the 2025 Arbor Day Poster Competition. BACKGROUND Arbor Day is celebrated in early March each year in Burlingame. The City takes great pride in the variety and quality of its Urban Forest and has been awarded Tree City USA status by the National Arbor Day Foundation each year since 1980. The Parks & Recreation Department invites the local schools to participate in the yearly celebration as an opportunity to acquaint themselves with some of the principles of environmental conservation while at the same time enhancing a piece of public land by planting trees. DISCUSSION This year, Burlingame schools were invited to enter an original poster (1 per class) with the theme “Trees” or Arbor Day. The winner would be determined by the Commission at a Commission meeting after Arbor Day 2025. The winning poster would serve as the invitation to next year’s Arbor Day celebration. Exhibit A consists of the poster submittals from Franklin Elementary School that were submitted for the Commission to review and vote on. FISCAL IMPACT None EXHIBITS A) Franklin Elementary School Poster Submittals