Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2026.01.20 Regular Meeting
City of Burlingame CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2026 AT 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD OR ZOOM MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Michael Brownrigg, Mayor Andrea Pappajohn, Vice Mayor Donna Colson Desiree Thayer Peter Stevenson AGENDA To Attend the Meeting in Person: Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 To Attend the Meeting via Zoom: Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, the meeting will also be held via Zoom. To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 851 2290 2120 Passcode: 913398 To access the meeting via phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 851 2290 2120 Passcode: 913398 To Provide Public Comment in Person: Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to Speak" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, but the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. To Provide Public Comment via Email: Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org . 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 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 will be included in a supplemental packet that will be sent to the City Council prior to the meeting and published here: https://www.burlingame.org/169/City-Council---Agendas-and-Minutes Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2026 1 January 20, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda LEVINE ACT The Levine Act (California Government Code Section 84308) prohibits, in certain cases, campaign contributions to members of the City Council by those who have proceedings (e.g., applications for land use and other entitlements, contracts, etc.) pending before the City Council and by those who may have an interest in proceedings (including those acting as agents for applicants or potential contractors). Moreover, the Levine Act may require disclosure of contributions by such individuals. The law is complex, and this brief description is not legal advice. If you or an agent have made any campaign contributions to a City Councilmember in the 12 months before a proceeding in which you have an interest or you are contemplating making a contribution within the 12 months after such a proceeding, you are urged to review the Levine Act and consider consulting an attorney. A 2023 version of the Levine Act and a Fair Political Practices Commission summary of it is published on the website here : https://www.burlingame.org/1206/Levine-Act-Information 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Zoom 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION Announcements/consideration and approval of requests by City Councilmembers to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)). 5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 6. UPCOMING EVENTS 7. PRESENTATIONS HIP Housing Calendar Winnersa. Update on the Peninsula HealthCare District Senior Housing Projectb. Review of the City's Other Post-Employment Benefits - Retiree Healthcare Plan (OPEB) Liabilities c. Staff Report Retiree Healthcare Plan June 30 2025 Actuarial Valuation Attachments: Update on the Petroleum Discovery Near Broadway and California Drived. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2026 2 January 20, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a “Request to Speak” card for that item in advance of the Council ’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the City Council Interviews for the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission and SMC Mosquito Vector Control Board on December 9, 2025 a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the December 15, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting b. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Request to Remove the 1600 Block of McDonald Way from the Themed Block Designation c. Staff Report Resolution Current Themed Block List Themed Block Policy Form Petition From Property Owners - 1600 McDonald Way Beautification Commission Staff Report - 1600 Block of McDonald Way City Street Tree Lists for Planters Greater Than 6' Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Request to Remove the 1600 Block of Chapin Avenue from the Themed Block Designation d. Staff Report Resolution Current Themed Block List Themed Block Policy Form Petition from Property Owners - 1600 Block of Chapin Ave Beautification Commission Staff Report - 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. City Street Tree Lists for Planters Less than 4' and Beneath Overhead Primary Conductors Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2026 3 January 20, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC, to Extend the Janitorial Services Contract for a Period of an Additional Two Months, and Increasing the Contract Amount by $92,785, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,776,702 e. Staff Report Resolution Amendment No. 2 Amendment No. 1 Original Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting All Proposals Received for Janitorial Services and Authorizing Staff to Revise the Request for Proposal Documents and Re -advertise the Project f. Staff Report Resolution Bid Summary Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to Join the Coalition Providing Comment on the Proposed Federal Communications Commission Rulemaking Addressing Local Regulation of Wireless Facilities g. Staff Report Resolution Exhibit B Attachments: Confirmation of the Mayor's Council Assignments for 2026h. Staff Report Council Assignments 2026 Attachments: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Measure I Citizens' Oversight Committee i. Staff ReportAttachments: Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Planning Commissionj. Staff ReportAttachments: 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2026 4 January 20, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 6.54 "Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District" to Adjust the Fiscal Year of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District from October 1 - September 30 to July 1 - June 30; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378, 15601(b)(3) a. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Attachments: 11. STAFF REPORTS (Public Comment) Consideration of Arts Commission Task Force Findingsa. Staff Report San Francisco Voluntary Art Contribution Flyer Attachments: 12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmembers may suggest items to be put on a future agenda. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic Safety and Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Library Board of Trustees are available on the City website: www.burlingame.org. 15. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language assistance in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame .org. Any individual who wishes to request an alternate format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other writings that are distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Regular City Council Meeting on February 9, 2026 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE https://www.burlingame.org/169/City-Council---Agendas-and-Minutes Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2026 5 January 20, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection via www .burlingame.org or by emailing City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer at mhasselshearer@burlingame .org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City’s website or through email, contact City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer at (650) 558-7203. Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2026 6 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 7a MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Helen Yu-Scott, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Review of the City's Other Post-Employment Benefits – Retiree Healthcare Plan (OPEB) Liabilities RECOMMENDATION This report is for informational purposes only; no action is required. BACKGROUND The City provides post-employment healthcare benefits to eligible employees who retired directly from the City under CalPERS. The program allows retirees to continue participation in the medical insurance program after retirement. Under the Plan, the City pays retiree healthcare benefits up to a cap for eligible retirees and dependents based on bargaining unit and hire date. In response to the prospect of alarmingly high future employer contribution rates, the City modified the Plan through negotiations with bargaining units throughout the years. The City currently has three tiers of retiree medical benefits. Employees hired on after January 1, 2012 (or an earlier date as defined in the MOUs), are members of Tier 3 and only eligible to receive a City contribution equal to the Public Employees’ Medical & Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) minimum upon retirement from the City. On September 16, 2013, the City Council approved a trust agreement with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Program (CERBT) to prefund retiree medical benefits. As of September 30, 2025, the balance in the City’s CEBRT account was about $36.5 million. To comply with Governmental Accounting Standards Board reporting requirements, the City must prepare and submit its actuarial valuations to the CERBT every two years. Staff worked with Rael & Letson Actuaries and Consultants to prepare the attached Retiree Healthcare Plan June 30, 2025, Actuarial Valuation report and update the Council on the funding status of the City's OPEB obligations. Doug Pryor from Rael & Letson will provide the City Council with a summarized version of the presentation at the Council meeting on January 20, 2026. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Exhibit: Retiree Healthcare Plan June 30, 2025 Actuarial Valuation 7 Rael & Letson 160 Bovet Road, Suite 203 San Mateo, California 94402 (650) 341-3311 rael-letson.com DRAFT City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan June 30, 2025 Actuarial Valuation for 2026/27 and 2027/28 Plan Funding November 2025 8 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan Table of Contents Page Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Section I – Benefit Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Section II – Participant Data ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Section III – Plan Assets .................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Section IV – Funded Status ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Section V – Recommended Contributions and Projections ............................................................................................................................... 21 Section VI – Actuarial Methods and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Section VII – Actuarial Certification ................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Section VIII – Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A - Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................................................ 31 9 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 1 Executive Summary Background The City pays a portion of medical premiums for employees who retire directly from the City. The City payment varies based on employee’s bargaining unit, hire and retirement date, Medicare status, coverage level, and City service. Employees hired after various dates in 2010 to 2012 (depending on bargaining unit) will receive only the minimum required payment (by California Government Code) of $158 per month in 2025. Agencies are not required to fund these benefits in a trust. The City is funding through the CERBT OPEB trust with CalPERS. Advantages to funding through a trust include: Aligns the cost of providing benefits with the period in which they are earned (service with the City), rather than waiting until employees retire and then start paying benefits (pay-as-you go approach) Better secures benefits that have been communicated and/or promised to employees and retirees Anticipated lower long-term benefit cost due to higher investment earnings in the trust vs. City investments. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 75 requires actuarial valuations are prepared every 2 years. This report provides the June 30, 2025 plan funded status and recommendations for future trust contributions. Changes Since Previous Valuation Key changes since the previous (June 30, 2023) valuation include: Investment returns for 2023/24 and 2024/25 of 8.2% and 10.6% exceeded the 5.75% annual assumed return. Significant premium increases over the last 2 years, including roughly 20% and 40% increases for under age 65 retirees and Medicare retirees over age 65 respectively, for the most popular retiree plan (PERS Platinum). Discount rate changed from 5.75% to 6.10% to reflect a significant increase in investment advisors’ future expected returns. 10 Rael & Letson Executive Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 2 Funded Status The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is a target asset value and represents the portion of benefits accrued or earned by participants. As of June 30, 2025, the AAL was $70,040,000, assets $34,830,000, with an Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) of $35,210,000. Comparison of the June 30, 2023 and June 30, 2025 AAL, assets and UAAL follows. Assets 28,557Assets 34,830UAAL 36,359UAAL 35,210AAL 64,916AAL 70,040$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000AAL Assets/UAALAAL Assets/UAALIn 000;s AAL - Ret ireesAAL -ActivesAssetsUAL6/30/256/30/23 11 Rael & Letson Executive Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 3 Each year the Actuarial Accrued Liability increases by Normal Cost (the value of benefits accruing for active employees) and interest, and decreases by benefits paid. For each valuation, there are potential actuarial assumption changes and plan experience changes. Following are changes in the Actuarial Accrued Liability from the prior valuation: Actuarial Accrued Liability Reconciliation 64,916 70,040 NormalCost1,851 Interest7,304 BenefitPayments(7,536)Assumptions(4,074)Experience7,579 $0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,0006/30/23AAL6/30/25AALIn 000's 12 Rael & Letson Executive Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 4 Assets increase by contributions made, decrease with any benefits and expenses paid, and increase/(decrease) with investment return. Following are the changes in assets since the prior valuation. Investment return is broken down into expected return and excess/shortfall return above/below expected: Asset Reconciliation 28,557 34,830 Contributions640 BenefitPayments0 AdminExpenses(25)ExpectedReturn3,431 Excess/(Shortfall)Return2,227 $0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,0006/30/23Assets6/30/25AssetsIn 000's 13 Rael & Letson Executive Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 5 Actuarially Determined Contributions (ADC) The Actuarially Determined Contribution is calculated as the Normal Cost (cost of benefits accruing for active employees plus administrative expenses) plus an amortization payment on the Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liability. These components represent a payment for the ongoing cost of the plan, plus a payment to make up for any accumulated shortfall. If a plan is overfunded, the amortization payment would be a credit. The unfunded liability payment represents an approximate 10-year payoff. Benefit payments are the portion of premiums paid by the City to current retirees. City contributions to the trust and benefits paid to retirees (that are not reimbursed by the trust) are payments toward OPEB. Since the ADC exceeded benefit payments in prior years, the City historically paid benefits payments to retirees and also contributed to the trust. Now that the funded status of the plan improved, the benefits paid are expected to exceed the ADC, and trust assets could be used to pay a portion of retiree benefit payments (which is the purpose of the trust). The City’s OPEB cost would be reduced from an amount that exceeds benefit payments, to an amount less than benefit payments. Following are the ADC’s from the previous and current valuations, along with a 10-year projection. Previous and Current ADC’s 4,310 4,397 4,720 4,758 3,8954,1595,031 5,187 $0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,00024/25 25/26 26/27 27/28in $000'sFiscal YearNormal CostUnfunded Liability AmortizationBenefit PaymentsJune 30, 2023 ValuationJune 30, 2025 Valuation 10-year ADC Projection 4,720 4,758 4,803 4,844 4,881 4,972 5,067 5,164 3,624 3,691 5,031 5,187 5,362 5,371 5,502 5,594 5,692 5,753 5,677 5,626 $0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,00026/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 34/35 35/36in $000'sFiscal YearNormal CostUnfunded Liability AmortizationBenefit Payments 14 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 6 Section I – Benefit Summary City medical coverage is provided through CalPERS medical pool, the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). Retiree healthcare eligibility requires service retirement (age 50 with 5 years CalPERS service) or disability retirement directly from the City under CalPERS, and enrollment in PEMHCA plan. Benefits are paid for the retiree’s lifetime, and if the surviving spouse receives a CalPERS pension survivor annuity, over the surviving spouse lifetime. For eligible retirees, the City pays premiums up to the caps summarized below. The PEMHCA minimum is a required payment (by California Government Code) which is $158 per month in 2025, and will be indexed by healthcare component of CPI in future years. Cash Benefits Tier 1/1a Tier 2 Tier 31 Hired before Cap Hired Cap Vesting Schedule Hired on or after Cap Cap Varies Based on Retirement Date Retirement < Date PLUS 5 years' service with City (Tier 1) Retire > Date PLUS 5 years' service with City (Tier 1a) Pre Medicare (Basic Rate, for EE <65yrs old, no matter age of spouse/dependents) Post Medicare (Medicare Supplemental/Combination Rate, for EE >65yrs and spouse/dependents <65yrs) Service Retirement Special Disability Retirement EE Only EE+1 Family EE Only EE+1 Family <10 10-14 15-19 20+ Industrial AFSCME 829 Administrative Unit 3/31/08 1/1/15 Kaiser Family (Basic Rate) 3rd highest cost plan (incl. PORAC) 3rd highest cost plan (incl.PORAC) Kaiser 3rd highest cost actual enrollment Medicare suppl./combo plan (incl. PORAC) 3rd highest cost actual enrollment Medicare suppl./combo plan (incl. PORAC) Kaiser actual enrollment Medicare suppl./combo plan 3/31/08 to 1/1/12 EE+1 Least Cost Premium (Basic if EE <65yrs, Combo if EE is >65yrs and spouse is <65yrs, Medicare if both >65yrs) PEMHCA minimum EE Only Least Cost Premium 75% EE +1 Least Cost Premium EE+1 Least Cost Premium None 1/1/12 PEMHCA minimum AFSCME 829 Maintenance Unit (formerly 2190) 3rd highest cost actual enrollment Medicare suppl./combo plan BAMM - AFSCME 829 Kaiser actual enrollment Medicare suppl./combo plan 3/31/08 to 11/1/11 11/1/11 Council/ Dept Head/ Unrep Teamsters 12/1/15 3rd highest cost Medicare suppl./combo plan (incl. PORAC) 3/31/08 to 8/14/11 8/15/11 Police Admin 6/26/06 1/1/14 Kaiser actual enrollment Medicare suppl./combo plan 6/26/06 to 11/1/10 50% EE +1 Least Cost Premium 75% EE +1 Least Cost Premium EE+1 Least Cost Premium 0-20 years 75% EE+1 Lowest Premium; 100% if injury occurred specific Police duties or yrs service 20+ 11/1/10 Police Sergeants POA 1/1/17 1 Tier 3 employees also receive a City HRA contribution equal to a percentage of base pay which depends on City service (2% during first 5 years, 3% for years 5-19, and 5.5% thereafter). This defined contribution plan is not OPEB and is not included in the results of this report. 15 Rael & Letson Section I – Benefit Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 7 Implicit Subsidy Benefits Actuarial Standards of Practice No. 6 requires age-specific costs to be included in an actuarial valuation of pooled health plans such as PEMHCA. The implicit subsidy is the amount by which the retiree age specific cost exceeds the premium. Below is a simplified Illustration of the implicit subsidy for a plan with a $1,000 monthly premium. Note that the active premium at younger ages (e.g., $1,000 at age 25 in this example) exceeds the age specific cost ($500 at age 25 in this example). This excess ($1,000 less $500, or $500) represents a portion of the healthcare premium (typically mostly paid by the agency) for the active employee, that is used to pay retiree costs. This is the implicit subsidy. For non-Medicare eligible retirees, age related costs continue to escalate, with the same $1,000 premium being charged. 500 550 600 625 750 925 1,100 1,325 1,500 1,675 1,875 2,150 2,300 1,000 1,000 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,50025 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85AgeHealthcare CostPremium 16 Rael & Letson Section I – Benefit Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 8 2025 Monthly Premiums PEMHCA Plan Single 2-Party Family Single 2-Party FamilyAnthem Select 1,256.65$ 2,513.30$ 3,267.29$ 487.56$ 975.12$ 1,462.68$ Anthem Traditional 1,500.40 3,000.80 3,901.04 487.56 975.12 1,462.68 Blue Shield Access+ 1,170.17 2,340.34 3,042.44 448.28 896.56 1,344.84 Blue Shield Trio 1,134.79 2,269.58 2,950.45 448.28 896.56 1,344.84 Kaiser 1,112.90 2,225.80 2,893.54 n/a n/a n/aKaiser Senior Advantage n/a n/a n/a 343.08 686.16 1,029.24 Kaiser Senior Advantage Summit n/a n/a n/a 408.31 816.62 1,224.93 UnitedHealthcare Alliance 1,184.58 2,369.16 3,079.91 442.25 884.50 1,326.75 UnitedHealthcare Harmony 1,005.02 2,010.04 2,613.05 442.25 884.50 1,326.75 Western Health Advantage 914.27 1,828.54 2,377.10 n/a n/a n/aPERS Gold 1,013.70 2,027.40 2,635.62 546.13 1,092.26 1,638.39 PERS Platinum 1,476.10 2,952.20 3,837.86 584.70 1,169.40 1,754.10 PORAC 975.00 2,218.00 2,777.00 507.00 1,123.00 1,521.00 Region 1Basic Medicare 17 Rael & Letson Section I – Benefit Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 9 2026 Monthly Premiums PEMHCA . Plan Single 2-Party Family Single 2-Party FamilyAnthem Select 1,336.29$ 2,672.58$ 3,474.35$ 571.70$ 1,143.40$ 1,715.10$ Anthem Traditional 1,612.08 3,224.16 4,191.41 571.70 1,143.40 1,715.10 Blue Shield Access+ 1,301.95 2,603.90 3,385.07 539.43 1,078.86 1,618.29 Blue Shield Trio 1,166.58 2,333.16 3,033.11 539.43 1,078.86 1,618.29 Kaiser 1,168.86 2,337.72 3,039.04 n/a n/a n/aKaiser Senior Advantage n/a n/a n/a 356.83 713.66 1,070.49 Kaiser Senior Advantage Summit n/a n/a n/a 426.31 852.62 1,278.93 UnitedHealthcare Alliance 1,290.06 2,580.12 3,354.16 481.29 962.58 1,443.87 UnitedHealthcare Harmony 1,133.09 2,266.18 2,946.03 481.29 962.58 1,443.87 Western Health Advantage 969.58 1,939.16 2,520.91 n/a n/a n/aPERS Gold 1,120.58 2,241.16 2,913.51 597.57 1,195.14 1,792.71 PERS Platinum 1,670.14 3,340.28 4,342.36 665.50 1,331.00 1,996.50 PORAC 1,063.00 2,418.00 3,027.00 597.00 1,322.00 1,791.00 Region 1Basic Medicare 18 Rael & Letson Section I – Benefit Summary (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 10 Premium Increases Recent premium increases are as follows: Plan Basic Medicare Basic MedicareAnthem Select 10% 20% 6% 17% Anthem Traditional 12% 20% 7% 17% Blue Shield Access+ 9% 14% 11% 20% Blue Shield Trio 20% 14% 3% 20% Kaiser 9% n/a 5% n/aKaiser Senior Advantage n/a 6% n/a 4% Kaiser Senior Advantage Summit n/a 6% n/a 4% UnitedHealthcare Alliance 9% 29% 9% 9% UnitedHealthcare Harmony 7% 29% 13% 9% Western Health Advantage 13% n/a 6% n/aPERS Gold 11% 34% 11% 9% PERS Platinum 12% 30% 13% 14% Premium Increases - Region 1 2024 to 2025 2025 to 2026 19 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 11 Section II – Participant Data The following table compares data used in the June 30, 2023 and June 30, 20251 actuarial valuations. June 30, 2023 June 30, 2025ActivesCountsTier 1 - - Tier 1a 59 40 Tier 2 17 14 Tier 3160 175 Total 236 229 AverageAge 43.6 43.0 City Service 8.9 8.6 CalPERS Service 10.7 9.8 Pay 106,700$ 116,000$ Total Pay (in $000’s) 25,176 26,557 Benefitting RetireesCountsTier 1 n/a 212 Tier 1a n/a 64 Tier 2 n/a - Tier 3n/a7 Total 287 283 AverageAge 72.2 72.9 Service Retirement Age 57.7 57.8 Disability Retirement Age 45.9 45.6 1 Annualized pay based on Reported Member Summary Report. 20 Rael & Letson Section II – Participant Data (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 12 Participant medical plans and coverage (single, dual, and family coverage) in the June 30, 2025 actuarial valuation are as follows: Medical Plan Single Dual Family Count Percent Single Dual Family Count Percent Single Dual Family Count PercentAnthem Blue CrossBasic-0%Traditional 1 --11%141610%3 --31%Medicare ----0%----0%6111188%Blue ShieldAccess 8 9 13 30 16% 4 8 4 16 28% 6 3 - 9 4%Kaiser Basic 57 17 45 119 61% 4 6 4 14 24% - - - - 0%MedicareSr Adv ----0%----0%291855223%Sr Adv Summit ----0%----0%-5-52%United Healthcare 11132%----0%1919-3817%PERS Gold 9 2 3 14 7% 1 - - 1 2% - 3 - 3 1%PERS Platinum 10 7 8 25 13% 7 8 4 19 33% 46 45 - 91 41%PORAC ----0%--223%15-63%Waived ---37n/a---5n/a---20n/a Total86 36 70 229 100% 17 26 15 63 100% 110 109 6 245 100%Total Total TotalRetireesActives Under Age 65 Over Age 65 21 Rael & Letson Section II – Participant Data (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 13 The distribution of active age/service and retiree ages in the June 30, 2025 actuarial valuation are as follows. RetireesAge Group < 1 1 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 + Total Total Under 25 5 6 - - - - - - - - 11 -25 - 29 8 20 6 - - - - - - - 34 -30 - 34 7 19 6 - - - - - - - 32 -35 - 39 3 11 4 4 1 - - - - - 23 -40 - 44 2 5 5 4 5 2 - - - - 23 -45 - 49 4 7 7 6 8 3 2 - - - 37 350 - 54 - 4 2 1 5 4 5 - - - 21 855 - 59 2 4 3 6 2 3 3 - 1 - 24 1960 - 64 - 5 3 1 5 3 - - - - 17 3365 - 69 - 1 1 1 1 - - - - 1 5 5370 - 74 - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 5875 - 79 - - - - - - - - - - - 6180 - 84 - - - - - - - - - - - 4085 and Over - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 33 Total31 82 37 24 27 15 11 - 1 1 229 308ActivesYears of Agency Service 22 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 14 Section III – Plan Assets Asset Allocation The City prefunds benefits through the CERBT (CalPERS Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust). The CERBT provides 3 investment portfolios with the following asset allocations. The City is in Strategy 2. Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3Target Asset AllocationGlobal Equity 49% 34% 23% Fixed Income 23% 41% 51% REITS 20% 17% 14% TIPS 5% 5% 9% Commodities 3% 3% 3% Total100% 100% 100% Expected Return6.30% 6.10% 5.80% 23 Rael & Letson Section III – Plan Assets (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 15 Asset Reconciliation Following is the reconcilation of assets since the prior actuarial valaution (amounts in $000’s): Assets(Beginning of Year)$ 28,557 $ 31,246 ReceiptsContributions 360 280 Investment Income 2,354 3,328 Investment Expenses(10) (14) Subtotal Receipts 2,704 3,594 DisbursementsBenefit Payments- - Administrative Expenses (15) (10) Subtotal Disbursements (15) (10) Assets(End of Year)$ 31,246 $ 34,830 Return on Assets8.2 % 10.6 %2023/24 2024/25 24 Rael & Letson Section III – Plan Assets (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 16 Long Term Expected Return We’ve developed long-term expected future investment returns using stochastic modeling. Investment return assumptions are based on the 2025 Horizon Actuarial Services LLC Capital Market assumption survey using a 20-year time perspective. It should be noted that there has been a significant increase in investment advisors’ future expected returns over the last 4 years (primarily occurring in the 2022 survey). Results of our analysis are summarized in the following chart. The median return is 6.6%. Sample return ranges are also provided with the blue vertical bars. For example, the model projects that 90% average 20-year returns will be between 3.0% and 10.4%; 10% will be between 6.4% and 6.9%. 25 Rael & Letson Section III – Plan Assets (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 17 Discount Rate The discount rate represents a long-term expectation of the return on plan assets. If future investment returns are equal to the discount rate selected (and all other assumptions are met), then funds contributed to the trust over time will accumulate to the amounts necessary to pay plan benefits. The median return is the return that the model expects will be in the middle of all future returns, i.e. half of observed returns will be above the median, and half below. So selecting a discount rate based on the 6.6% median return means there is a 50% likelihood future returns will fall below this assumption. We recommend some consideration be given to likely ranges of future returns. For example, as illustrated in the chart, 90% of future returns will be in the range 3.0% to 10.4%. While selecting a discount rate on the lower end (at 3.0%) would dramatically increase the likelihood of achieving the assumed return, we think it is overly conservative, likely not feasible for budgeting contributions, and results in significant future gains which ultimately would frontload plan contributions. As we look to the right-hand side of the chart the 20% and 10% ranges provide some level of assurance the assumption will be met without these drawbacks. Based on this, we would recommend a 6.1% discount rate, which represents the 60%1 confidence level return (i.e., the return is expected to be achieved over the long term 60% of the time). 1 The 20% chart entry has 40% of expected returns below the bar, 20% within the bar, and 40% above the bar. This means that a 6.1% discount rate will result in returns exceeding the assumption 60% (1 – 40%) of the time. 26 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 18 Section IV – Funded Status The Present Value of Projected Benefits (PVPB) represents the amount that, if set aside in a trust, would be sufficient to pay all benefits to current participants if all actuarial assumptions are met. The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is a target asset value and represents the portion of benefits accrued or earned by participants. Since the AAL is a target asset value, the funded status is measured by comparing assets to the AAL. The difference between the AAL and assets is known as the Unfunded Accrued Liability. Assets are measured at Market Value. Following is the plan funded status for the previous and current valuations (amounts in $000’s): June 30, 2023 June 30, 2025 ChangePresent Value of Projected BenefitsActives $ 22,657 $ 22,076 $ (581) Retirees 49,337 55,045 5,708 Total 71,994 77,121 5,127 Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)Actives 15,579 14,995 (584) Retirees 49,337 55,045 5,708 Total 64,916 70,040 5,124 Plan AssetsMarket Value of Assets 28,557 34,830 6,273 Funded StatusUnfunded Liability $ 36,359 $ 35,210 $ (1,149) Funded Ratio (AAL/Assets) 44.0% 49.7% 5.7% 27 Rael & Letson Section IV – Funded Status (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 19 The June 30, 2025 funded status by cash and implicit subsidy benefits (with assets allocated based on the AAL) is as follows (amounts in $000’s): Cash Benefit Implicit Subsidy TotalPresent Value of Projected BenefitsActives $ 15,083 $ 6,993 $ 22,076Retirees 46,692 8,353 55,045 Total 61,775 15,346 77,121 Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)Actives 11,131 3,864 14,995Retirees 46,692 8,353 55,045 Total 57,823 12,217 70,040 Plan AssetsMarket Value of Assets 28,755 6,075 34,830 (allocated on AAL)Funded StatusUnfunded AAL $ 29,068 $ 6,142 $ 35,210 Funded Ratio (Assets/AAL) 49.7 % 49.7 % 49.7 % 28 Rael & Letson Section IV – Funded Status (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 20 The June 30, 2025 funded status by benefit tiers (with assets allocated based on the AAL) is as follows (amounts in $000’s): Tier 1 Tier 1a Tier 2 Tier 3 TotalPresent Value of Projected BenefitsActives $ - $ 13,615 $ 3,416 $ 5,044 $ 22,076Retirees35,554 19,142 - 349 55,045 Total 35,554 32,758 3,416 5,394 77,121 Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)Actives - 11,196 2,337 1,462 14,995Retirees35,554 19,142 - 349 55,045 Total 35,554 30,338 2,337 1,811 70,040 Plan AssetsMarket Value of Assets 17,680 15,087 1,162 901 34,830 (allocated on AAL)Funded StatusUnfunded AAL $ 17,873 $ 15,251 $ 1,175 $ 910 $ 35,210 Funded Ratio (Assets/AAL) 49.7 % 49.7 % 49.7 % 49.8 % 49.7 % 29 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 21 Section V – Recommended Contributions and Projections Actuarially Determined Contributions (ADC) The Actuarially Determined Contribution is calculated as the Normal Cost (cost of benefits accruing for active employees, plus administrative expenses) plus an amortization of the Unfunded Actuarially Accrued Liability. These components represent a payment for the ongoing cost of the plan, plus a payment to make up for any accumulated shortfall. If a plan is overfunded, the amortization amount would be a credit. The unfunded liability payment is approximately equal to a 10-year amortization payment. Following are ADC’s for the 2 years covered under this valuation (amounts in $000’s): FY 26/27 FY 27/28Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)Normal Cost $ 918 $ 900Unfunded Liability Payment3,802 3,857 ADC 4,720 4,758 Projected Payroll28,037 $ 28,808 Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC)Normal Cost 3.3% 3.1%Unfunded Liability Payment13.6%13.4%ADC 16.8% 16.5% Trust Contributions The ADC is the amount that should be contributed to the trust if all benefits are paid from the trust. However, benefits are paid monthly by the agency to retirees outside of the trust. These benefit payments represent payments towards the ADC. Additionally, Implicit Subsidy payments are made during the year through the payment of active premiums. Typically, agencies look to the Net (of Implicit Subsidy) ADC to determine the trust contribution. Under this approach there are 2 methods: Method 1: Contribute the Net ADC to the trust and get reimbursed from the trust for all Cash Benefit payments made during the year. Under this method, the Net ADC contribution to the trust covers the ADC, regardless of how much in benefit payments are made from the trust. Method 2: Determine the initial trust contribution as the ADC less expected benefits to be paid. Under this method, to pay exactly the ADC in a given year, a true-up/down should be made at the end of the year so that total contributions (ADC less expected benefit payments, plus actual benefit payments) is equal to the ADC. 30 Rael & Letson Section V – Recommended Contributions and Projections (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 22 The following table provides the details under these 2 methods for the 2 ADC years provided in this valuation (amounts in $000’s): FY 26/27 FY 27/28Expected Benefit PaymentsCash Benefits $ 3,940 $ 4,065Implicit Subsidy1,092 1,122 Total 5,031 5,187 ADC Net of Implicit Subsidy PaymentsADC 4,720 4,758Reduction for Implicit Subsidy Payments(1,092) (1,122) Net ADC 3,628 3,635 Trust ContributionMethod 1(Cash Benefits Paid by the Trust)Trust Contribution 3,628 3,635 Method 2(No Benefits Paid from Trust)Net ADC 3,628 3,635 Expected Cash Benefits Payments(3,940) (4,065) Estimated Trust Contribution/(Reimbursement) (312) (430) Net City Cash Payments $3,628 $3,635 (Estimated Trust Contribution + Cash Benefit Payments) 31 Rael & Letson Section V – Recommended Contributions and Projections (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 23 Amortization Bases The amortization of the unfunded liability is based on a multilevel approach. This means in each valuation the remaining scheduled payments from the previous valuation are maintained, with additional layer(s) added so that the unfunded liability determined in the new valuation is scheduled to be paid off. Following is the schedule of amortization bases (balances and payments/credits are in ‘000s): Amortization PeriodDate Initial Ramp Remaining7/1/26Base Established Period Escalator Up Period Balance 26/27 27/28Fresh Start 6/30/21 n/a 2.75% None 8$9,226 $ 1,326 $ 1,362 (Gain)/Loss 6/30/23 15 2.75% None 13 23,012 2,195 2,255 Investment (Gain)/Loss 6/30/25 15 2.75% 5-year 15 (2,363) (48) (98) Assumptions 6/30/25 15 2.75% None 15 (4,323) (368) (378) Experience G/L 6/30/25 15 2.75% None 15 8,196 698 717 Contribution (Gain)/Loss Subsequent to 6/30/25 Valuation Date n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - Totals$ 33,749 $ 3,802 $ 3,857 Payment/Credit Notes: Unfunded liability changes established under this June 30, 2025 valuation are amortized over 15 years. To minimize large ADC fluctuations, investment gains and losses are amortized with a 5-year ramp up. All amortizations are as level percentage of aggregate projected payroll. 32 Rael & Letson Section V – Recommended Contributions and Projections (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 24 Projections Projected benefit payments are as follows (amounts in $000’s): Year 2026/27$3,940 $1,092 $5,031 2027/28 4,065 1,122 5,187 2028/29 4,207 1,155 5,362 2029/30 4,259 1,112 5,371 2030/31 4,374 1,128 5,502 2031/32 4,459 1,135 5,594 2032/33 4,540 1,152 5,692 2033/34 4,578 1,175 5,753 2034/35 4,560 1,117 5,677 2035/36 4,561 1,065 5,626 BenefitCashBenefitImplicit Subsidy Total 33 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 25 Section VI – Actuarial Methods and Assumptions ACTUARIAL METHODS Actuarial Value of Assets Market Value of Assets in OPEB trust Actuarial Cost Method The level percent of payroll Entry Age Normal Cost Method was used (required method for GASB 75). For each employee, the normal cost is the annual amount from the employee’s hire age to retirement age (developed as a level percentage of the employee’s projected payroll) that will accumulate to the expected value of benefits at retirement. The Actuarial Accrued Liability is the accumulation, as of the valuation date, of the past normal costs. For each inactive participant, there is no normal cost, and the Actuarial Accrued is simply the present value, as of the valuation date, of all expected future payments. The total plan normal cost and accrued liability is simply the sum of all participant’s respective amounts. Unfunded/(overfunded) Actuarial Accrued Liability Excess of Actuarial Accrued Liability over Actuarial Value of Assets Amortization of Unfunded/(Overfunded) Actuarial Accrued Liability 6/30/21 valuation unfunded liability amortized over 12 years from 2022/23 forward Subsequent (6/30/23 valuation forward) unfunded liability changes amortized over 15 years (5-year ramp up on investment gains/losses starting with the 6/30/25 valuation) Level percentage of payroll amortization Actuarially Determined Contribution Equal to the sum of: Normal Cost Administrative expenses Amortization payment/(credit) on unfunded/(overfunded) actuarial accrued liability 34 Rael & Letson Section VI – Actuarial Methods and Assumptions (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 26 ACTUARIAL METHODS Implicit Subsidy The age-related medical costs are developed by multiplying premiums by factors from the latest CalPERS Health Plan (PEMHCA) Implicit Subsidy Data: In accordance with Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOP) No. 6, age-related costs are not valued for Medicare Advantage plans (all HMO plans) Justification for Assumptions Economic Discount rate based on Capital Market model using Horizon Actuarial 2025 Survey Medical trend based on Society of Actuaries Getzen Model Demographic CalPERS 2000-2019 Experience Study. Assumptions are reviewed to ensure they are reasonable and represent the long-term expectations for the Plan. Past experience and anticipated future experience based on industry-specific knowledge and professional judgment are used to verify the reasonability of each of these assumptions. Participation and medical plan elections based on Plan experience. 35 Rael & Letson Section VI – Actuarial Methods and Assumptions (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 27 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTION 6/30/23 Valuation 6/30/25 Valuation Discount Rate 5.75% 6.10% Funding Policy City pays full ADC with CERBT Trust Strategy 2 Same Healthcare Trend Medical Based on Society of Actuaries Getzen model: Non-Medicare Medicare All Plans Kaiser Non-Kaiser 2025 8.50% 6.25% 7.50% 2026 7.90% 5.65% 6.90% : : : : 2030 5.60% 4.85% 5.25% 2031 5.05% 4.65% 4.85% 2032-2038 4.45% 4.45% 4.45% 2039-2040 4.35% 4.35% 4.35% 2041 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% : : : : 2076+ 3.45% 3.45% 3.45% Medical Based on Society of Actuaries Getzen model: Non-Medicare Medicare 2027 7.50% 5.80% 2028 7.00% 5.61% 2029 6.58% 5.41% 2030 6.15% 5.22% : : : 2034 4.46% 4.44% 2035 4.24% 4.24% 2036 4.23% 4.23% 2037 4.21% 4.21% : : : 2065 4.00% 4.00% 2066 3.95% 3.95% 2067 3.90% 3.90% : : : 2072 3.66% 3.66% 2073 3.62% 3.62% 2074 3.57% 3.57% 2075+ 3.53% 3.53% PEMHCA Minimum Increase 3.50% Same Inflation 2.50% Same 36 Rael & Letson Section VI – Actuarial Methods and Assumptions (Continued) Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 28 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTION 6/30/23 Valuation 6/30/25 Valuation Pay Increases Individual Merit Increases – CalPERS 2000-2019 Experience Study Aggregate 2.75% Same Mortality/Turnover/ Disability/Retirement CalPERS 2000-2019 Experience Study Same Mortality Improvement Society of Actuaries MP-2021 Same Participation at Retirement Tier 1 & 2: currently covered - 100%; currently waived – 80% Tier 3: 60% Tier 1 & 2: 100% Tier 3: 60% Spouse Coverage Actives: currently covered - same; currently waived – 80% Retirees: based on current coverage election Based on current coverage Family Coverage Family coverage stops at 65 Actives: Miscellaneous – 20%; Safety – 30% Retirees: based on current coverage election Tier 1 & 2: Based on current coverage until age 65 Tier 3: not applicable Medical Plan at Retirement Future Retirees: Based on current plan election Same (Kaiser for waived actives) Waived Retiree Re-Elections None Same Implicit Subsidy Based on demographic data and Society of Actuaries studies Based on HMO and PPO factors published by CalPERS and individual plan enrollment Administrative Fees PEMHCA: 0.30% of retiree premiums (rounded 5-year average) CERBT: 0.05% of assets PEMHCA: 0.08% of retiree premiums (actual 2025 fees) CERBT: 0.04% of assets Surviving Spouse Participation 100% Same Medicare Eligibility Actives: 100% Retirees: pre-65 – 100%; post-65 - based on current coverage Same 37 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 29 Section VII – Actuarial Certification Rael & Letson has prepared this report for the City of Burlingame to provide information regarding funding for the Retiree Medical Plan (“Plan”). This report should not be relied upon for any other purpose than as stated herein. The report has been prepared as of June 30, 2025 to provide the following: June 30, 2025 Actuarial Liabilities and Plan Funded Status 2026/27 and 2027/28 Actuarially Determined Contributions We have relied on plan provisions, participant data, and assets provided by the City. We reviewed this information for reasonableness and consistency but have not audited. We have no reason to doubt the information provided to us is appropriate for this report, but we are not responsible for its accuracy. We are not aware of any events subsequent to this data collection, that would materially effect the findings presented in this report. We have also relied on third-party actuarial valuation software to generate this report. We reviewed sample life calculations and have no reason to doubt the underlying valuation model, or the results being generated by that model. Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in this report due to such factors as: Plan experience differing from actuarial assumptions; changes in assumptions; increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the Plan; and changes in Plan provisions or applicable law. Due to the limited scope of the assignment, we did not perform an analysis of the potential ranges. This report may only be provided to other parties in its entirety. To the best of our knowledge, the information supplied in this report is complete and accurate and is in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. We are members of the American Academy of Actuaries, and each meet the Qualification Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein. Kateryna Pryor, ASA, MAAA Actuary Doug Pryor, ASA, EA, MAAA Consulting Actuary 38 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 30 Section VIII – Appendices 39 Rael & Letson Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 31 Appendix A - Glossary of Terms Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) Present value of benefits earned up to the valuation date, calculated using the Plan’s funding method and assumptions. Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) Value of the Plan’s trust assets in cash, investments and other property used by the actuary for purposes of the annual valuation. ADC Actuarially Determined Contribution Recommended annual contribution to OPEB trust to fund benefits. Cash Benefit Portion of the retiree premium paid by the agency. Experience Gains and Losses Differences between actual experience and expected experience based on the actuarial assumptions (i.e., for investment return, when participants are expected to retire, terminate, become disabled and die). Implicit Subsidy Benefit The implicit subsidy is the amount by which the retiree age specific cost exceeds the premium. Normal Cost Present value of benefits expected to be earned in the coming plan year. OPEB Other (than pension) Post Employment Benefits. PEMHCA Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (CalPERS medical pool) PEMHCA Minimum Public agencies participating in PEMHCA are required to provide employees who retire directly from the agency with a minimum monthly agency paid benefit for those retirees who elect coverage ($158 per month in 2025). Present Value of Projected Benefits (PVPB) Present value of all future benefits expected to be paid to participants as of the valuation date. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) Amount by which the Actuarial Accrued Liability exceeds the Actuarial Value of Assets. 40 Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2025 ◥ City of Burlingame Retiree Healthcare Plan 32 41 Agenda Item: 9a Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes City Council Interviews for the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission and SMC Mosquito Vector Control Board on December 9, 2025 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the abo ve date in person at 5:25 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Colson, Stevenson, Thayer MEMBERS ABSENT: Brownrigg, Pappajohn 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. DISCUSSION OF CANDIDATE QUESTIONS 6. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES The City Council interviewed Suzanne Childress, Tom Cook, John Martos, Yooki Park, and Grace Xeureb for the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. There is one available seat on the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. The City Council interviewed Irena Gilligan for the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control Board. There is one available seat on the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control Board. 6. DISCUSSION OF CANDIDATES (OPTIONAL) 42 Agenda Item: 9a Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 2 7. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 43 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Meeting Minutes Regular City Council Meeting on December 15, 2025 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in person and via Zoom at 7:01 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The Pledge of Allegiance was led by former Mayor Terry Nagel. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Colson, Pappajohn, Stevenson, Thayer MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 6. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Stevenson reviewed upcoming events in the city. 7. PRESENTATIONS a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SYED MURTUZA ON HIS RETIREMENT Mayor Stevenson read a proclamation honoring Syed Murtuza’s 28 years of service to the City of Burlingame. 44 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 2 The Council all discussed Syed’s expertise, knowledge, and commitment to bettering the co mmunity. City Manager Goldman thanked Syed and discussed his responsiveness, humor, and the legacy of his contributions to the City’s infrastructure. Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. Former Councilmembers Stephanie Lee, Terry Nagel, and John Root all thanked Syed and: Praised him for ensuring the reliability of Burlingame’s infrastructure; Recounted his enthusiasm for complex challenges; and Commended his decades of dedication, availability, and ability to explain engineering to laypeople. Mayor Stevenson closed public comment. Syed Murtuza thanked the Council, staff, and community for their support. He stressed that all his accomplishments were team efforts and expressed gratitude for the City Manager’s support and mentorship. Congratulations to Syed on his well-deserved retirement. He will be sorely missed in the City. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS Measure I Oversight Committee Chair Todd Gemmer discussed the committee’s annual review. He noted that the Measure I revenue from FY 2024-25 was $3.1 million, a slight decrease from the prior year. The funds were used for one police officer position, Com munity Center bond debt service, street resurfacing and sidewalk projects, and the Town Square project. He added that the committee concluded that the City complied with the ordinance and Measure I benefits the community. 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Stevenson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Staff pulled item 9g from the agenda and stated that it would be brought back to Council at a later date. Councilmember Colson pulled 9d and Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled 9m. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt the following items from the Consent Calendar: 9a, 9b, 9c, 9e, 9f, 9h, 9i, 9j, 9k, 9l, 9n, 9o, 9p, 9q, 9r, and 9s; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 1, 2025 CLOSED SESSION City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the December 1, 2025 Closed Session. 45 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 3 b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 1, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the December 1, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting. c. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 13.45 “ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING AND CHARGING SPACES”, TO TITLE 13 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378, 15061(b)(3), AND 15301 ACA Burke and Traffic Division Sergeant Orloff requested Council adopt Ordinance 2044. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE OCCIDENTAL AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING IMPORVEMENTS BY JJR CONSTRUCTION, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 86650, IN THE AMOUNT OF $494,970 Councilmember Colson thanked Public Works for their extensive community engagement, rapid construction, and high-quality design. She discussed the positive feedback that she had heard from the community. Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 142-2025; seconded by Councilmember Pappajohn. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5 -0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF ONE REPLACEMENT WATER CHECK VALVE, FOUR REBUILD KITS, AND ASSOCIATED SETUP SERVICES FOR THE TROU SDALE PUMP STATION FROM CITY CONTROLTECH IN A NOT -TO-EXECEED AMOUNT OF $153,244.40 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 143-2025. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $116,800 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO APB GENERAL ENGINEERING FOR THE BURLWAY ROAD SEWR PIPE REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 144-2025. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A JANITORIAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,309,460 FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT 46 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 4 This item was pulled from the agenda for discussion at a later date. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF ONE VEHICLE FOR THE CITY’S FLEET SYSTEM AS PART OF THE FY 2025-26 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,839.96 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 145-2025. i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $402,435 CONTRACT WITH JULIAN TREE CARE, INC. FOR THE 2025 -26 LARGE TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL WORK Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 146-2025. j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMITS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 147-2025. k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO ADJUST THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FROM OCTOBER 1 – SEPTEMBER 30 TO JULY 1 – JUNE 30 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF THE ASSOCIATED ORDINANCE FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2026 AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 148-2025. l. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE (SAAS) AGREEMENT WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE MUNIS ENTERPRISE RESOURCE LICENSING AND MIGRATION SERVICES FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF THREE YEARS, AN ADDITIONAL TWO-YEAR RENEWAL WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW SERVICES ANNUALLY THEREAFTER Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 149-2025. m. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVIGN FREE PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING LOTS AND AT ON-STREET METERED PARKING SPACES FROM DECEMBER 24, 2025 THROUGH JANUARY 3, 2026 Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced support for the holiday free-parking concept but asked if the City could start the program earlier than December 24, 2025. 47 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 5 Councilmember Colson voiced concern about cars camping out in parking spaces and how that could affect businesses. City Manager Goldman replied that parking enforcement would still chalk tires and enforce time limits to prevent all-day squatting. City Manager Goldman recommended that the language in the resolution be changed to allow staff to start the program earlier if implementation is feasible. Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 150-2025; seconded by Councilmember Thayer. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. n. APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR Parks and Rection Director Glomstad requested Council approve of her out -of-state travel. o. ADOPTION OF THE 2026 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the 2026 City Council Calendar. p. ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANICAL REPORT AND OTHER RELATED ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council accept the City of Burlingame Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and other related annual audit reports for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2025. q. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856, AMEND AND EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856, APPROVE AMENDED SALARY SCHEDULES, AND INCREASE THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY APPROXIMATELY $12,200 HR Director Saguisag-Sid requested Council adopt Resolution Number 151-2025. r. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS, AMEND AND EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS, APPROVE THE AMENDED SALARY SCHEDULE, AND INCREASE THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY APPROXIMATELY $46,900 HR Director Saguisag-Sid requested Council adopt Resolution Number 152-2025. 48 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 6 s. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, AMEND AND EXECUTE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, APPROVE AMENDED SALARY SCHEDULES, AND INCREASE THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY APPROXIMATELY $176,100 HR Director Saguisag-Sid requested Council adopt Resolution Number 153-2025. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION Vice Mayor Pappajohn abstained from the discussion and voting on the appointment as she was not able to attend the interviews nor listen to the recording. The vacancy on the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission was publicized, and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received six applications as of the deadline of November 14, 2025. Prior to the interviews, one applicant withdrew his application. The City Council interviewed the following applicants on December 9, 2025: Suzanne Childress, Tom Cook, John Martos, Yooki Park, and Grace Xeureb. Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. City Clerk Administrative Assistant Isabelle Huang collected and read the ballots of the Councilmembers. Congratulations to John Martos on his reappointment. b. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL BOARD Vice Mayor Pappajohn abstained from the discussion and voting on the appointment as she was not able to attend the interview nor listen to the recording. The vacancy on the Mosquito & Vector Control Board was publicized , and notification letters were sent to past Commission applicants. The City received one application as of the deadline of December 5, 2025. The City Council interviewed Irena Gilligan on December 9, 2025. 49 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 7 Mayor Stevenson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Ms. Huang collected and read the ballots of the Councilmembers. Congratulations to Irena Gilligan on her reappointment. 12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers reported on their various committees and activities. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Pappajohn requested that a discussion on the possible Transit -Oriented Development Alternative Plan under SB 79 be agendized. Council agreed to agendize. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Comm ission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 15. CEREMONIAL Mayor Stevenson thanked the community and San Mateo County elected officials that were in attendance. He discussed the work that the City had accomplished this year including: 800 new units of housing including 126 affordable Fire Station 36 reopening El Camino Real Renewal groundbreaking Dozens of ribbon cuttings for businesses in the community Extended off-leash dog hours at Washington Park New City Hall progress Partnerships with the schools Mayor Stevenson thanked all the individuals who served on the City’s commissions and committees. He thanked all the department heads and staff for their hard work over the year. And he thanked his colleagues. Mayor Stevenson explained the rotation process that ensures each Councilmember serves as Mayor in an orderly fashion. Mayor Stevenson recognized Michael Brownrigg as the incoming Mayor and Andrea Pappajohn as the incoming Vice Mayor. 50 Agenda Item: 9b Meeting Date: January 20, 2026 8 Mayor Brownrigg thanked Mayor Stevenson and acknowledged that this would be his fourth term as Mayor. He discussed some of the topics that he hoped to work on over the next year including: Bayfront/Bayside development and sea level rise protection Town Square and New City Hall El Camino Real Renewal work Discussion on free speech 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m. in honor of Pat Giorni. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 51 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9c MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Request to Remove the 1600 Block of McDonald Way from the Themed Block Designation RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the request to remove the 1600 block of MacDonald Way from Themed Block designation. BACKGROUND A street tree Themed Block is defined as 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 must be replaced with a tree of the established theme species. Themed Blocks benefit the community by honoring the intended look of a developed area. Themed Blocks can create a consistent aesthetic with memorable uniformity. Themed Blocks can also face challenges, such as fast-spreading disease or insect infestations. Having a single species increases the likelihood that a single disease or insect will cause widespread tree loss, potentially devastating an entire block. Additionally, requiring a large canopy tree due to a Themed Block designation in a location with limited growing space can create ongoing conflicts, including the tree's inability to reach its typical species size due to overhead utilities. These trees cannot reach their intended size and require significant, frequent maintenance resources from the City and utility providers to mitigate risk. In 2008, the City Council approved the City’s first Themed Block List and Policy of Establishing a Themed Block. The policy includes the following: 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. 52 Petition to Remove the 1600 Block of McDonald Way from Themed Block Designation January 20, 2026 2 Selected "themed" species will replace existing trees only when removing an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. Since the program's introduction in 2008, the City has established 122 Themed Blocks. In July of 2025, the City Council approved modifications to the original Themed Block designations based on available species, which may cause less interference with overhead conductors (Exhibit A) (Resolution No. 073-2025). The policy was amended in 2015 to also allow the property owners to petition to remove a block from the Themed Block designation if at least 75% of property owners agree (Exhibit B). DISCUSSION In October 2025, a resident of the 1600 block of McDonald Way was informed that they could not select a tree from the City’s official species list because the theme is Red Maple. The resident was surprised because the 1600 block of McDonald Way has had multiple species planted over the last decade and seemed to lack a common theme. The resident submitted the attached petition on behalf of their neighbors. Twenty 24 of the 26 property owners signed the petition. Staff matched signatures of 23 properties to property owners on record and determined that 88% of property owners supported removing the Themed Block designation (Exhibit C). Staff researched the area's history and found that when the area was developed, the Lirodendron (Tulip Tree) was planted at most residences along this street. The Parks Division no longer plants this tree due to susceptibility to aphids and significant root-infrastructure challenges. Sometime between 2008 and 2016, the Red Maple tree was selected as the replacement species. However, the table below shows the actual species at 1600 McDonald Way. Total Available Planting Sites 28 Vacancies 3 Original Theme Tree (Tulip Tree) 6 Replacement Theme Tree (Red Maple) 12 Other Species 7 Other Species Planted Since 2012 3 (2013, 2020, 2021) This matter was brought before the Beautification Commission on December 4, 2025. The Commission approved the removal of the 1600 block of McDonald Way from the Themed Block designation (Exhibit D). If the Council approves the removal of the Themed Block designation for the 1600 block of McDonald Way, residents would be allowed to select the replacement street tree from the list for planting areas greater than 6’ (Exhibit E). However, the existing trees would be replaced only if a street tree is required to be replaced under the City ordinance. In preparation for the Tuesday, January 20, 2026, City Council meeting, staff noticed this meeting via the City E-news, social media, and mailing to the twenty-six property owners and tenants on the 1600 block of McDonald Way. 53 Petition to Remove the 1600 Block of McDonald Way from Themed Block Designation January 20, 2026 3 FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated. Exhibits: Resolution Current Themed Block List Themed Block Policy Form Petition From Property Owners - 1600 Block of McDonald Way Beautification Commission Staff Report - 1600 Block of McDonald Way City Street Tree Lists for Planters Greater Than 6’ 54 RESOLUTION NO.________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF THE THEMED BLOCK DESIGNATION FROM THE 1600 BLOCK OF MCDONALD WAY WHEREAS, in 2008, the City established a Themed Block policy to preserve the integrity of existing dominant species in specific geographic areas of the city; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has established a method for property owners to petition the City to remove Themed Block designations; and WHEREAS, the City is in receipt of a petition signed by 88% of property owners along the 1600 block of McDonald Way requesting such removal; and WHEREAS, the City has held two public meetings and conducted significant outreach to discuss removing the Themed Block designation from the 1600 block of McDonald Way; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, the Burlingame Beautification Commission voted to remove the Themed Block designation from the 1600 block of McDonald Way. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The City shall remove the Themed Block designation from the 1600 block of McDonald Way. __________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2026, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 55 Planter Min Street Theme Width Width 1600 Adeline London Planetree 36/36 48 1700 Adeline London Planetree 36/P36 48 1800 Adeline London Planetree 36/P36 48 1900 Adeline London Planetree 36/P36 48 2000 Adeline London Planetree 36/36 48 500 Almer Shangtung Maple 62/62 800 Alpine London Planetree 36/36 48 1000 Balboa Trident Maple 36/36 1400 Balboa Catalpa 36/36 36 1600 Balboa Trident Maple 36/36 100 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 200 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 300 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 400 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 500 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 600 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 700 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 800 Bayswater Ginkgo 84/P84 36 900 Bayswater Ginkgo 69/P69 36 1000 Bayswater Ginkgo 36 1100 Bayswater Ginkgo 80/P80 36 1200 Bayswater Ginkgo 80/P80 36 1300 Bayswater Ginkgo 84/P84 36 1200 Bellevue Shangtung Maple 60/60 1300 Bernal London Planetree 48/48 48 1400 Bernal London Planetree 48/48 48 300 Bloomfield London Planetree 72/P72 48 400 Bloomfield London Planetree 72/P72 48 300 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 120/120 400 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 120/144 500 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 144/P120 800 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 120/P144 850 - 1000 Burlingame Ave Lemon-Scented Gum 120/144 1500 Burlingame Ave. London Planetree 48/P48 48 1200 Cabrillo Trident Maple 36/36 400 - 1100 California Dr. European Hornbeam 48/P72 36 1100 Cambridge Elm 72/72 50 300 Channing London Planetree 72/P72 48 100-200 Chapin London Planetree 32/32 48 300 Chapin London Planetree 32/32 48 1600 Chapin London Planetree 32/32 48 400 Chatham London Planetree 72/72 48 300 Clarendon Gambel Oak 48/48 50 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 11.2025) 56 1500 Columbus Gambel Oak 48/48 50 300 Concord Shangtung Maple 72/72 600 Concord London Planetree 72/72 48 700 Concord London Planetree 72/72 48 500 Corbitt London Planetree 96/P96 48 1100 Cortez London Planetree 36/36 48 1200 Cortez London Planetree 36/36 48 800 Crossway Shangtung Maple 48/48 400 Cumberland London Planetree 72/72 48 1400 Desoto London Planetree 50/50 48 1100 Douglas London Planetree 53/P48 48 1100 Drake London Planetree 36/36 48 300 Dwight Gambel Oak 48/P48 50 1500-2000 Easton Lemon-Scented Gum 19'/P48 800 Edgehill Shangtung Maple 68/68 1300 Edgehill Shangtung Maple 68/P72 1400 Floribunda Shangtung Maple 57/P72 1500 Floribunda Shangtung Maple 59/P60 500 Francisco London Planetree 96/P96 48 2100 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 2200 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 2300 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 2400 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 1200 Laguna London Planetree 84/P84 48 1300 Laguna Shangtung Maple 84/P84 1400 Laguna Shangtung Maple 84/P84 300 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 500 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 600 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 700 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 800 Maple Trident Maple 36/36 400 Marin London Planetree 72/72 48 500 Marin London Planetree 84/84 48 1600 McDonald Way Shangtung Maple 65/65 1100 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1200 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1300 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1400 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1500 Newlands London Planetree 48 900,1200- 1400 Oak Grove Gambel Oak 36/P36 50 100 Occidental London Planetree 56/P48 48 200 Occidental London Planetree 56/56 48 300 Occidental London Planetree 56/P48 48 400 Occidental London Planetree 56/P48 48 1100 Oxford Elm 48/48 48 1100 Palm London Planetree 72/P72 48 1200 Palm London Planetree P72/P72 48 1300 Palm London Planetree 72/P72 48 1400 Palm London Planetree 84/P72 48 700 Plymouth London Planetree 72/72 48 1100 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 1200 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 1300 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 57 1400 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 1600 Sherman London Planetree 36/P36 48 1700 Sherman London Planetree P36/P36 48 10 Stanley Trident Maple 36/P36 100 Stanley Trident Maple 36/P36 200 Stanley Trident Maple 36/P36 2100 Trousdale Modesto Ash 54 48 1100 Vancouver Catalpa 36/P36 500 Vernon London Planetree 48/48 48 600 Vernon Shangtung Maple 48/48 700 Vernon London Planetree 72/72 48 700 Winchester Dr. London Planetree 96/P96 48 800 Winchester Dr. London Planetree 96/P96 48 58 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 B 59 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature 60 EXHIBIT C 61 62 STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: December 4, 2025 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Veronica Flores, Parks Administrative Assistant II (650) 558-7330 Subject: Consideration of Petition to Remove Themed Block Designation for the 1600 Block of McDonald Way RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Commission review the staff report, receive public comment, and approve or deny the petition to remove the Themed Block Designation for the 1600 Block of McDonald Way. BACKGROUND A street tree themed block is defined as 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 City 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 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: 63 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 64 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 65 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 66 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 B 67 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature 68 EXHIBIT C 69 70 Height at Botanical Name Common Name Maturity Description Acer rubrum Red Maple 40'-50' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; lobed, green leaves; brilliant fall color. Angophora costata Sydney Red Gum 100'-150' EVERGREEN: Striking red bark, wide canopy, low water use. Arbutus menziesii Madrone 80'-125' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; striking bark, fragrant flowers, rounded canopy. Camphor 40'-50' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; yellow green Cinnamomum camphora aromatic leaves; tiny yellow flowers in spring. Platanus aceriflolia London Plane 40'-60' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; large, lobe, maple like Sycamore/Columbia leaves; sheds old bark; new bark smooth, cream color. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 40'-70'EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; dense foliage; round holly-like leaves; round-headed, spreading crown. Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak 40'-70' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; high, open branches; large, bright green leaves turn, red in fall. Quercus douglasii Blue Oak 20'-66' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth, bluish green leaves, wide/rounded canopy, low water use. Silverleaf Oak 60'-70'EVERGREEN: Moderate growth, gray leaves, Quercus hypoleucoides large rounded canopy. Quercus lobata Valley Oak 25'-80' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth, lobed leaves, rounded canopy. One of the world's largest oak species native to California. Quercus rubra Red Oak 40'-70' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; spreading branches with round crown. Quillaja saponaria Soapbark tree 50'-65' EVERGREEN: Slow growing; yellow or cream flower, rounded canopy. Schinus molle California Pepper 25'-40' EVERGREEN: A willow-like canopy, green leaves, attractive and fragrant pink berries in the summer. Ulmus Patriot Elm 60'-80' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; graceful vase shape limbs; glossy dark green foliage, yellow in fall. Subject to Availability. Official Street Tree List 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 parksadmin@burlingame.org TREES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS 6' WIDE AND OVER City of Burlingame | Parks Division EXHIBIT D 71 • 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 of Establishing a Themed Block, which 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 residents have added 24 Themed Blocks, bringing the total to 122 (Exhibit A). The ability to remove a block from the 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). Themed Blocks provide a benefit to the community by 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 face challenges, such as fast-spreading disease or insect infestations. Having a single species increases the likelihood that a single disease or insect will cause widespread tree loss, potentially devastating an entire block. 72 Additionally, requiring a large canopy tree due to a themed block designation in a location with confined growing space can create a continual conflict. This includes the tree being unable 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 In October 2025, a resident of McDonald Way was informed that they could not select a tree from the City’s official species list, as was previously erroneously promised to them by staff. It was discovered that McDonald Way was designated a Themed Block, and the only planting option is the Red Maple tree. The resident was surprised to find that the 1600 block of McDonald Way had multiple species planted over the last decade and lacked a common theme. The resident submitted the attached petition on behalf of their neighbors. Staff have matched the signatures of property owners and found that 86% property owners support the removal of the Themed Block designation. (EXHIBIT C). Staff have researched the area's history. It appears that when the area was developed, the Lirodendron (Tulip Tree) was planted at most residences along this street. The Parks division no longer plants this tree due to susceptibility to aphids and significant root-infrastructure challenges. Between 2008 and 2016, the Red Maple tree became the chosen replacement species. However, the table below shows the actual species at 1600 McDonald Way. Total Available Planting Sites 28 Vacancies 3 Original Theme Tree (Tulip Tree) 6 Replacement Theme Tree (Red Maple) 12 Other Species 7 Other Species Planted Since 2012 3 (2013, 2020, 2021) Should the Beautification Commission approve the removal of the Themed Block designation for the 1600 block of McDonald Way, the property-owners would select the replacement street trees from the trees approved on the list for planting areas greater than 6’. (EXHIBIT D) In preparation for the Thursday, December 4, 2025, Beautification Commission Meeting, staff have noticed this subject via the City E-news, social media, and mailing to 26 property owners and tenants that live along the 1600 block of McDonald Way. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is likely. EXHIBITS 73 A. Current Themed Block List B. Themed Block Policy Form C. Petition from Property-Owners along the 1600 Block of McDonald Way D. Street Tree Species List for Planters Greater Than 6’ 74 Height at Botanical Name Common Name Maturity Description Acer rubrum Red Maple 40'-50' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; lobed, green leaves; brilliant fall color. Angophora costata Sydney Red Gum 100'-150' EVERGREEN: Striking red bark, wide canopy, low water use. Arbutus menziesii Madrone 80'-125' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; striking bark, fragrant flowers, rounded canopy. Camphor 40'-50' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; yellow green Cinnamomum camphora aromatic leaves; tiny yellow flowers in spring. Platanus aceriflolia London Plane 40'-60' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; large, lobe, maple like Sycamore/Columbia leaves; sheds old bark; new bark smooth, cream color. Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 40'-70'EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; dense foliage; round holly-like leaves; round-headed, spreading crown. Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak 40'-70' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; high, open branches; large, bright green leaves turn, red in fall. Quercus douglasii Blue Oak 20'-66' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth, bluish green leaves, wide/rounded canopy, low water use. Silverleaf Oak 60'-70'EVERGREEN: Moderate growth, gray leaves, Quercus hypoleucoides large rounded canopy. Quercus lobata Valley Oak 25'-80' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth, lobed leaves, rounded canopy. One of the world's largest oak species native to California. Quercus rubra Red Oak 40'-70' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; spreading branches with round crown. Quillaja saponaria Soapbark tree 50'-65' EVERGREEN: Slow growing; yellow or cream flower, rounded canopy. Schinus molle California Pepper 25'-40' EVERGREEN: A willow-like canopy, green leaves, attractive and fragrant pink berries in the summer. Ulmus Patriot Elm 60'-80' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; graceful vase shape limbs; glossy dark green foliage, yellow in fall. Subject to Availability. Official Street Tree List 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 parksadmin@burlingame.org TREES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS 6' WIDE AND OVER City of Burlingame | Parks Division EXHIBIT D 75 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9d MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Request to Remove the 1600 Block of Chapin Avenue from the Themed Block Designation RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the request to remove the 1600 block of Chapin Avenue from the Themed Block designation. BACKGROUND A street tree Themed Block is defined as 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 must be replaced with a tree of the established theme species. Themed Blocks benefit the community by honoring the intended look of a developed area. Themed Blocks can create a consistent aesthetic with memorable uniformity. Themed Blocks can also face challenges, such as fast-spreading disease or insect infestations. Having a single species increases the likelihood that a single disease or insect will cause widespread tree loss, potentially devastating an entire block. Additionally, requiring a large canopy tree due to a Themed Block designation in a location with limited growing space can create ongoing conflicts, including the tree's inability to reach its typical species size due to overhead utilities. These trees cannot reach their intended size and require significant, frequent maintenance resources from the City and utility providers to mitigate risk. In 2008, the City Council approved the City’s first Themed Block List and Policy of Establishing a Themed Block. The policy includes the following: 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. 76 Petition to Remove the 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. from Themed Block Designation January 20, 2026 2 Selected "themed" species will replace existing trees only when removing an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. Since the program's introduction in 2008, the City has established 122 Themed Blocks. In July of 2025, the City Council approved modifications to the original Themed Block designations based on available species, which may cause less interference with overhead conductors (Exhibit A) (Resolution No. 073-2025). The policy was amended in 2015 to also allow the property owners to petition to remove a block from the Themed Block designation if at least 75% of property owners agree (Exhibit B). DISCUSSION In January 2025, a resident of the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. applied for a Tree Work Plan Permit to remove City street trees in conjunction with sidewalk repairs. The resident expressed interest in planting a utility-friendly tree from the City’s approved list of species for overhead primary-conductor utilities. The resident was informed that the area was designated as a Themed Block, with Platanus acerifolia (London Planetree) as the required replacement. The resident was also informed that the Beautification Commission and City Council would discuss Themed Blocks and overhead utility conflicts in 2025, with the potential for changes to the policy. After three public meetings, the Beautification Commission and City Council voted to support retaining the London planetree as the designated Themed Block species along the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. and at other locations throughout the city. Some property owners along 1600 Chapin Ave. signed a petition to remove the Themed Block designation from this area and submitted it to staff. Staff matched signatures to property owners and determined that 86% supported removing the Themed Block designation (Exhibit C). While 1600 Chapin Ave. is a Themed Block, several alternative species have been planted, and some of the remaining London Planetrees are in poor health and require replacement. The table below shows the actual species planted along 1600 Chapin Ave. Total Available Planting Sites 28 Vacancies 3 Theme Tree (London Planetree) 8 Theme Tree Requiring Replacement 4 Other Species 14 Other Species Planted Since 2012 8 (2017, 2019, 2022) This matter was brought before the Beautification Commission on December 4, 2025. The Commission approved the removal of the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. from the Themed Block designation (Exhibit D). 77 Petition to Remove the 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. from Themed Block Designation January 20, 2026 3 If the Council approves the removal of the Themed Block designation for the 1600 block of Chapin Ave., residents would be sent one of two approved species lists, depending upon the presence of primary overhead electrical conductors (Exhibit E). However, the existing trees would be replaced only if a street tree is required to be replaced under the City ordinance. In preparation for the Tuesday, January 20, 2026, City Council meeting, staff noticed this meeting via the City E-news, social media, and mailing to the seven property owners and tenants in the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is anticipated. Exhibits: Resolution Current Themed Block List Themed Block Policy Form Petition from Property Owners - 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. Beautification Commission Staff Report - 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. City Street Tree Lists for Planters Less than 4' and Beneath Overhead Primary Conductors 78 RESOLUTION NO.________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF THE THEMED BLOCK DESIGNATION FROM THE 1600 BLOCK OF CHAPIN AVENUE WHEREAS, in 2008, the City established a Themed Block policy to preserve the integrity of existing dominant species in specific geographic areas of the city; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has established a method for property owners to petition the City to remove Themed Block designations; and WHEREAS, the City is in receipt of a petition signed by 86% of property owners along the 1600 block of Chapin Avenue requesting such removal; and WHEREAS, the City has held two public meetings and conducted significant outreach to discuss removing the Themed Block designation from the 1600 block of Chapin Avenue; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2025, the Burlingame Beautification Commission voted to remove the Themed Block designation from the 1600 block of Chapin Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The City shall remove the Themed Block designation from the 1600 block of Chapin Avenue. __________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2026, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 79 Planter Min Street Theme Width Width 1600 Adeline London Planetree 36/36 48 1700 Adeline London Planetree 36/P36 48 1800 Adeline London Planetree 36/P36 48 1900 Adeline London Planetree 36/P36 48 2000 Adeline London Planetree 36/36 48 500 Almer Shangtung Maple 62/62 800 Alpine London Planetree 36/36 48 1000 Balboa Trident Maple 36/36 1400 Balboa Catalpa 36/36 36 1600 Balboa Trident Maple 36/36 100 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 200 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 300 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 400 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 500 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 600 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 700 Bayswater Ginkgo 72/P72 36 800 Bayswater Ginkgo 84/P84 36 900 Bayswater Ginkgo 69/P69 36 1000 Bayswater Ginkgo 36 1100 Bayswater Ginkgo 80/P80 36 1200 Bayswater Ginkgo 80/P80 36 1300 Bayswater Ginkgo 84/P84 36 1200 Bellevue Shangtung Maple 60/60 1300 Bernal London Planetree 48/48 48 1400 Bernal London Planetree 48/48 48 300 Bloomfield London Planetree 72/P72 48 400 Bloomfield London Planetree 72/P72 48 300 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 120/120 400 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 120/144 500 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 144/P120 800 Burlingame Ave Shangtung Maple 120/P144 850 - 1000 Burlingame Ave Lemon-Scented Gum 120/144 1500 Burlingame Ave. London Planetree 48/P48 48 1200 Cabrillo Trident Maple 36/36 400 - 1100 California Dr. European Hornbeam 48/P72 36 1100 Cambridge Elm 72/72 50 300 Channing London Planetree 72/P72 48 100-200 Chapin London Planetree 32/32 48 300 Chapin London Planetree 32/32 48 1600 Chapin London Planetree 32/32 48 400 Chatham London Planetree 72/72 48 300 Clarendon Gambel Oak 48/48 50 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 11.2025) 80 1500 Columbus Gambel Oak 48/48 50 300 Concord Shangtung Maple 72/72 600 Concord London Planetree 72/72 48 700 Concord London Planetree 72/72 48 500 Corbitt London Planetree 96/P96 48 1100 Cortez London Planetree 36/36 48 1200 Cortez London Planetree 36/36 48 800 Crossway Shangtung Maple 48/48 400 Cumberland London Planetree 72/72 48 1400 Desoto London Planetree 50/50 48 1100 Douglas London Planetree 53/P48 48 1100 Drake London Planetree 36/36 48 300 Dwight Gambel Oak 48/P48 50 1500-2000 Easton Lemon-Scented Gum 19'/P48 800 Edgehill Shangtung Maple 68/68 1300 Edgehill Shangtung Maple 68/P72 1400 Floribunda Shangtung Maple 57/P72 1500 Floribunda Shangtung Maple 59/P60 500 Francisco London Planetree 96/P96 48 2100 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 2200 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 2300 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 2400 Hillside London Planetree 144/144 48 1200 Laguna London Planetree 84/P84 48 1300 Laguna Shangtung Maple 84/P84 1400 Laguna Shangtung Maple 84/P84 300 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 500 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 600 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 700 Lexington London Planetree 72/72 48 800 Maple Trident Maple 36/36 400 Marin London Planetree 72/72 48 500 Marin London Planetree 84/84 48 1600 McDonald Way Shangtung Maple 65/65 1100 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1200 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1300 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1400 Mills London Planetree 60/P60 48 1500 Newlands London Planetree 48 900,1200- 1400 Oak Grove Gambel Oak 36/P36 50 100 Occidental London Planetree 56/P48 48 200 Occidental London Planetree 56/56 48 300 Occidental London Planetree 56/P48 48 400 Occidental London Planetree 56/P48 48 1100 Oxford Elm 48/48 48 1100 Palm London Planetree 72/P72 48 1200 Palm London Planetree P72/P72 48 1300 Palm London Planetree 72/P72 48 1400 Palm London Planetree 84/P72 48 700 Plymouth London Planetree 72/72 48 1100 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 1200 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 1300 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 81 1400 Sanchez London Planetree 48/P48 48 1600 Sherman London Planetree 36/P36 48 1700 Sherman London Planetree P36/P36 48 10 Stanley Trident Maple 36/P36 100 Stanley Trident Maple 36/P36 200 Stanley Trident Maple 36/P36 2100 Trousdale Modesto Ash 54 48 1100 Vancouver Catalpa 36/P36 500 Vernon London Planetree 48/48 48 600 Vernon Shangtung Maple 48/48 700 Vernon London Planetree 72/72 48 700 Winchester Dr. London Planetree 96/P96 48 800 Winchester Dr. London Planetree 96/P96 48 82 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 B 83 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature 84 EXHIBIT D 85 STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: December 4, 2025 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Veronica Flores, Administrative Assistant II (650) 558-7330 Subject: Consideration of Petition to Remove Themed Block Designation for the 1600 Block of Chapin Avenue RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Commission review the staff report, receive public comment, and approve or deny the petition to remove the Themed Block Designation for the 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. BACKGROUND A street tree themed block is defined as 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 City 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 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: 86 • 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's action and Council's consensus, staff prepared a Draft Themed Block List and Policy of Establishing a Themed Block, which 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 residents have added 24 Themed Blocks, bringing the total to 122 (Exhibit A). The ability to remove a block from the 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). Themed Blocks provide a benefit to the community by 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 face challenges, such as fast-spreading disease or insect infestations. Having a single species increases the likelihood that a single disease or insect will cause widespread tree loss, potentially devastating an entire block. 87 Additionally, requiring a large canopy tree due to a themed block designation in a location with confined growing space can create a continual conflict. This includes the tree being unable 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 In January 2025, a resident of the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. applied for a Tree Work Plan Permit to remove City street trees in conjunction with sidewalk repairs. The resident expressed interest in planting a utility-friendly tree from the City’s approved list of species for overhead primary- conductor utilities. The resident was informed that the area was designated as a Themed Block with Platanus acerifolia (London Planetree) as the required replacement. The resident was also informed that Themed Blocks and overhead utility conflicts would soon be discussed. However, after three public meetings, the Beautification Commission and City Council voted to support retaining the London planetree as the designated Themed Block species along the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. and at other locations throughout the City (Exhibit C). Some property owners along 1600 Chapin Ave. have signed a petition to remove the Themed Block designation from this area. The resident submitted the attached petition on behalf of their neighbors. Staff have matched the signatures of property owners and found 86% of the property owners support the removal of the Themed Block designation (Exhibit D). The area was originally planted with London Planetree; however, several alternative species have been planted, and some of the remaining London Planetrees are in poor health and require replacement. The table below shows the actual species planted along 1600 Chapin Ave. Total Available Planting Sites 28 Vacancies 3 Theme Tree (London Planetree) 8 Theme Tree Requiring Replacement 4 Other Species 14 Other Species Planted Since 2012 8 (2017, 2019, 2022) Should the Commission approve the removal of the Themed Block designation for the 1600 block of Chapin Ave., residents would be sent one of two approved species lists, depending upon the presence of primary overhead electrical conductors (Exhibit E). In preparation for the Thursday, December 4, 2025, Beautification Commission Meeting, the staff has noticed this subject via the City E-news, social media, and mailing to 7 property owners and tenants who live along the 1600 block of Chapin Ave. 88 FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact is likely. EXHIBITS A. Current Themed Block List B. Themed Block Policy Form C. Staff Report to City Council on Themed Blocks D. Petition from Property-Owners along 1600 Block of Chapin Ave. E. City Street Tree Lists for Planters less than 4' and Beneath Overhead Primary Conductors 89 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 90 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 91 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 92 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 B 93 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature 94 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9g MEETING DATE: July 7, 2025 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: July 7, 2025 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Carlie Burow, Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7335 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Updated Themed Block Tree Species List RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution to update the Themed Block Tree Species List. BACKGROUND During public discussion of the updated Tree Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 et seq.) in 2024, staff received public comments regarding the conflict between street trees and overhead electrical utilities, particularly conflicts on streets designated as Themed Blocks. A street tree-themed block is a block in which one defined street tree species is established and maintained indefinitely. Once a themed block is established and a tree is removed for any reason, the tree is replaced with a tree of the established theme species. Trees are removed for safety or construction purposes only; they are not removed because they do not comply with a designated Themed Block. Most 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 inspections and utility pruning by utility contractors, followed by corrective pruning by City staff. Staff reviewed the Themed Block tree species and determined that improvements to the policy could be made to reduce tree and overhead utility conflicts by designating alternative species that resemble existing features of the current designated Themed Block species prone to utility conflicts. These species are generally shorter in stature and should not exceed a height of 25’. The replacement options are described below. EXHIBIT C 95 Themed Block Tree Species List Update July 7, 2025 2 Red Maple Replacement 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. This species has a moderate need for water and can have aggressive rooting. The Red Maple typically grows to heights of 40-60 feet. The alternative tree is the Shangtung Maple (Acer Truncatum) (Exhibit B). 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. Red Oak Replacement The current Red Oak grows at a moderate pace. This specimen tends to grow in broad form, eventually reaching heights that present overhead utility conflicts. This species is deciduous, with green leaves in the spring and summer that turn brown in the fall. The alternative is the smaller oak species, the Gambel Oak (Quercus Gambelli) (Exhibit C). 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 such as 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. London Planetree Replacement The current London Planetree is a fast-growing, upright tree that can reach heights of 80’. The City currently plants the ‘Columbia’ variety because it has the greatest disease resistance to common fungal diseases, such as anthracnose and powdery mildew. These trees have strong vertical growth, often presenting utility conflicts within five years. The alternative is the Ap hlen’s Globe Planetree (Platanus Acerifolia ‘Alphen’s Globe’), a dwarf variety of Planetree (Exhibit D). This is a newly developed European variety that mimics the same look as the current Planetrees but is grafted to a dwarfing rootstock to limit the tree's growth. Staff has been unable to source this species in the United States. Another variety researched was the Platanus Acerifolia ‘Mirkovec’. This is another European variety with similar attributes. It, too, cannot be sourced in the United States at this time. Since there is no suitable smaller-stature Planetree available, staff recommends using one of the alternative maple species listed above. DISCUSSION At the February 6, 2025, Beautification Commission meeting, staff presented information about Themed Blocks in general and raised the issue about utility conflicts. The Commissioners directed staff to research and provide the Commission with potential opportunities to limit utility conflicts with trees (Exhibit E). At the March 6, 2025, Beautification Commission meeting, staff requested the Commission either: 96 Themed Block Tree Species List Update July 7, 2025 3 Modify Themed Block plantings that create utility conflicts by designating 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 the current Themed Block designation as is. After listening to public comments and discussion, the Commission directed staff to research specific alternatives that best resemble the intended look of current Themed Block Species in conflict with utilities (Exhibit F). On May 1, 2025, the Beautification Commission again discussed the Themed Block utility conflicts. The Commission received public comments and discussed potential revisions related to the Themed Block Tree Species list. The Commission approved modifying the Themed Block designation where suitable alternatives could be selected to retain the intended look of the original Themed Block designation while reducing the likelihood of utility conflicts, as listed below. Modify Themed Block designation for Red Maples to allow for the Shangtung Maple (Acer Truncatum) to be planted in locations with overhead primary electrical conductors. Modify the Themed Block designation for Red Oaks to allow for the Gambel Oak (Quercus Gambelli) to be planted in locations with overhead primary electrical conductors. The Commission opted to leave the London Planetree Themed Block designation unchanged as a viable alternative that resembles the current look of the Themed Block species cannot be sourced (Exhibit G). As part of the City’s efforts to increase public outreach and in compliance with the updated Tree Ordinance, staff reached out in several ways to inform residents of public meetings regarding Themed Blocks discussions. This included e-News articles, content on the City’s social media platforms, and over 3,700 direct mailings to residents and property owners in the Themed Block areas. In total, three mailings occurred at a cost of over $1,700 per mailing. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact is unknown at this time. However, staff believes that the costs will likely be lower in the long term due to less maintenance work. Exhibits: Resolution Shangtung Maple Data Sheet Gambel Oak Data Sheet Alphen’s Globe Planetree Data Sheet February 6, 2025, Beautification Commission Meeting Staff Report and Minutes March 6, 2025, Beautification Commission Meeting Staff Report and Minutes May 1, 2025, Beautification Commission Meeting Staff Report and Draft Minutes 97 RESOLUTION NO. 073-2025 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME UPDATING THE CITY’S THEMED BLOCK TREE SPECIES LIST WHEREAS, in 2008, the City established its Themed Block policy; and WHEREAS, the City has held four public meetings and conducted significant outreach regarding updates to the Themed Block list; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2025, the Beautification Commission voted to recommend that the City Council update the Themed Block list; and WHEREAS, the updated Themed Block list is a more sustainable approach to managing the urban forest by reducing utility conflicts. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The City shall update the Themed Block list as noted below. a. The Red Maple will be replaced by the Shangtung Maple (Acer Truncatum). b. The Red Oak will be replaced by the Gambel Oak (Quercus Gambelli). __________________________ Peter Stevenson, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day of July, 2025, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brownrigg, Colson, Pappajohn, Stevenson, Thayer NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None __________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 98 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 99 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 100 STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: February 6, 2025 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Carlie Burow, Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7335 Subject: Themed Block Discussion RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Beautification Commission review the staff report, ask questions, and direct staff to return to the March 6, 2025 Beautification Commission with information that could help the Commission decide if any changes should be made to areas with Themed Block designation. BACKGROUND 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 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 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. 101 • 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 of Establishing a Themed Block that was presented and approved at the August 7, 2008, Beautification Commission meeting. From that Beautification Commission meeting in 2008, 98 blocks were designated as themed blocks. Since then, the City of Burlingame and the residents have added 24 additional themed blocks making the current total of 122. (Exhibit A) Policy for Establishing Themed Blocks Upon adoption of the List of Themed Blocks, the Commission considered a policy to address the future establishment of themed blocks. Over time, the public may desire to request the Commission add themed blocks to the list. Staff presented the draft policy for review at the Beautification Commission meeting on August 7, 2008. A public hearing was conducted at the meeting on September 4, 2008, to consider this policy. After public input, the Commission adopted the following policy proposal: • 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 the removal of an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. The ability to remove a block from Themed Block designation was added at a later date. Presently, if a block would like to remove the Themed Block designation, 75% of property owners must agree and sign the petition form to remove the entire block for the matter to be considered. (Exhibit B) DISCUSSION Themed Blocks add a benefit to our community that includes honoring the intended look of a developed area. Themed blocks can create an aesthetic look and feel with a memorable 102 uniformity (Exhibit C). Continuing the existing Themed Block designations generally, continues the intended look original designers had during the development of our community. Ensuring a consistent mature canopy can provide a multitude of benefits including greater property value. However, Themed Blocks can also have challenges. This includes the creation of a mono-culture with little biodiversity. Pests or diseases have been known to wipe-out entire neighborhoods of trees due to lack of species diversification. This has occurred in the past with Dutch Elm Disease and presently with the Emerald Ash Borer. Additionally, requiring a large canopy tree due to themed block designation in a location that has confined growing space can create a perennial conflict. These trees are unable to reach their intended size and require significant and frequent maintenance resources from the City and utility providers to reduce risk. During the public discussion surrounding the update of our tree ordinance, some concerns were expressed in relation to Themed Blocks. These concerns include utility conflict, frustration with lack of choice and lack of biodiversity. As we have updated our municipal code to reflect arboriculture, staff have been asked to evaluate if practices we have engaged in also subscribe to modern day arboriculture practices. The Arbor Day Foundation espouses a principle of “The Right Tree in The Right Place” (Exhibit D). This follows the basic principle that a tree is planted so that it is sustainable and will not require significant input after planting. This reduces conflict that could reduce the life or quality of the tree grown absent significant input. The Beautification Commission is the most appropriate conduit to consider if any changes to our current practices with Themed Blocks should be modified. FISCAL IMPACT None. EXHIBITS A. Current Themed Block List B. Themed Block Policy Form C. Photos of Themed Blocks D. Arborday Brochure 103 Planter Min Street Theme Width Width Recommendation 1600 Adeline Sycamore 36/36 48 Themed Block 1700 Adeline Sycamore 36/P36 48 Themed Block 1800 Adeline Sycamore 36/P36 48 Themed Block 1900 Adeline Sycamore 36/P36 48 Themed Block 2000 Adeline Sycamore 36/36 48 Themed Block 500 Almer Liquidambar 62/62 Replace w/ Red Maple 800 Alpine Sycamore 36/36 48 Themed Block 1000 Balboa Liquidambar 36/36 Replace w/Trident Maple 1400 Balboa Catalpa 36/36 36 Themed Block 1600 Balboa Liquidambar 36/36 Replace w/Trident Maple 100 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 200 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 300 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 400 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 500 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 600 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 700 Bayswater Gingko 72/P72 36 Themed Block 800 Bayswater Gingko 84/P84 36 Themed Block 900 Bayswater Gingko 69/P69 36 Themed Block 1000 Bayswater Gingko 36 Themed Block 1100 Bayswater Gingko 80/P80 36 Themed Block 1200 Bayswater Gingko 80/P80 36 Themed Block 1300 Bayswater Gingko 84/P84 36 Themed Block 1200 Bellevue Liquidambar 60/60 Replace w/ Red Maple 1300 Bernal Sycamore 48/48 48 Themed Block 1400 Bernal Sycamore 48/48 48 Themed Block 300 Bloomfield Sycamore 72/P72 48 Themed Block 400 Bloomfield Sycamore 72/P72 48 Themed Block 300 Burlingame Ave Camphor 120/120 Replace w/ Red Maple 400 Burlingame Ave Camphor 120/144 Replace w/ Red Maple 500 Burlingame Ave Camphor 144/P120 Replace w/ Red Maple 800 Burlingame Ave Camphor 120/P144 Replace w/ Red Maple 850 - 1000 Burlingame Ave Euc. Viminalis = (3 blks.) 120/144 Themed Blocks 1500 Burlingame Ave. Sycamore 48/P48 48 Themed Block 1200 Cabrillo Liquidambar 36/36 Replace w/ Trident Maple 400 - 1100 California Dr. P.Calleryana `Chanticleer' = (9 blks.) 48/P72 36 Replace with ‘European Hornbeam’ 1100 Cambridge Elm 72/72 50 Themed Block 300 Channing Sycamore 72/P72 48 Themed Block 200 Chapin Sycamore 32/32 48 Themed Block 300 Chapin Sycamore 32/32 48 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 10.2022) EXHIBIT A 104 1600 Chapin Sycamore 32/32 48 Themed Block 400 Chatham Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 300 Clarendon Red Oak 48/48 50 Themed Block 1500 Columbus Red Oak 48/48 50 Themed Block 300 Concord Liquidambar 72/72 Replace w/ Red Maple 600 Concord Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 700 Concord Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 500 Corbitt Sycamore 96/P96 48 Themed Block 1100 Cortez Sycamore 36/36 48 Themed Block 1200 Cortez Sycamore 36/36 48 Themed Block 800 Crossway Liquidambar 48/48 Replace w/ Red Maple 400 Cumberland Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 1400 Desoto Sycamore 50/50 48 Themed Block 1100 Douglas Sycamore 53/P48 48 Themed Block 1100 Drake Sycamore 36/36 48 Themed Block 300 Dwight Red Oak 48/P48 50 Themed Block 1500-2000 Easton Euc. Globulus = (6 blks.) 19'/P48 Themed Blocks 800 Edgehill Liquidambar 68/68 Replace w/ Red Maple 1300 Edgehill Liquidambar 68/P72 Replace w/ Red Maple 1400 Floribunda Liquidambar 57/P72 Replace w/ Red Maple 1500 Floribunda Liquidambar 59/P60 Replace w/ Red Maple 500 Francisco Sycamore 96/P96 48 Themed Block 2100 Hillside Sycamore 144/144 48 Themed Block 2200 Hillside Sycamore 144/144 48 Themed Block 2300 Hillside Sycamore 144/144 48 Themed Block 2400 Hillside Sycamore 144/144 48 Themed Block 1200 Laguna Sycamore 84/P84 48 Themed Block 1300 Laguna Liquidambar 84/P84 Replace w/ Red Maple 1400 Laguna Liquidambar 84/P84 Replace w/ Red Maple 300 Lexington Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 500 Lexington Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 600 Lexington Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 800 Maple Linden 36/36 Replace w/ Trident Maple 400 Marin Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 500 Marin Sycamore 84/84 48 Themed Block 1600 McDonald Way Liriodendron 65/65 Replace w/ Red Maple 1100 Mills Sycamore 60/P60 48 Themed Block 1200 Mills Sycamore 60/P60 48 Themed Block 1300 Mills Sycamore 60/P60 48 Themed Block 1400 Mills Sycamore 60/P60 48 Themed Block 1400 Oak Grove Red Oak 36/P36 50 Themed Block 100 Occidental Sycamore 56/P48 48 Themed Block 200 Occidental Sycamore 56/56 48 Themed Block 300 Occidental Sycamore 56/P48 48 Themed Block 400 Occidental Sycamore 56/P48 48 Themed Block 1100 Oxford Elm 48/48 48 Themed Block 1100 Palm Sycamore 72/P72 48 Themed Block 1200 Palm Sycamore P72/P72 48 Themed Block 1300 Palm Sycamore 72/P72 48 Themed Block 1400 Palm Sycamore 84/P72 48 Themed Block 700 Plymouth Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 1100 Sanchez Sycamore 48/P48 48 Themed Block 105 1200 Sanchez Sycamore 48/P48 48 Themed Block 1300 Sanchez Sycamore 48/P48 48 Themed Block 1400 Sanchez Sycamore 48/P48 48 Themed Block 1600 Sherman Sycamore 36/P36 48 Themed Block 1700 Sherman Sycamore P36/P36 48 Themed Block 10 Stanley Liriodendron 36/P36 Replace w/ Trident Maple 100 Stanley Liriodendron 36/P36 Replace w/ Trident Maple 200 Stanley Liriodendron 36/P36 Replace w/ Trident Maple 2100 Trousdale Modesto Ash 54 48 Replace w/ Raywood Ash 1100 Vancouver Catalpa 36/P36 Themed Block 500 Vernon Sycamore 48/48 48 Themed Block 600 Vernon Liquidambar 48/48 Replace w/ Red Maple 700 Vernon Sycamore 72/72 48 Themed Block 700 Winchester Dr. Sycamore 96/P96 48 Themed Block 800 Winchester Dr. Sycamore 96/P96 48 Themed Block 106 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 B 107 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature 108 EXHIBIT C 109 110 111 112 No. Editor: Dr. James R. Fazio • $3.00 4 The Right Tree for the Right Place WRONG (above) Planting large trees under utility lines often means disfigured trees. Large evergreens close to the house on the south block warming winter sunlight. RIGHT (right) Short flowering trees don’t clash with overhead utility lines. Large deciduous trees on the southeast, southwest, and west provide cooling shade in summer and don’t obstruct the low winter sun. An evergreen windbreak on the north blocks cold winter winds. A ny Friend of Tree City USA can list the many benefits of trees — shade, beauty, windbreak, privacy, cleaner air, less noise, less glare, and higher property values to name a few. But the key to these benefits is to select the right tree and plant it in the right place. The right tree in the right place not only ensures a lifetime of satisfaction, it also keeps maintenance costs low. “What is right?” may sound like an exam question from a class in moral philosophy, but in the green world, it is not quite as complex. A tree’s requirements to thrive, its form or shape, its size at maturity, and its role or function in your landscape help determine the best tree to plant. Beyond that, the question enters the grey area of personal taste where what is “right” is largely a matter of opinion. EXHIBIT D 113 Environmental Factors to Consider In selecting a tree, your first consideration must be what the tree needs. In other words, what environmental factors limit the ability of a particular species to live a healthy life? One indication is to look at the native species in your area. These trees have developed on their own through thousands of years of self-selection to survive where you now live. However, native species alone are usually not the answer. Some non-native species and horticulturally developed cultivars may also do well on your site and offer attributes such as beauty, size, pest resistance, or diversity that natives may not provide. MINIMUM TEMPERATURE The familiar hardiness map has zoned the country based on average annual minimum temperature. The lowest temperature of the zone limits the range of many trees. Low temperatures, especially if they come suddenly, can freeze and kill the living cells in trees. Select a species suitable to the zone where you live. CAUTION: Elevation and exposure differences (the direction of the slope) within each zone also have an effect. North slopes, windy sites, and higher elevations can make a site equivalent to one or two hardiness zones lower. To find your hardiness zone, visit arborday.org/zones. MOISTURE Each species tolerates wet or dry growing conditions to a different degree. Special attention must be given to your selection if the site periodically is flooded, subjected to very dry conditions, or continually exposed to the drying effect of wind. Watering, of course, can modify a dry site, but even when you irrigate, it is important to know the optimal soil moisture requirement for your species. Tip: Since evergreens give off water (transpiration) from their needles all winter, it is important that they are well-watered in the fall before the ground freezes. Also, do not overwater trees. They will drown or develop root rot if the soil is kept too wet. With heavy, clay-type soils, check soil moisture often and water accordingly during dry summer weather. This may be every seven to 10 days or more often if necessary. Sandy soils need water more frequently than clay soils, but watering every other day is probably too much. LIGHT Shade tolerance is the term foresters use to rate the light requirements of each species. Some species, like white birch and most pines, require full sunlight. They are shade intolerant. Tolerant species, like most maples, hemlocks, and yews, grow well in shade. Others, like white oak, are somewhere in between and are referred to as having intermediate tolerance. Don’t make the mistake of planting your tree where it is mismatched with its need for light. arborday.org HARDINESS ZONE MAP 2 • TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 4 • Arbor Day Foundation 114 PESTS Every locality has its problems with particular insects or diseases. The best way to avoid trouble is to avoid the species that host these pests. In some cases, it is possible to buy cultivars that have been bred for resistance to a disease. For example, where white pine blister rust is a problem, it is best to buy white pine that is certified to be resistant to it. Some species, such as ginkgo, are known for their natural resistance to most pests. Others, such as American elm or ashes, are just the opposite. In most cases, planting a species on a site unlike its natural environment is asking for trouble. For example, birch trees grow naturally in moist environments, including river and lake edges. Planting them in an arid site subjects them to stress and makes them more vulnerable to boring insects. SOIL Soil factors are probably the most overlooked when selecting a tree. Soil depth, structure, moisture, and pH can make the difference between success or failure after planting. For example, deep-rooted species will need adequate soil depth for their structural roots, whereas shallow-rooted species may do well on sites where soils thinly cover bedrock or a hard layer of clay. Species that need light or sandy soil should not be planted in rocky or clay-type soils. Also, each tree species has a tolerance range related to acidity and alkalinity, just as it does for shade. This requirement should be matched with the soil where you plan to plant. To learn about the soils in your area, obtain a soil survey map at the county office of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Unfortunately, soils are often disturbed in urban areas. Trees that would typically do well in native soil may struggle due to poor soil structure from soil being disturbed or mixed during construction or other building activities. Compaction of any soil due to heavy pedestrian or vehicle use often reduces a tree’s growth, size potential, and overall health. AIR POLLUTION Unfortunately, the ability of a species to tolerate air pollution is becoming more important. Chemicals in the air vary with localities, and in some cases, the accumulative effects of pollution are just beginning to show up. The best course of action is to ask a local professional if there are problems in your town and, if so, what species are affected. Similarly, salt spray from either the ocean or street de-icing can be a problem locally, and some species are more sensitive to it than others. Where these are problems, ask a certified arborist, nursery professional, urban forester, or extension agent about which trees to avoid. TIP: Local nurseries generally do not carry trees that are incompatible with the local climate. However, for site factors other than climate, it is pretty much a matter of “buyer beware.” Get the answers before you buy, and look around your neighborhood to see what may be growing well. TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 4 • Arbor Day Foundation • 3 115 4 • TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 4 • Arbor Day Foundation Tree Factors to Consider NOON 9 a.m. JULY 3 p.m. 20-foot tree N NOON 9 a.m. SEPTEMBER 3 p.m. 20-foot tree 0 5 10 15 20 25 Feet 1THE TREE’S PURPOSE A tree’s function is the purpose you want it to serve for you. Some of the most common are listed here to help ensure you get the right tree for the right place. SHADE This is why many people plant trees. Trees provide a greater cooling effect than man-made structures because not only are the rays of the sun blocked, water is also added to the air through transpiration. Observation is the best way to determine where to plant to maximize shade. In the drawing, notice the difference between July and early autumn. Plant for where you want the shadow during the hottest time of the year — and the time of day you desire the shade. High, wide-crowned trees with deciduous leaves are the best providers of shade. AESTHETICS To create an accent, select a tree that will contrast with the predominant landscape character. For example, to give the lot an appearance of greater depth, plant on a diagonal line outward from the front corners of the house. This is called framing. Trees planted behind the house and to the side will provide background. Trees can also add visual appeal to a patio, pool, or play area. They can also be used to separate spaces and provide space enclosure. ACCENTS: A tree with color or some other showy feature can be used as an accent point in your landscaping picture. Don’t overdo accents. One accent plant in a given setting or view area is usually enough. For a visual accent, select a tree that contrasts with the characteristic landscape in one or more of the design elements — form, size, color, or texture. The more contrasts, the stronger the accent will be. If you wish to have a strong point of emphasis, select a specimen tree with two, three, or even all four of these characteristics: O FORM OR SHAPE: A tree’s form should contrast with the predominate landscape character in a setting. For example, horizontal lines may dominate in a rural midwestern landscape. Accent forms will be those that contrast with that character, such as pyramidal, columnar, or upright oval tree shapes. Weeping forms will also accent since they are uncommon to this characteristic landscape. O SIZE: A tree that stands out because of its large size will tend to accent. O COLOR: Planting trees for their spring flower color, fall foliage color, or interesting winter bark is quite popular. While such color is often temporary, it is an important consideration. Summer foliage color, while not as intense, can lend an accent element of longer duration. O TEXTURE: Foliage texture can be classified as fine, medium, or coarse. If a tree’s texture is used as an accent element, it should be an abrupt change from textures that predominate in the characteristic landscape. Bark texture or picturesque branching structure can also complement an accent plant. WINDBREAKS AND SCREENS Low-branching conifers that hold their foliage are most effective for screening unsightly areas and providing privacy. Noise is best reduced by tall, densely planted trees with fleshy, broad leaves. If combined with conifers, some noise reduction can be extended throughout the year. Dust can also be filtered by such a combination. Windbreaks can be made most effective through a dense, step-like arrangement of both conifers and deciduous trees. However, for protection on south and east sides of a house, deciduous species work best because they allow incoming solar radiation in winter. BOUNDARIES Trees can help to visually delineate your property. Small, narrow-crowned species will do the job while not invading your neighbor’s space. Plant far enough on your property to avoid the trunk touching the actual property line when mature. 116 TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 4 • Arbor Day Foundation • 5 2 SIZE AND LOCATION Available space is probably the consideration most often overlooked or misunderstood when deciding what tree to plant. Even for professionals, it is often difficult to envision the planting site five, 10, or 20 years in the future. Yet this is essential. Before planting, know what the tree will look like as it nears maturity. Consider its height, crown spread, and root space. Some of the problems below can be dealt with by subsequent pruning. However, it is far easier, less expensive, and better for tree health to select and plant your tree to meet a desired objective while at the same time preventing it from: • Lifting walks. • Entering or moving drainage pipes or other utilities. • Tangling with wires or eaves. • Shading gardens. • Ruining the shape of nearby trees. • Blocking windows or scenic views. • Interfering with outdoor lighting. • Covering chimneys. • Blocking solar collectors. • Encroaching on your neighbor. Spacing Guide Spacing plant massings Minimum spacing from wall (one-story building) Minimum spacing from corner (one- story building) Small tree (<30’) 6’-15’ 8’-10’ 6’-8’ Medium tree (30’-70’) 30’-40’ 15’ 12’ Large tree (>70’) 40’-50’ 20’ 15’ Shrubs Dogwood, Sassafras, Pin Oak, White Oak, Ponderosa Pine, Flowering Plums, Post Oak, Arborvitae, Linden, Redwood, Hawthorn, Quaking Aspen, Hemlock, Red Oak, Planetree Sumac, Eastern Redcedar, Blue Spruce Tuliptree, Hornbeam, Flowering Pear Walnut, Redbud Many Pines (These examples are typical mature heights in city conditions. Check booklets published by local forestry professionals or books such as Manual of Woody Landscape Plants for the expected mature height and crown spread of trees you are considering.) *Individual specimens may grow larger in natural settings. 3 CROWN FORM OR SHAPE ROUND White Oak OVAL Sugar Maple V-SHAPED Elm PYRAMIDAL Spruce COLUMNAR Poplar The character of tree crowns and thus the form or shape of trees varies among species as much as leaf shapes or bark patterns. Shape is another clue to how well a tree will fit the space you have avail- able, what problems might occur, and how well it will help meet the goals you have for your property. Columnar cultivars help adapt street trees to fit narrow spaces or avoid signs. 100 80 60 40 20 Average Mature Height* (Feet)BEFORE PLANTING, know what the tree will look like as it nears maturity. 117 Under some urban conditions there is no alternative to planting trees in planters or containers. Because of the severe conditions of restricted space for roots and exposure to freezing, it is essential to use a container that is as broad and deep as space allows. Roots freeze more easily in narrow containers; the recommended minimum is 5 feet on the sides and 2 feet deep. When considering using planters, recognize that regular, conscientious maintenance will be needed and that the tree’s longevity will be relatively short, requiring replacement. Other tips: • In dry weather during the growing season, water at a rate equivalent to 1 inch of rain per week. • Slope the bottom slightly toward small-diameter drain tile or 1-inch plastic pipe with holes drilled in it. Wrap in filter pads to prevent clogging and cover with 1 inch of sand. If no outlet is possible, place tile over gravel to help remove excess water. • To reduce weight and aid aeration, a soil mix of coarse sand, organic matter or perlite, and a small amount of loam soil is necessary. Ask an arborist or nursery specialist what is used locally. • For most tree species, the soil pH should be between 6.0 and 7.0. • To help keep tree size small, fertilize only if a nutrient deficiency is indicated (by leaf discoloration). If you must use planters in a cold climate, it’s best to use large ones with several trees. The earth mass helps protect the roots. Crapemyrtle Dwarf Conifers Dwarf Fruit Trees Holly Japanese Maple Star Magnolia SOME TREES THAT DO WELL IN PLANTERS DIFFICULT Raised planter with open bottom, soil level raised not more than 1 foot above grade. This container is aes- thetically pleasing, has excellent space definition, a strong sense of perma- nence, and provides good drainage, a place for people to sit, and a place to plant flowers. Trees plant- ed in this type of container are generally safe from snowmelt salt and are easy to water and mulch. Deep roots can pene- trate well below the frost line. DISADVANTAGES: These containers are expensive to install, are usually limited to outdoor use, and may interfere with snow removal operations and pedestrian traffic. There are a limited number of tree species suitable for planting in this type of container due to root restriction. Shallow feeder roots of trees may freeze, reducing tree life. GOOD Seat-wall ground-level planter, planted at grade. This planter has a neat appearance, fair aeration and root room, is conve- nient to water, provides a place for people to sit, and has a good sense of permanence. Trees planted in such a container are generally safe from snowmelt salt, are easy to mulch, and have normal frost tolerance. The container provides good drainage and offers a place to plant flowers. DISADVANTAGES: These containers are expensive to build or buy, difficult to clean, may restrict pedestrian traffic, and may interfere with snow removal opera- tions. Root constriction limits the number of species suitable for planting in the open-bottom container. — Adapted from Containerized Trees for Urban Settings by Jean E. Olson, Iowa State University. MOSTDIFFICULT Closed-bottom container. This container is aes- thetically pleasing, easy to install and move, provides a sitting area, and is relatively safe from snowmelt salt. Such containers provide good definition of space and are readily available at known cost in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, materials, textures, and colors. Trees planted in these containers can be placed in almost any location; exotic species can be used indoors. Flowers can be planted in this container. DISADVANTAGES: Trees planted in closed- bottom containers are highly susceptible to salt buildup from normal watering procedures (unless drainage holes are provided) and to root freezing. The containers can burst from winter freezing. Tree species suitable for planting in this container are very limited. It does not work in colder areas of the country. What About Planters? 6 • TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 4 • Arbor Day Foundation 118 Right Trees and Urban Forestry Programs All that has been said about selecting the right tree for the right place is as true for street, park, and public building plantings as it is for residential properties. In fact, mistakes at the community level are magnified many fold. The widespread planting of a disease-prone species or trees too large or too small along an avenue will eventually plague the taxpayers with costly maintenance bills. Fortunately, communities served by an urban forester or arborist are usually assured that species are selected with great care. In fact, if a staff forester, arborist, or landscape architect is not employed by the municipality, it will pay great dividends to retain the service of a qualified consultant when planning for tree plantings. When such professionals are on staff, the ideal situation is to combine their expertise into a team. For example, the knowledge of a forester or arborist about the site requirements of a tree or its maintenance needs can often be joined with the artistic talents of a landscape architect and the infrastructure knowledge of a city engineer to produce a plan that is both workable and visually attractive. THE EDUCATION CHALLENGE One of the challenges to all professionals is the large task of public education about trees. Helping homeowners and businesses start their trees correctly through careful selection and placement is one of the greatest needs in the wide spectrum of tree-care topics. It is preventive medicine at its best. Fortunately, there is much material available to help, including this bulletin. The need, however, is to (a) localize the information, and (b) get it into the hands of the people who need it. Information needed in community literature includes lists that show: • Species that thrive in the local climate, preferably arranged by tree characteristics and/or functions they best serve. • Species to avoid because they are known to have persistent insect or disease problems or are sensitive to local air pollution. • Species that are prohibited or discouraged — and the reasons why. • Locations such as an arboretum, park, campus, or street where mature specimens of desirable species may be viewed. Getting the information into the hands of people who can use it is not easy. Budget constraints are often the first problem but should not be allowed to stop the project. The publications that are illustrated above range from single-page fliers that can be duplicated at little cost on office equipment to elaborate multicolor booklets. Whatever the cost, the investment will repay taxpayers in the long run. Distributing the publications should not be left to chance. The use of literature racks in the office or distribution at workshops reaches too few people. Door-to-door distribution in new developments, direct mail, and using local realtors, developers, and nursery operators are more effective ways to reach the entire population of tree owners. PLANNING AHEAD In the urban forestry program, the best ideas for using the right trees in the right places can come undone when the desired planting stock is not available, is too expensive, or is the wrong size. One solution that sounds simple, but is rarely practiced was developed by the late Bob Skiera, former forester for the City of Milwaukee. Bob studied his streets and parks and planned for new plantings several years in advance. He then grew the needed stock in the city nursery and was assured of an adequate supply in his preferred size of 2-inch caliper. Similar arrangements could be made with contract suppliers and would give them the advantage of being sure of their future market. Either way, the result will be less reliance on chance and more precision in planting the right tree in the right place. Publicity about planting the right tree is essential to the long-term health of any community forest. TREE CITY USA BULLETIN No. 4 • Arbor Day Foundation • 7 119 Finding More Information ... 1. How to Prune Young Trees 1. ____________ 2. When a Storm Strikes 2. ____________ 3. Solving Tree/Sidewalk Conflicts 3. ____________ 4. The Right Tree for the Right Place 4. ____________ ---- Tree City USA Annual Report ____________ TOTALS: $ Annual Friends of Tree City USA Membership ..........................................................$15.00 $ ____________ Tree City USA Bulletin 3-Ring Binder ...........................$7.95 $ ____________ TOTAL PAYMENT: ....................................................... $ ____________ 1 Issue $3.00 ea. $ Name Organization Address City State Zip Phone 1925 101 For a complete list of Tree City USA Bulletins, visit arborday.org. Tree City USA Bulletin © 2017 Arbor Day Foundation. Published by the Arbor Day Foundation; James R. Fazio, editor; Karina Helm, graphic designer; Gerald Pulsipher, illustrator. Technical reviewers for this issue: Gene W. Grey, William P. Kruidenier, James J. Nighswonger. Published for the Friends of Tree City USA by 50007317 There is considerable help available for selecting the right tree for the right place. Sources include: • Local tree selection guides available from city or state urban foresters. • Publications produced by private and public utilities. • Books on trees that include site requirements and characteristics at maturity. A good place to start your search for more information is arborday.org. This is the official website of the Arbor Day Foundation and includes not only more materials related to Tree City USA Bulletin No. 4, but also additional tips on tree care, how to purchase trees online, and an online tree guide. The guide offers detailed information on dozens of common- ly planted landscape trees that grow throughout the Unit- ed States. Included for each is information on sun and soil requirements for planting, mature height and spread, growth rates, and more. For other sources of information about this topic, go to arborday.org/bulletins. The right trees in a residential median not only beautify the neighborhood, but raise property values and help tame traffic as well. Selecting the right trees for the right places will result in beautiful and safer streets such as this. Proper selection will also reduce maintenance costs and provide other practical benefits such as energy savings, prolonged life of pavement surfaces, and cleaner air. SPANISH LANGUAGE EDITION A one-page summary of Tree City USA Bulletin No. 4 in Spanish is available at no cost. Call Member Services at 888-448-7337 or go online to arborday.org/bulletins to obtain a copy. PHOTOS COURTESY OF: J. Frank Schmidt & Son Co. (page 5), Boise Community Forestry, James R. Fazio (page 8). Order Tree City USA Bulletins online at arborday.org or send this form and mail with your payment to: Arbor Day Foundation • 211 N. 12th Street • Lincoln, NE 68508 888-448-7337 • (Make checks payable to Arbor Day Foundation) THE TREE CITY USA PROGRAM IS SPONSORED BY THE Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and National Association of State Foresters. To achieve the national recognition of being named as a Tree City USA, a town or city must meet four standards: Standard 1: A tree board or department Standard 2: A tree care ordinance Standard 3: A community forestry program with an annual budget of at least $2 per capita Standard 4: An Arbor Day observance and proclamation Each recognized community receives a Tree City USA flag, plaque, and community entrance signs. Towns and cities of every size can qualify. Tree City USA application forms are available from your state forester, the Arbor Day Foundation at arborday.org/treecity, or your state forestry agency. Tree City USA Bulletin ORDER FORM 120 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Final 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. 121 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 122 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 123 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. 124 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. 125 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 126 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 Kirchner 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, 127 8 Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary 128 © 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 129 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 130 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). 131 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 132 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 133 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 134 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 135 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 136 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 B 137 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature 138 Exhibit C 139 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 D 140 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 E 141 205 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 142 615 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 143 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 144 453 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 145 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 146 310 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 147 843 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 148 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 149 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 150 700 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 151 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 152 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 153 129 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 154 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 155 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 156 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 157 719 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 158 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Final 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 159 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 160 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 161 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. 162 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 Kirchner 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. 163 6 Respectfully submitted, Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary 164 STAFF REPORT To: Date: From: Subject: Beautification Commission May 1, 2025 Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist (650) 558-7333 Carlie Burow, Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7335 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 165 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 166 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 167 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 168 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 169 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 170 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 171 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 172 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 173 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 174 6 Respectfully submitted, Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary EXHIBIT B 175 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 176 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 177 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 178 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 179 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 180 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 181 Date Property Address Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) Property Owner Signature EXHIBIT A 182 Exhibit CEXHIBIT A 183 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 184 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 185 205 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 186 615 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 187 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 188 453 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 189 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 190 310 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 191 843 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 192 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 193 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 194 700 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 195 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 196 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 197 129 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 198 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 199 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 200 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 201 719 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 202 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 203 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 204 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 205 © 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 206 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 207 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 208 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes May 1, 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 Batte, Bauer, and Kirchner Absent: Commissioner Damico Staff: Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Batte made a motion to approve the February 6, 2025, Regular Meeting minutes with corrections to Commissioner Kirchner's name. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bauer and was approved. 4-0-1 City Arborist Holtz explained that page four of the March 6, 2025, draft minutes required a correction to Supervisor Burow's comments in the third paragraph to clarify that she referred to Redwood trees, not Cedar trees. It was later determined that the comment was made and would not be struck from the final approved minutes. Commissioner Bauer made a motion to approve the March 6, 2025, Regular Meeting minutes with corrections to Commissioner Kirchner's name. The motion was seconded by Chair Chu and was approved. 4-0-1 CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT None PRESENTATION None OLD BUSINESS 1.Discussion of Themed Block Utility Conflicts and Potential Revisions to the Theme Block Lists Arborist Holtz provided a summary of previous discussions surrounding the topic of Themed Blocks. He presented the staff report and explained that approximately 600 themed block sites are under primary utilities, with large canopy species causing concern. He presented similar-looking alternative trees to the Red Maple, Red Oak, and London Plane trees, which would best mimic the intent of the themed blocks. The Shangtung Maple and Moosebark Maple would best mimic the Red Maple, although the Moosebark Maple is unavailable to source locally. The Shangtung Maple is available locally and available for viewing during the meeting. The Red Oak alternatives found were the Gambel Oak tree, available to be viewed during the meeting, and the Dwarf Chinkapin Oak, which cannot be sourced locally. Arborist Holtz 209 2 confirmed that although there are London Plane alternatives, such as the Alpens Globe or Mirkovec, none are available within the United States, and he is not confident we could source a suitable alternative moving forward. Further, he explained that the London Plane is the tree with a greater number of utility conflicts. They are also reaching an age where staff is seeing a lot more decay and branch failures and are being replaced with the Columbia species, which is vigorous and disease-resistant but has strong vertical growth. Utility interference can be seen as early as five years. Arborist Holtz explained that the Commission could move to leave the current Themed Block list unchanged, allow property owners to individually select species from the Primary Utility Plant List for areas with large canopy trees in utility conflict, or approve a species for the locations under utilities. Commissioner Batte asked whether a themed block must have only one species or if it can have more than one. Arborist Holtz stated that historically, the City has designated one dominant species per themed block. A change can be proposed by the Commission and presented to the City Council for approval. Chair Chu open Public Comment. Cathy Baylock, a Newlands Avenue resident, spoke in favor of keeping the Themed Block List unchanged for Sycamore specific blocks. She argued that PG&E has done a good job keeping the trees under utilities maintained and out of their infrastructure. Also, she stated that larger canopy trees are necessary for wider streets such as Newlands Avenue and Occidental Avenue. Lastly, she spoke of the Deodar Cedars in the City of Altadena, which were not damaged during the recent fires. She explained that Deodar Cedars are very low in flammability. Jennifer Pfaff, a Burlingame resident, said she liked the Shangtung Maple and Gambel Oak trees presented at the meeting. If she had to pick from either as a Sycamore alternative, she would prefer the Shangtung Maple tree, although she was in favor of leaving the Sycamore trees alone as they currently are. Further, she spoke of her concern with possible changes to areas that are not affected by utility conflicts and urged the Commission to ensure that if an alternate is proposed, it is only for tree sites directly in conflict with utilities. All other sites on that block remain as the original themed species. Chair Chu closed Public Comment and Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Bauer asked for clarification on the alternatives for the three trees posing utility conflicts on themed blocks. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the Shangtung Maple tree is the Red Maple alternate that could be sourced locally; the Gambel Oak is the alternative species to the Red Oak tree that could be sourced locally; and in the staff's opinion, there is no viable option locally available as a London Plane alternative. Arborist Holtz referred back to public comment and confirmed that the residents who spoke suggested that they liked the Shangtung Maple as an alternative to the London Plane tree and the Red Maple tree if they had to pick one. He explained that the staff focused on locating alternatives that would most resemble the current themed species but that the Commission may choose to pick any alternative that they see fit. Commissioner Bauer stated that she is inclined to move forward with the smaller alternate species for areas in utility conflict, specifically the Shantung Maple and Gambel Oak, and not recommend an alternative for the London Plane tree. The Commissioners took a closer look at the two alternatives physically present at the meeting. 210 3 Commissioner Kirchner confirmed that the Commission is tasked with making a recommendation that will be presented to the City Council for final review. Arborist Holtz confirmed that if a change is recommended, staff will bring it to the Council for review and approval. Commissioner Kirchner inquired whether the Commission could also recommend no change to Council. Arborist Holtz confirmed. Chair Chu asked whether any commonly available trees have bark that resembles the London Plane trees. Arborist Holtz stated that the Chinese Elm tree has a modeled bark appearance but that the leaf structure is very different and would not look the same as the London Plane tree. Commissioner Bauer made a motion to modify the Themed Block plantings that create utility conflicts by designating the Shangtung Maple tree as the alternative species for the Red Maple Themed Blocks for locations in conflict, designating the Gambel Oak tree as the alternative species for Red Oak Themed Blocks for locations in conflict; and that there be no change to the London Plane tree designated Themed Blocks. The motion was seconded by Chair Chu and was approved. 4-0-1 NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Denial of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1320 Vancouver Ave. Chair Chu reviewed the Order of Business for Appeals. Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He explained that staff received an application for the removal of two private protected trees. The Deodar Cedar tree was approved for removal due to poor form and performance of the species. The form is poor due to its location under utilities. When reviewing the Coastal Redwood tree, Arborist Holtz did not believe it met the threshold for removal. The Applicant presented photographic evidence of limb failures, an independent arborist report recommending the removal of both trees, and a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor to the south of the property. Arborist Holtz explained his observations differed from those presented by the independent Arborist. He stated that both he and the independent Arborist performed level 2 inspections from the ground, and a level 3 inspection would involve someone going up either in a bucket, climbing, or with a drone to take photographs and inspect the attachments closer. Further, he stated that he would characterize the "cavity" at the base as a wound that has healed. He stated that a major factor taken into consideration is the impact the removal would have on the neighborhood. Due to the approval of the other tree on the property, removing the Redwood tree would significantly impact the neighborhood. Arborist Holtz also stated that pruning practices do not weaken the attachment of a branch existing on the tree, but rather, the re-growth post pruning may be weakly attached and cause the failure of smaller branches. Lastly, he did not find any evidence of root damage. When there is no obvious evidence of structural damage, a structural engineer's report would typically be required, and the Applicant did not provide one. He stated that the Applicant expressed frustration due to safety concerns for themselves and their guests and possible liability due to their neighbor's safety. Arborist Holtz explained that the tree had been recently pruned, which reduces the likelihood of limb failure even though the regrowth could be more weakly attached. The Applicant would like the Commission to reconsider the City's position. 211 4 Chair Chu opened Public Comment. Seeing none, he closed Public Comment and opened the floor to the Appellant to present to the Commission. Appellant and property owner Larisa Khapchik presented her appeal and concerns to the Commission. Ms. Khapchik explained that she has lived in the home for over 25 years and has enjoyed the trees for many years. She spoke of the concerns brought on by climate change. She has been experiencing increased falling limbs within the last two years, causing more concerns and anxiety during storm and wind events. She expressed fears of possible harm to her family and neighbors who have spoken out. Ms. Khapchik stated that she would be delighted to plant new trees at the recommendation of the Commission upon removing the others. She stated that the denial of the removal of the Redwood treat is unjustified, as the tree poses a dangerous and immediate threat to life safety. She stated that her removal request meets the criteria outlined under chapter 11.06.060 and that as she and her husband approach retirement, they cannot afford the necessary pruning the tree requires. Commissioner discussion ensued. Commissioner Bauer inquired further about the split in the tree approximately 80 feet up and whether City staff would go up to inspect at a closer proximity. Arborist Holtz confirmed that City staff does not provide assessments on private trees; they only evaluate site conditions compared to what the code references to make a determination. The financial burden of hiring a company to evaluate the tree further would fall on the property owner and Applicant. Further, he clarified that a co-dominant leader could occur in nature, and U-shape attachment is generally stronger attached than a V-shape. The tree in question does appear V- shaped but would warrant further inspection. He explained that the Deodar Cedar that was approved due to poor structure and poor form and the species pre-disposition to shed large branches in maturity. This would have been considered if Coastal Redwood trees had a propensity for failure. Commissioner Kirchner asked whether a lack of water lends to limb failures. Arborist Holtz confirmed that a lack of water or drought stress could lead to limb failure, although he also noted that the roots can grow out hundreds of feet in search of a water source. Commissioner Batte asked whether an inspection of the split section would be required to change the City's determination. Arborist Holtz stated that the professional's level 3 assessment would be taken into consideration, and he would take the professional's opinion at its word. Staff would not be climbing to verify, nor would the City hire a company. Commissioner Bauer asked about possible costs for further inspections. Arborist Holtz confirmed that an additional aerial inspection and structural reports would be costly. Commissioner Kirchner did not find that the Coastal Redwood tree met the characteristics outlined in the tree ordinance as reasons for removal. Chair Chu shared the same opinion and stated that as Commissioners, they put a lot of weight on the City Arborist's determination of the low probability of branch failure. Although he sympathized with the Applicant, he must maintain an objective view of the facts presented. He does not support overturning the City Arborist's decision. Commissioner Bauer voiced her sympathy towards Ms. Khapchik and her fears but understands that the Commission has guidelines to follow when reviewing tree removal appeals and did not believe enough evidence had been provided to warrant overturning the City Arborist's decision, absent further investigation with an aerial inspection. 212 5 Commissioner Batte asked for clarification on whether an aerial inspection would sway the Arborist's decision. Arborist Holtz confirmed that more information provided in the form of a structural report or aerial report would be considered. He stated that he did not visually see the evidence to support what was claimed in the independent arborist report provided. Chair Chu allotted one minute for the Applicant to provide further comment. Ms. Khapchik remained in her seat and further commented away from the microphone. Her comments pertained to previous structural damage caused to her neighbor's property due to the Coastal Redwood tree in question. Commissioner Bauer made a motion to uphold the City Arborist's decision to deny the request to remove the protected private Coastal Redwood tree at 1320 Vancouver Avenue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirchner and was approved. 4-0-1 2. Review and Discussion of the Feasibility of Reactivating the Adopt-a-Tree Program Supervisor Burow presented the staff report. She explained that the Parks Division currently has 1,279 tree sites on the in-house Watering List, with staff watering 50-70 trees per day by a part-time employee dedicated solely to watering. She explained that challenges with the Adopt-a-Tree Program experienced along with neighboring municipalities are the number of volunteers, accountability of those volunteers, checking the work being completed, location of trees, and supplying water. In her research of other jurisdictions and tree programs, those cities found more success with allowing residents to adopt trees adjacent to their property only and letting residents choose the tree species planted adjacent to their property. Supervisor Burow suggested that a better approach to get residents involved is to utilize the City's website to more clearly and effectively inform the community of the importance and benefits of watering trees and how best to get involved. Commissioner Kirchner stated that although a tree watering program is a good idea in theory, it would be more difficult in practice. He shared with the Commissioners a copy of the Tree Noticing Postcard he received. He asked if residents received any information about young tree care when they received a new tree adjacent to their property. Supervisor Burow confirmed that a door hanger with the tree species they received and tree care tips are provided for every new tree planted in front of or on the side of a residence. Commissioner Batte suggested a concise mass mail postcard educating the community on watering trees. Due to the cost of a new postcard and mass mail in mind, Chair Chu suggested adding watering info to an existing postcard notification that has already been sent out for other purposes. He also stated that he would hesitate to water his neighbor's trees or haul water to other destinations for tree-watering purposes. He wondered if communicating to the public that these volunteers exist and are performing the work would minimize the unease of the situation. Commissioner Batte brought up the point of acquiring volunteers through school community service hours. She stated that she favored motivating residents to water the trees near their properties so that City staff could focus on trees not located in residential areas. She inquired if the majority of the trees on the City's watering list are in residential areas. Supervisor Burow confirmed they were in front of or adjacent to a residential property. Arborist Holtz outlined the current communication regarding newly planted trees and believes there are opportunities for direct communication and engagement with residents to emphasize the importance of tree watering further. Information has been included in the weekly e-News as well. 213 6 Commissioner Batte stated her belief that more education and community engagement on watering trees in front of their property would be a better approach than an Adopt-a-Tree program. Chair Chu opened Public Comment. Jennifer Pfaff spoke of her experience watering the El Camino Real trees and the difficulty of completing such a task as a volunteer having to provide water and transportation. She spoke of volunteering with CBB and the Adopt-a-Planter program and the amount of work that goes into volunteering. She advised against relying on a volunteer program to complete the essential task of watering trees. Chair Chu inquired if there is a way to reduce possible friction when approaching other residents about taking better care of their trees and ensuring they are being watered. He suggested printed material that one neighbor can provide another, accessible through the City website. Commissioner Batte suggested a social media campaign encouraging residents to water trees. Commissioner Bauer summarized that based on experience and research acquired from other cities, an Adopt-a-Tree program may not be feasible. Chair Chu suggested adding a watermark to the current Tree Notice postcard to remind residents to water trees. 3. Award of Arbor Day Poster Competition Secretary Flores presented the posters that were submitted in response to the 2025 Arbor Day Poster Competition. She explained that the winning artwork would be the 2026 Arbor Day celebration invitation. By unanimous decision, the Commission chose poster 7 as the winner. REPORTS Commissioner Kirchner provided an update on the landscape awards and shared the zone map with his fellow Commissioners. Commissioners signed up for their desired zone: Commissioner Kirchner Zone 1, Commissioner Batte Zone 2, Chair Chu Zone 3, Commissioner Bauer Zone 4, and Commissioner Damico Zone 5. Commissioner Bauer clarified that the Commissioners are responsible for nominating two sites for each award category. Arborist Holtz reported on approving an emergency Cypress tree removal in active failure at Mercy High School. Further, he recently reported on the large number of unauthorized work on protected-sized trees. He explained that penalties and fees collected from the unauthorized tree work would be allocated for planting new trees throughout the City. Supervisor Burow reported that the final two removals on Easton Drive were scheduled for May 6 and 9, 2025. Secretary Flores reported the Laguna Park Playground Renovation Project was nearing completion. She stated that there were two tentative ribbon-cutting dates and that more information would be sent to the Commission once a date is finalized. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS None 214 7 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for June 5, 2025. Respectfully submitted, Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary 215 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 216 EXHIBIT D 217 Height at Botanical Name Common Name Maturity Description Trident Maple 20'-25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; roundish crown; glossy, three lobed leaves; fall color. Red Horsechestnut 40' DECIDUOUS: Fast early growth; round headed; dark green leaves; plumes of crimson flowers in spring. Desert Willow 30' DECIEOUS: Moderate growth rate, silver leaves, and fragrant. Very low water use. lavendar flowers. 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 25' - 50' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; large spreading mimosifolia canopy with breathtaking purple flowers lasting upwards of 2 months. Chinese Flame Tree 20'-35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow flowers; leaves yellow in fall, drop late. Keolreuteria Golden Rain Tree 20'-35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow paniculata flowers; leaves red in spring, light-green in summer. Crepe Myrtle 20'-30' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; spring foliage light "Tuscarora"green and bronze, fall yellow; dark pink flowers. Laurus Saratoga Sweet Bay 15' - 25' EVERGREEN: Glossy olive green leaves, rounded and nobilis dense. Magnolia "St. Mary" 30' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; upright branches; dark geen foliage with rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and summer. Sonora Palo Verde 20' - 35' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth, rounded canopy, bright yellow flowers lasting up to four months. Parrotia persica Persian Ironwood 20' - 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth, autumn gold fall color, 'vanessa'clusters of tiny red flowers in early spring. Chinese Pistache 30'-40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; dark green leaves, brilliant fall color. Idaho Locust 30'-40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; magenta flowers in the spring; long leaves divided into ovals. Chinese Tallow 35' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round crown; outstanding fall color. Subject to availability. Lagerstroemia Indica City of Burlingame | Parks Division Official Street Tree List 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 parksadmin@burlingame.org Sapium sebiferum TREES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS UNDER 4' Magnolia grandiflora Parkinsonia florida Pistachia chinensis Robinia ambigua Acer buergeranum Acesculus carnea Chilopsis linearis Geijera parviflora Koelreuteria bipinata EXHIBIT E 218 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 219 Height at Botanical Name Common Name Maturity Description Trident Maple 20'-25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; roundish crown; glossy, three lobed leaves; fall color. Red Horsechestnut 40' DECIDUOUS: Fast early growth; round headed; dark green leaves; plumes of crimson flowers in spring. Desert Willow 30' DECIEOUS: Moderate growth rate, silver leaves, and fragrant. Very low water use. lavendar flowers. 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 25' - 50' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; large spreading mimosifolia canopy with breathtaking purple flowers lasting upwards of 2 months. Chinese Flame Tree 20'-35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow flowers; leaves yellow in fall, drop late. Keolreuteria Golden Rain Tree 20'-35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; yellow paniculata flowers; leaves red in spring, light-green in summer. Crepe Myrtle 20'-30' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; spring foliage light "Tuscarora"green and bronze, fall yellow; dark pink flowers. Laurus Saratoga Sweet Bay 15' - 25' EVERGREEN: Glossy olive green leaves, rounded and nobilis dense. Magnolia "St. Mary" 30' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; upright branches; dark geen foliage with rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and summer. Sonora Palo Verde 20' - 35' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth, rounded canopy, bright yellow flowers lasting up to four months. Parrotia persica Persian Ironwood 20' - 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth, autumn gold fall color, 'vanessa'clusters of tiny red flowers in early spring. Chinese Pistache 30'-40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; dark green leaves, brilliant fall color. Idaho Locust 30'-40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; magenta flowers in the spring; long leaves divided into ovals. Chinese Tallow 35' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; dense, round crown; outstanding fall color. Subject to availability. Lagerstroemia Indica City of Burlingame | Parks Division Official Street Tree List 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 parksadmin@burlingame.org Sapium sebiferum TREES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS UNDER 4' Magnolia grandiflora Parkinsonia florida Pistachia chinensis Robinia ambigua Acer buergeranum Acesculus carnea Chilopsis linearis Geijera parviflora Koelreuteria bipinata EXHIBIT E 220 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 221 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9e MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Chris Lamm, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Johnson Woo, Facilities and Fleet Division Manager – (650) 558-7670 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC, to Extend the Janitorial Services Contract for a Period of an Additional Two Months, and Increasing the Contract Amount by $92,785, for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,776,702 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC, for an additional two months to March 31, 2026, and increasing the contract amount by $92,785, for a total not-to- exceed amount of $1,776,702. BACKGROUND Currently, the City of Burlingame receives janitorial services from Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC (KJS), based in San Francisco. The KJS contract provides comprehensive janitorial services across ten City facilities, including City Hall, Main Library, Easton Branch Library, Village Park Preschool, Public Works Corporation Yard, Police Station, Parks Corporation Yard, Community Center, Donnelly Parking Garage, and the Highland Avenue Parking Garage. In total, these facilities encompass approximately 393,789 square feet. The contract includes detailed cleaning specifications for each facility. The scope of services includes daily cleaning of offices, restrooms, conference rooms, and common areas, as well as periodic window washing, hard-surface cleaning, carpet deep cleaning, and hardwood floor maintenance. The original contract with Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC, executed on October 31, 2022, was for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,591,132 for a three-year term that ended November 30, 2025, with an option for the City to extend the agreement for an additional two years. On November 17, 2025, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to extend the contract for an additional two months to January 31, 2026, and to increase the contract amount by $92,785, for a total not-to- exceed amount of $1,683,917 (Resolution No. 129-2025). The purpose of Amendment No. 1 was to ensure continuity of janitorial services during the RFP process and the transition to a new contract. 222 Resolution Amending Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC Contract January 20, 2026 2 DISCUSSION City staff is simultaneously, under separate action, requesting the City Council reject all proposals received on November 21, 2025, for janitorial services to revise the Request for Proposals (RFP) documents and Specifications and re-advertise the project. To ensure janitorial services remain uninterrupted during the re-advertising of the RFP and the transition to a new contract, staff requesting City Council approval of Amendment No. 2 to extend the existing agreement amendment for an additional two months. KJS has confirmed they are amenable to providing two additional months of janitorial services with a 4% (or $1,784.50/month) cost increase during the extension period. Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to further amend the existing Janitorial Services Agreement with KJS to increase the contract amount by $92,785 to provide two additional months of service through March 31, 2026, resulting in a total not-to-exceed of $1,776,702 under this contract. Extension Cost Summary: 2022-2023 (Year 1) 2023-2024 (Year 2) 2025-2026 (Year 3) Total Original Agreement Amount $519,914 $530,304 $540,914 $1,591,132 Amendment No. 1: 2 Month Extension $92,785 Amendment No. 2: 2 Additional Month Extension $92,785 Max. Total $519,914 $530,304 $726,484 $1,776,702 FISCAL IMPACT There are adequate funds available in the FY 2025-26 Public Works Operations budget to cover the janitorial services costs associated with the Amendment. Exhibits: Resolution Amendment No. 2 Amendment No. 1 Original Agreement 223 1 RESOLUTION NO. ___________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE JANITORIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND KARLA’S JANITORIAL AND SUPPLIERS, LLC TO EXTEND JANITORIAL SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF AN ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS WHEREAS, on October 31, 2022, the City of Burlingame and Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC (KJS) executed an agreement for janitorial services (Agreement), providing for a maximum not-to-exceed amount of $1,591,132 for a three-year period ending on November 30, 2025, with the option to extend for an additional two years if elected by the City; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to extend the contract for an additional two months to January 31, 2026, and to increase the contract amount by $92,785, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,683,917, to ensure continuity of janitorial services during the RFP process and the transition to a new contract (Resolution No. 129-2025); and WHEREAS, in response to the City’s solicitation seeking bids for a new contract to provide janitorial services, on November 21, 2025, the City received several bids; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2025, the City Council rejected all 16 proposals received on November 21, 2025; and WHEREAS, to ensure janitorial services remain uninterrupted during the re-advertising process and the transition to a new contract, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement to extend the current termination date of the Agreement from January 31, 2026, to March 31, 2026, and increase the contract amount by $92,785, resulting in a revised not-to-exceed total of $1,776,702. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC in the form or substantially the same form as attached hereto and take such actions necessary in furtherance of this Resolution. ______________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 20th day of January, 2026 and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: 224 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 225 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO JANITORIAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KARLA’S JANITORIAL AND SUPPLIERS LLC THIS AMENDMENT No. 2 (“Amendment No. 2”), made in duplicate and entered into effective on the__ day of ________, 2026, amends the agreement dated October 31, 2022 (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME ("CITY") and KARLA’S JANITORIAL AND SUPPLIERS LLC (“CONTRACTOR”). CITY and CONTRACTOR are collectively referred to as the “Parties.” RECITALS WHEREAS, on October 31, 2022, the Parties entered into an Agreement to provide janitorial services, which is attached (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement set forth a three-year term, ending on November 30, 2025, with an option for the City to extend the Agreement for an additional two years; and WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to extend the expiration of the Agreement by two months from November 30, 2025 to January 31, 2026 to allow sufficient time for the City to complete the competitive bidding process and implement a new contract for the provision of janitorial services at City buildings without interruption to services as set forth in Amendment No. 1 (City Council Resolution No. 129-2025); and WHEREAS, the City rejected all proposals received in response to the City’s solicitation seeking bids for a new contract to provide janitorial services following the expiration of the Agreement with Contractor, and intends to re-advertise the solicitation; and WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to extend the expiration of the Agreement by two additional months from January 31, 2026 to March 31, 2026 to allow sufficient time for the City to complete the re-advertising process and implement a new contract for the provision of janitorial services at City buildings without interruption to services; and WHEREAS, the Parties have negotiated and agree to amend the Agreement as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 226 Page 2 of 3 1. The Agreement is amended to extend the time of performance by two additional months, extending the expiration of the Agreement from January 31, 2026 to March 31, 2026; 2. The cost of the two additional months of service from January 31, 2026 through March 31, 2026 shall not exceed $92,785. The total not-to-exceed value for year 3 is thus amended to reflect the additional cost of $92,785, for a total not-to-exceed value for year three of $726,484. 3. Due to the additional cost of the two-month extension herein described, the Contract Price of $1,591,132.00, indicated in Section 3 of the Agreement, is replaced with $1,776,702.00. 4. In all other respects, the provisions of the Agreement dated October 31, 2022 shall remain in full force and effect to the extent they are not in conflict with this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME CONTRACTOR A municipal corporation By Lisa K. Goldman Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC City Manager Print Name: Title: Approved as to form: __________________ City Attorney – Michael Guina ATTEST: 227 Page 3 of 3 City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel-Shearer 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9f MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Chris Lamm, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Johnson Woo, Facilities and Fleet Division Manager – (650) 558-7670 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting All Proposals Received for Janitorial Services and Authorizing Staff to Revise the Request for Proposal Documents and Re-advertise the Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution rejecting all proposals received for janitorial Services and authorize staff to revise the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents and re-advertise the project. BACKGROUND On October 28, 2025, the City issued a Notice Inviting Proposals for qualified contractors to perform janitorial services at ten City facilities including City Hall, Main Library, Easton Branch Library, Village Park Preschool, Public Works Corporation Yard, Police Station, Parks Corporation Yard, Community Center, Donnelly Parking Garage, and Highland Avenue Parking Garage. Karla’s Janitorial and Suppliers, LLC (KJS) currently provides janitorial services to the City of Burlingame and is based in San Francisco, California. The agreement was amended on November 17, 2025, to allow for two additional months of janitorial services to ensure continuity of janitorial services during the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and transition to a new contract. The original agreement with KJS was amended to expire on January 31, 2026; staff have negotiated to amend the agreement for an additional two months (Resolution No. 129-2025). DISCUSSION The RFP submission closed on November 21, 2025, and the City received 16 proposals from firms seeking to provide janitorial services for the above-referenced City facilities for a three-year term, with two optional one-year renewals at the City’s discretion. Two proposals were disqualified due to failure to acknowledge addenda issued during the RFP process and for late submission past the established RFP submission deadline. An Evaluation Committee, composed of City staff from Parks and Recreation, Library, and Public Works, reviewed the remaining 14 proposals. Proposal costs ranged from $1,262,360.00 to $2,209,256.55. 546 Resolution Rejecting All Proposals for Janitorial Services and Re-advertise the RFP. January 20, 2026 2 On December 12, 2025, the City received a formal bid protest that requested clarification of the Pricing Form, Scope of Work for the current City Hall and new City Hall locations, and evaluation process. After reviewing the formal bid protest, Request for Proposal, and specification documents, staff determined that revisions to the project specifications were necessary and that reissuing the Request for Proposals with those revisions was appropriate. These revisions will provide greater clarity on the scope of work for the current and new City Hall locations, update the Pricing Form, and clarify the evaluation process. Staff will revise the Request for Proposals documents and project specifications prior to re-advertising. It is recommended that the City Council reject all proposals and authorize staff to re-advertise the RFP following these modifications. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with rejecting all proposals. Exhibits: Resolution Bid Summary 547 RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REJECTING ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO REVISE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS AND RE-ADVERTISE THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the City issued a notice inviting proposals for janitorial services; and WHEREAS, the City received 16 proposals as of the close of the submission period on November 21, 2025; and WHEREAS, two proposals were disqualified due to failure to acknowledge addenda issued during the Request for Proposals (RFP) process and for late submission past the established RFP submission deadline; and WHEREAS, upon examining a bid protest received on December 12, 2025, RFP documents and project specifications, staff determined that the project specifications should be revised to provide greater clarity on the scope of work for current and new City Hall locations, update the Pricing Form, and clarify the evaluation process; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council reject all proposals received for the project and authorize staff to revise the Request for Proposals documents and project specifications and re-advertise the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that all proposals for the above-named project are hereby rejected, and City staff is authorized to revise the Request for Proposals documents and project specifications and re-advertise the project in accordance therewith. ______________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2026, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 548 City of BurlingameBid Results for Project Request for Proposals: Janitorial ServicesIssued on 10/28/2025Proposals Due on November 21, 2025 2:00 PM (PDT)Column1Annual CostAnnual Cost3Annual Cost5Column2Universal Building Services and Supply Co426,788.00$ 412,632.00$ 422,940.00$ 1,262,360.00$ CCS Facilities429,444.00$ 456,024.00$ 469,692.00$ 1,355,160.00$ H.N.W. Building Maintenance, Inc. dba Olympic Cleaning456,430.00$ 447,181.44$ 465,068.70$ 1,368,680.14$ Aim to Please Janitorial.com333,476.00$ 515,219.77$ 530,676.14$ 1,379,371.91$ Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc434,932.00$ 463,200.00$ 490,992.00$ 1,389,124.00$ Karla's Janitorial & Suppliers488,340.00$ 457,704.00$ 466,836.00$ 1,412,880.00$ Platinum Facility Services499,048.46$ 506,661.29$ 521,861.13$ 1,527,570.88$ Clean Solution Services Inc541,003.20$ 498,931.89$ 498,931.89$ 1,538,866.98$ Premier Property Preservation518,093.41$ 542,360.12$ 569,478.04$ 1,629,931.57$ Impec Group515,936.00$ 550,154.40$ 563,904.00$ 1,629,994.40$ Kleen-Tech Services Corp526,844.00$ 562,512.00$ 576,588.00$ 1,665,944.00$ Transpacific Building Maintenance Inc549,330.82$ 570,152.27$ 587,256.84$ 1,706,739.93$ Central Maintenance Company547,660.00$ 587,040.00$ 601,668.00$ 1,736,368.00$ Bright Bucket Cleaners LLC750,838.00$ 714,910.56$ 743,507.99$ 2,209,256.55$ Locations/Service: City Hall, Main Library, Easton Library, Public Works Corp Yard, Police Station, Village Park Preschool, Parks Corp Yard, Community Center, Donnelly Parking Garage, Highland Avenue Parking Garage, Day PorterYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total for Years 1, 2, & 3 549 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9g MEETING DATE: January 20, 2025 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Michael Guina, City Attorney – (650) 558-7263 Tamar Burke, Assistant City Attorney – (650) 558-7275 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Attorney to Join the Coalition Providing Comment on the Proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rulemaking Addressing Local Regulation of Wireless Facilities RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to join a coalition of local governments across the country in submitting comments regarding the proposed Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules addressing local regulation of wireless facilities. BACKGROUND The FCC launched an administrative proceeding (a Notice of Rulemaking) in September 2025, aimed at significant preemption of local authority over the placement and permitting of wireless facilities, including new shot clocks for local action and limits on permit fees and rent charged for use of public property. The Proposed Rulemaking is currently underway, with the telecommunications industry submitting comments asserting that local regulation of wireless facilities violates federal law by prohibiting or effectively prohibiting the development of telecommunications systems. Staff requests authorization to join a coalition of local governments across the country to submit comments on the FCC’s proposal and lodge objections and rebuttals to the industry’s claims on the same. These comments could serve as a basis for a legal challenge should the FCC ultimately issue regulations overriding local regulation. DISCUSSION On September 30, 2025, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”) entitled, “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments.” (See link included as Exhibit A.) The Notice proposes “reforms that would free towers and other wireless infrastructure from regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level.” Through this process, the FCC may expand rules implementing federal laws that mandate local approval of collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on existing wireless towers or base stations that does not “substantially change” their physical dimensions. The Notice seeks comments as to whether the FCC should take further steps to “ensure that state and local permitting regulations do not prohibit 550 Authorization to Join Coalition Providing Comment on Proposed FCC January 20, 2026 Rulemaking Addressing Wireless Facilities 2 or have the effect of prohibiting the deployment of wireless infrastructure facilities” under the federal Telecommunications Act, building on rules issued in 2018. The FCC has asserted in this Notice that state and local jurisdictions have inhibited the deployment, densification, and upgrading of wireless networks, whether through purported permit delays, unreasonable fees, aesthetic requirements, or other local rules, which it suggests has resulted in an effected prohibition on 5G wireless services. The Burlingame Municipal Code currently balances the need for robust wireless facilities and connectivity with local safety and aesthetic concerns. (See Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.48.300.) The FCC’s proposed rules could strip the City of this authority and impose burdensome deadlines for City action on applications for wireless facilities. Submitting comments on behalf of the City defends local authority to exercise their police powers and proprietary rights. The Coalition has already filed comments with the FCC (See Exhibit B.) Upon authorization from the Council, the City would join the Coalition’s subsequent filings. Please note that the FCC has simultaneously issued a separate Notice of Inquiry entitled, “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments” (Docket No. 25-253.) This notice seeks information from stakeholders regarding wired broadband and deployments, as opposed to wireless facilities, including comments on right of way access, permitting fees, and other related matters. This is separate from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to wireless facilities and will result in either a declaratory ruling or a notice of proposed rulemaking relating to wireline, broadband deployments. The City Attorney’s Office will track this Notice of inquiry and provide updates as relevant. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact in authorizing joining the Coalition. The approximate cost of participation in the Coalition is $3,000. The City Attorney’s office maintains a sufficient budget to cover these costs. Exhibits: A. FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 25-276 B. Coalition Comments filed December 31, 2025 551 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN A COALITION PROVIDING COMMENT ON PROPOSED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULEMAKING ADDRESSING LOCAL REGLATION OF WIRELESS FACILITIES WHEREAS, on September 30, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”) entitled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (Docket No. 25-276); and WHEREAS, the Notice proposes “reforms that would free towers and other wireless infrastructure from regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level”; and WHEREAS, the Notice seeks comments as to whether the FCC should take further steps to “ensure that state and local permitting regulations do not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the deployment of wireless infrastructure facilities” under the federal Telecommunications Act, building on rules issued in 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has an interest in retaining jurisdiction to regulate certain elements of wireless deployments; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Municipal Code currently balances the need for robust wireless facilities and connectivity with local safety and aesthetic concerns, as illustrated in Burlingame Municipal Code section 25.48.300; and WHEREAS, a coalition of local agencies throughout the Country has organized to submit comments regarding the impact of the FCC’s proposed rules on local governance (the “Coalition”). NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, that the City Attorney is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to join the Coalition providing comment on the proposed Federal Communications Commission Rulemaking addressing wireless facilities. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2026, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 552 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments ) ) ) ) WT Docket No. 25-276 COMMENTS OF ARLINGTON, TX; BELLEVUE, WA; BOSTON, MA; BOWIE, MD; CARMEL-BY- THE-SEA, CA; COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; CULVER CITY, CA; DALLAS, TX; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FONTANA, CA; GAITHERSBURG, MD; HENDERSON, NV; HILLSBOROUGH, CA; HOWARD COUNTY, MD; MARIN COUNTY, CA; MONTEREY, CA; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD; ONTARIO, CA; PALO ALTO, CA; PIEDMONT, CA; PISCATAWAY, NJ; PLANO, TX; TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR UTILITY ISSUES; UPLAND, CA; ANN ARBOR, MI; MICHIGAN COALITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; AND MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION Michael J. Watza (P38726) Nathan D. Inks (P80213) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 400 Renaissance Center, Suite 2600 Detroit, MI 48243 O: (313) 309-7288 C: (248) 921-3888 mike@bloomsluggett.com nathan@bloomsluggett.com Counsel for Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-Of-Way; Michigan Municipal League; and Michigan Townships Association Cheryl A. Leanza Gail A. Karish Gerard Lavery Lederer Tillman L. Lay BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 1800 K Street N.W., Suite 725 Washington, D.C. 20006 Cheryl.Leanza@bbklaw.com Counsel for Arlington, TX; Bellevue, WA; Boston, MA; Bowie, MD; Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA; Coachella Valley Water District; Culver City, CA; Dallas, TX; District of Columbia; Fontana, CA; Gaithersburg, MD; Henderson, NV; Hillsborough, CA; Howard County, MD; Marin County, CA; Monterey, CA; Montgomery County, MD; Ontario, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Piedmont, CA; Piscataway, NJ; Plano, TX; Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; and Upland, CA December 31, 2025 553 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1 II. THE COMMISSION IS PROPOSING TO BECOME A NATIONAL ZONING BOARD CONTRARY TO LAW AND POLICY. ............................................................ 4 A. The Commission must retract or revise, and not extend, rules inconsistent with current law, particularly after the demise of Chevron deference and McLaughlin. .................................................................................... 4 1. Effective prohibition must mean an actual, not theoretical, prohibition. ................................................................................................. 5 2. The Commission’s materially inhibit standard impermissibly contains no limiting standard. .................................................................... 8 3. Sections 253 and 332 do not apply to non-common carriage services. ...................................................................................................... 9 B. Existing case law surrounding preemption and the legislative history of Section 332 demonstrates sweeping preemption is not allowed. .................... 10 C. Local government land use authority is fundamental to protect economic interests and public safety. .................................................................. 13 D. Conditional Use Permits are common and legitimate tools for land use management. ........................................................................................................ 15 E. Justifications for small cell rules for fees or other matters do not apply to other facilities, particularly macro facilities. ................................................... 19 1. Expanding the application of small wireless facility rules to other facilities does not make sense. ................................................................. 21 2. The Commission’s existing fee rules are not justifiable and cannot be expanded. ............................................................................................ 22 a. The Commission should not further regulate fees. ...................... 23 b. The Commission cannot regulate rent charged by local governments as landlords. ............................................................ 25 3. Other Commission proposals should not be pursued. .............................. 27 F. A deemed granted remedy is not available under Section 332. ........................... 27 III. A ROCKET DOCKET DEPRIVES LOCAL COMMUNITIES OF DUE PROCESS AND WILL PRODUCE FLAWED DECISIONS. ....................................... 29 IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ADOPT ITS PROPOSALS PURSUANT TO SECTION 6409 AND SHOULD REPEAL EXISTING FLAWED RULES. .......... 32 A. The Commission should not adopt its proposed changes. ................................... 32 554 ii B. The Commission must ensure mandatory Section 6409 changes remain insubstantial. ........................................................................................................ 34 V. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADDRESS RF RULES BUT NOT ADOPT OTHER PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS. ................................ 35 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 37 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 39 555 1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments ) ) ) ) WT Docket No. 25-276 COMMENTS OF ARLINGTON, TX; BELLEVUE, WA; BOSTON, MA; BOWIE, MD; CARMEL-BY- THE-SEA, CA; COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; CULVER CITY, CA; DALLAS, TX; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FONTANA, CA; GAITHERSBURG, MD; HENDERSON, NV; HILLSBOROUGH, CA; HOWARD COUNTY, MD; MARIN COUNTY, CA; MONTEREY, CA; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD; ONTARIO, CA; PALO ALTO, CA; PIEDMONT, CA; PISCATAWAY, NJ; PLANO, TX; TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR UTILITY ISSUES; UPLAND, CA; ANN ARBOR, MI; MICHIGAN COALITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; AND MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION I.INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The twenty municipalities, four associations representing nearly 2,000 members, three counties, and one special district from eight states and the District of Columbia listed above, as members of the Local Community Wireless Coalition (Local Communities or Coalition),1 respectfully file these opening comments representing a wide range of local government experiences in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)2 in the above-captioned docket.3 The Commission’s NPRM begins with a significant omission: it completely ignores that the legal rug has been pulled out from beneath its existing guidance and rules governing 1 Association descriptions are listed in the appendix. 2 Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 25-276, FCC 25-67, 90 Fed. Reg. 55066 (Dec. 1, 2025) (NPRM). 3 The Coalition files pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Federal Communications Commission’s (Commission) rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419. 556 2 preemption of local authority on wireless siting. The law underlying the Commission’s wireless siting rulings are now in question given the recent Supreme Court decisions such as Loper4 and McLaughlin5 that reduce judicial deference to agencies to its modern nadir. Instead of expanding existing rules or codifying old guidance, the Commission should be re-thinking its whole approach to align with current law and the limits of its own jurisdiction. The federal courts have interpreted the Sections 332 and 253 of the Communications Act in a manner inconsistent with the Commission’s prior conclusions and the Commission no longer has the freedom to act inconsistently with their opinions. The Commission must retract or reconsider its existing rules and guidance—not expand them. Everything, including shot clocks and small cell rules should be reanalyzed. The Commission must now justify its prior actions under the new standard, which it cannot. And it certainly cannot extend the flawed findings more broadly; the terms of Sections 332 and 253 do not apply as the Commission wishes. Even if the Commission’s Small Cell Order6 were to warrant continued deference (which it does not), law governing non-small cell deployments has been well developed for many years in the federal courts. That case law is now binding on the Commission. Existing preemption doctrine and the statute’s legislative history also do not support the Commission’s current rules or its proposals. Local government authority over land use is critical to protect the health and welfare of local communities and private property values. The local, democratically accountable, zoning 4 Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (overruling Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). 5 McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v.McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025). 6 Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 33 FCC Rcd. 9088, at ¶ 9 (2018), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (Small Cell Order). 557 3 framework ensures that wireless infrastructure is deployed efficiently while maintaining public safety and the unique aesthetic character cherished by each community. The Commission’s proposals to preempt the use of conditional use permits (CUPs) reveals its lack of expertise and knowledge of land use law and policy, an area of local control it has no authority to regulate. Given the flawed basis of the current rules, the Commission certainly cannot extend its particularized findings with respect to new small cell deployments to all wireless deployments. The Commission impermissibly proposes to extend some of the rules adopted in the Small Cell Order to facilities that do not qualify as small wireless facilities, even though virtually all of the Commission’s Small Cell Order was justified by the supposedly unique attributes of small cell technology. In considering regulation of fees, the Commission must take into account that local governments can serve two distinct roles vis-à-vis wireless facility placement: (1) as zoning regulators; and (2) as landlords. The Commission ignores that local government fees charged in the first capacity are typically limited to costs. Rent charged by local government landlords should not be regulated at all; it should be set by the market, like any other property owner’s. The Commission’s proposed “rocket docket” would subvert the law. The Commission cannot resolve disputes under Section 332, which puts remedies firmly in the hands of the courts. Federal courts addressing the issue have found Section 332 provides the exclusive vehicle to challenge individual permitting decisions; Section 253 can only be used for facial challenges to generally-applicable laws. Section 253(d) is also limited in its scope. The Commission should not adopt any additional procedures to implement Section 253(d), and if the Commission chooses to pursue this goal, it requires more extensive rulemaking to develop it, including considering the Commission’s existing formal complaint procedures. 558 4 The Commission should not adopt its proposals under Section 6409 that would protect conditions that disguise—but not ones that hide—an existing facility. It should also reject proposals that would eliminate certain protections for aesthetic siting conditions. The proposals would deprive wireless companies and local communities of opportunities to find mutually acceptable solutions and would undermine the purpose of Section 6409. Local Communities support new proceedings to thoroughly review the latest scientific data and update the Commission’s current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Thirty-year-old standards and a court remand that remains unaddressed by the Commission do little to quell public concerns about the issue. II.THE COMMISSION IS PROPOSING TO BECOME A NATIONAL ZONING BOARD CONTRARY TO LAW AND POLICY. The Commission must revise and reconsider its existing interpretations of Sections 332 and 253 given the end of Chevron deference and the contrary and binding rulings of the federal courts. Its unjustified proposals to expand on those rulings are not authorized by statute, and would also be bad policy. A.The Commission must retract or revise, and not extend, rules inconsistent with current law, particularly after the demise of Chevron deference and McLaughlin. As in its companion docket considering wireline deployments,7 the Commission ignores that the expansive view of federal agency power is no longer current law—making no mention of Chevron or Loper at all.8 Now that the Supreme Court has overruled the Chevron doctrine9 and 7 Build Am.: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments, WC Docket No. 25-253, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 25-66 (rel. Sept. 30, 2025) (Wireline NOI or NOI). 8 Arlington, TX et al., Reply Comments, WC Docket No. 25-253 at 3-4 (filed Dec. 18, 2025) (Local Community Wireline NOI Reply Comments). 9 Loper, 603 U.S. 369. 559 5 empowered federal district courts to render their own views of the law,10 the Commission can no longer count on the validity of its prior decisions. Loper calls into question any action relying on Portland11 and Arlington,12 the two leading cases upholding the Commission’s authority to interpret the law as to local government preemption in wireless siting, both of which relied heavily on Chevron. The Commission, instead of expanding the application of rules that rely on questionable legal footing, must re-justify or repeal its current policies and rules as to shot clocks and small wireless facilities because they would no longer withstand court review under current standards. 1.Effective prohibition must mean an actual, not theoretical, prohibition. As is now clear, the Commission can no longer claim authority to overrule federal court decisions interpreting the terms “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” in Sections 332 and 253. The Commission previously revised its interpretation of that standard applying a “materially inhibit” standard to small cell technology—but only small cell technology—in its Small Cell Order. Although the Ninth Circuit upheld the Commission’s new interpretation as to small cell technology based on mandatory deference under Chevron,13 that holding no longer will bind courts reviewing the new docket underway because of both Loper and McLaughlin. As the Coalition lays out here, the case law regarding macro towers and non-small cell technology is clear, and the 10 McLaughlin, 606 U.S. 146. 11 City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020) (Portland). 12 City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290 (2013). In his Loper concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch cited the Court’s Arlington decision as a clear instance of Chevron overreach: “[U]nder the Chevron regime, . . . executive agencies may effectively judge the scope of their own lawful powers.” Loper, 603 U.S. at 433 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (citing Arlington, 569 U.S. at 296-97). 13 Portland, 969 F.3d at 1037. 560 6 Commission’s small cell rules should be retracted to align with the federal judiciary’s interpretation of the statute. Unlike the Commission’s materially inhibit standard, federal circuit courts have overwhelmingly found that an actual prohibition is required to meet the statute’s effective prohibition standard. When Chevron still applied, the Commission erroneously ignored three circuit courts’ binding plain language interpretations of that term. Interpreting Section 332, the Second and Fourth Circuits both reject a standard similar to that in the Small Cell Order, concluding a carrier must, for example, establish “a legally cognizable deficit in coverage amounting to an effective absence of coverage, and that it lacks reasonable alternative sites to provide coverage.”14 The Eighth Circuit adopted a similar reading of the effective prohibition language in Section 253, rejecting an attack on a non-cost based fee (for a wireline deployment) because Section 253(a) was “clear” that “no” statutory reading “results in a preemption of regulations which might, or may at some point in the future . . . prohibit services.”15 Beyond the three federal circuits with a plain language interpretation, many circuits have developed their own best interpretation of the statute—now the binding interpretation of the statute under Loper—and overwhelmingly conclude they must consider the actual, not speculative, impact of a denial, focusing on the significance of the denial and the absence of an alternative means to provide 14 T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. Fairfax Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 F.3d 259, 268 (4th Cir. 2012) (Fairfax Cnty.). The Second Circuit rejecting a standard focused solely on the business needs of a provider because it “founders on the statutory language” and would “effectively nullify a local government’s right to deny construction of wireless telecommunications facilities, a right explicitly contemplated” by Section 332. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 639 (2d Cir. 1999) (Willoth). This continues to be the standard. a plaintiff must demonstrate both that a significant gap exists in wireless coverage and that the proposed facility is the least intrusive means to close that gap. Indus. Tower & Wireless, LLC v. Roisman, No. 24-2512-CV, 2025 WL 3002379, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2025). 15 Level 3 Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 477 F.3d 528, 533 (8th Cir. 2007). 561 7 service.16 As the First Circuit aptly explains, “[i]nquiries into the existence and type of [service] gap are . . . helpful analytic tools toward” answering the statutory question of whether “a given decision, ordinance, or policy amounts to an effective prohibition on the delivery of wireless services.”17 The tension between the Commission’s interpretation in the Small Cell Order and the federal judiciary’s has been noticed. For example, before the Supreme Court’s decision in McLaughlin, one federal district court found: the Court is inclined to agree . . .that the 2018 Declaratory Ruling reflects an unreasonable interpretation of Section 332. Not only does the FCC’s interpretation conflict with the interpretations of every Circuit that has addressed the issue and expand California Payphone to new contexts in which it had not been previously applied, it also appears to upset the balanced regulatory approach that was intended by Congress. . . . [T]he FCC’s new rule also potentially runs afoul of established Eleventh Circuit case law . . . .18 While that district court opinion was bound by the Commission’s ruling at the time, it no longer is. The Commission must come to terms with the fact that it can no longer preempt these binding interpretations of the law. It should retract its current guidance that is inconsistent with the federal courts’ interpretation of statutory text. 16 Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 750 F.3d 30, 40 (1st Cir. 2014); T-Mobile Cent., LLC v. Charter Twp. of W. Bloomfield, 691 F.3d 794, 806 (6th Cir. 2012); USCOC of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines, 465 F.3d 817, 825 (8th Cir. 2006); VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix Cnty., 342 F.3d 818, 833-35 (7th Cir. 2003). 17 Second Generation Props., L.P. v. Town of Pelham, 313 F.3d 620, 631-32 (1st Cir. 2002); accord, e.g., Willoth, 176 F.3d at 641; Nat’l Tower, LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 297 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2002); 360 degrees Commc’ns Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors of Albemarle Cnty., 211 F.3d 79, 86 (4th Cir. 2000). 18 T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 662 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1284 (N.D. Ga. 2023). 562 8 2.The Commission’s materially inhibit standard impermissibly contains no limiting standard. The Commission’s “materially inhibit” standard from the Small Cell Order is infirm for another reason. It is completely one-sided with no balancing among interests of community members, other land users and wireless companies. It falls short because it is inconsistent with binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and U.S. circuit court precedent. In Iowa Utilities,19 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Commission’s one-sided interpretation of Section 251(d)(2)(B), a provision that is arguably more protective than the effective prohibition language in Section 332.20 The Court found lacking the Commission’s view, which took—as its sole deciding factor—any increase in cost or decrease in service quality from the new entrant’s business plans as an impairment prohibited by statute. In Iowa Utilities, the Court found, “the Commission’s assumption that any increase in cost (or decrease in quality) imposed by denial . . . ‘impair[s]’ the entrant’s ability to furnish its desired services . . . is simply not in accord with the ordinary and fair meaning of those terms.”21 The Court explained that an increase in the new entrant’s costs or decrease in its profits, without more, does not mean that a new entrant’s ability to provide service has been “impaired” under the legal standard of the statute.22 Rather, “the Act requires the FCC to apply some limiting standard, rationally related to the goals of the Act.”23 Likewise the Commission’s interpretation of effective prohibition and its materially 19 AT&T v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (Iowa Utilities). 20 Section 251(d)(2)(B) directed the Commission to adopt rules giving new entrants access to incumbent telecommunications providers’ networks when the failure to provide such access would “impair” a new entrant’s ability to “provide the services it seeks to offer.” 47 U.S.C. § 251(d)(2)(B). 21 Iowa Utils., 525 U.S. at 390. 22 Id. at 390 (emphasis added). 23 Id. at 388. 563 9 inhibit standard do not contain a limiting standard: under this standard the wireless provider wins any contest—clearly not Congress’ intent. After Chevron’s demise, the Commission cannot overturn—and instead should adopt the analysis of—multiple U.S. circuit courts which agree that the statute requires balancing among competing interests. As the Seventh Circuit explained, in Section 332(c)(7) Congress struck “a delicate balance between the need for a uniform federal policy and the interests of state and local governments in continuing to regulate the siting of wireless communications facilities.”24 The Fourth Circuit agrees, Section 332(c)(7) “reflects the balance between the national interest of facilitating the growth of telecommunications and the interest of local governments in making decisions based on zoning considerations.”25 3.Sections 253 and 332 do not apply to non-common carriage services. The Commission should proceed with caution when it relies upon Sections 253 and 332, given the evolving classification of broadband services. As the Local Communities explained in their reply comments to the Wireline NOI,26 Section 253(a) applies only to state and local requirements that “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.”27 Because broadband internet access service is not a “telecommunications service,”28 24 VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc., 342 F.3d at 829. Arlington I, 668 F.3d at 234 (noting that the purpose of Section 332(c)(7) is to balance the competing interests to preserve the traditional role of state and local governments in land use and zoning regulation and the rapid development of new telecommunications technologies). 25 Fairfax Cnty., 672 F.3d at 265. 26 Local Community Wireline NOI Reply Comments at 4. 27 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) (emphasis added). 28 In re MCP No. 185, 124 F.4th at 998. 564 10 Section 253 simply does not apply to it.29 Similarly, Section 332(c)(7) applies only to “personal wireless service facilities,”30 and mobile broadband service is now excluded from that term since it is defined as “private mobile service.”31 In the near future, it is entirely likely that some wireless infrastructure will not support any service covered by Section 332. Section 332 would not appear to apply, for example, to infrastructure supporting fixed wireless access (FWA) services that deliver only broadband service.32 Even if FWA services carry voice, they transmit the traffic as data, similar to VOIP,33 which is not a common carrier service.34 B.Existing case law surrounding preemption and the legislative history of Section 332 demonstrates sweeping preemption is not allowed. Once Chevron deference to agency interpretations of the law is properly set aside, established case law dictates that courts should not assume that Congress lightly or expansively preempts local government authority. Congress clearly did not preempt broadly here. The statute contains express savings clauses at its very outset: Section 332(c)(7)(A), titled “Preservation of Local Zoning Authority,” preserves local authority unless expressly preempted by the terms of Section 332(c)(7)(B): “Except as provided in this paragraph,nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions 29 Local Community Wireline NOI Reply Comments at 4. 30 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C), § 332(d). 31 In re MCP No. 185, 124 F.4th at 1012 (“Because mobile broadband is not a commercial mobile service, it necessarily is a private mobile service.”). 32 See NPRM, ¶ 2. 33 “VoWiFi and VoLTE enable voice services over IP . . . .” How FWA, VoWiFi and VoLTE are Shaping the Future of Access, SUMMA NETWORKS (Mar. 25, 2025), https://www.summanetworks.com/blog/how-fwa-vowifi-and-volte-are-shaping-the-future-of- access. 34 E.g.,Advancing IP Interconnection Accelerating Network Modernization Call Authentication Tr. Anchor, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 25-73, at ¶ 79 (rel. Oct. 29, 2025). 565 11 regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.”35 As the Supreme Court36 and the Commission have found,37 the statute places five discrete limits on local governments, and no more.38 Further, these provisions were adopted as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which contains additional explicit direction that its provisions “shall not be construed” to “modify, impair, or supersede” state or local law.39 The Supreme Court explains the Commission “literally has no power to act, let alone pre- empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers power 35 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A) (emphasis added). 36 T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 574 U.S. 293, 303 (2015) (“The Act’s saving clause makes clear that, other than the enumerated limitations imposed on local governments by the statute itself, ‘nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government . . . .’ Given this language . . . we understand the enumerated limitations to set out an exclusive list.”) 37 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B), 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, at ¶25 (2009) (The Commission cannot not rely on other provisions of the Act or exercise ancillary authority to “impose additional limitations” on local authority “beyond those stated in Section 332(c)(7).”). 38 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)-(iv) (states and localities shall not “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services”; shall not “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services”; “shall act on any request . . . within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed”; must render any decision “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record”; and may not regulate “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” as long as “facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions”). 39 In a subsection titled “no implied effect,” Congress directed that the 1996 Act and its amendments to the existing law “shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede Federal, State, or local law unless expressly so provided.” Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 601(c)(1), 110 Stat. 56, 143 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 152 note). Congress further added a “tax savings provision” that sharply confined which provisions in the 1996 Act may be construed to preempt state and local fees and taxes: “nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede . . . any State or local law pertaining to taxation, except as provided in [47 U.S.C. §§ 542, 573(c)] . . . and section 602 of this Act.” 1996 Act, § 601(c)(2), 110 Stat. at 143. While Subsection 601(c)(2) of the 1996 Act refers to “taxation,” the provisions it references address both taxes and fees. 566 12 upon it.”40 The Court recognizes the “assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”41 The Telecommunications Act’s legislative history confirms the plain text’s broad preservation of local authority. The Conference Report explained that the prior version of the statute which ultimately became the 1996 Act mandated the Commission to complete a rulemaking governing the placement of wireless infrastructure, but the final version rejected that approach: The conference agreement creates a new section 704 which prevents Commission preemption of local and State land use decisions and preserves the authority of State and local governments over zoning and land use matters except in the limited circumstances set forth in the conference agreement. The conference agreement also provides a mechanism for judicial relief from zoning decisions that fail to comply with the provisions of this section. It is the intent of the conferees that other than under section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this Act and section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all other disputes arising under this section. Any pending Commission rulemaking concerning the preemption of local zoning authority over the placement, construction or modification of CMS facilities should be terminated.42 40 Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). 41 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 587 U.S. 299, 311 (2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In addressing a federal statute carefully calibrated to preserve state and local authority, the Supreme Court plurality held in Whiting that “a high threshold must be met if a state law is to be preempted for conflicting with a purposes of the federal Act.” Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 607 (2011) (Whiting) (cleaned up) (plurality opinion). 42 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, 104th Congress, 2d Session, House Report 104-458, at 208, (Jan. 31, 1996), https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/104th-congress/house- report/458/1 (emphasis added). 567 13 The Commission itself has stated, “We fully acknowledge and value the important role that local reviewing authorities play in the siting process, and . . . ‘our goal is not to operate as a national zoning board.’”43 C.Local government land use authority is fundamental to protect economic interests and public safety. Under the constitutional framework established by the Tenth Amendment and the 1926 Supreme Court case Euclid v. Ambler,44 zoning authority rests with state governments, which have typically delegated this authority to local jurisdictions. Land use regulation allows communities to “order[] their physical environment to minimize conflict, maximize beauty, and facilitate efficient societies.”45 Without it, property owners and residents could easily fall victim to a series of incompatible uses on adjoining land—from the loss of light and air from adjacent tall buildings that motivated the earliest zoning laws to on-going efforts to protect residential areas from dangerous uses.46 While every land user would prefer that their use could be paramount over all others, the necessity of shared communities and adjoining property dictates that we utilize a system of democratically elected, locally controlled public institutions to manage land use for all. Extensive public participation informs the development of comprehensive plans, which often include policies intended to guide aesthetic standards. As such, the adopted policies and related local zoning controls include and represent our communities’ collective directives to minimize the 43 Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Pol’ys, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865, 12961, ¶ 228, at (2014) (citation omitted) (2014 Broadband Deployment Order). 44 Vill. of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). 45 § 1:1. Land use regulation before zoning, 1 Arden H. Rathkopf & Daren A. Rathkopf. Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 1:1 (4th ed. 2025). 46 § 1:3, § 1.16. Historical development, Police Power, 1 Am. Law. Zoning §§ 1:3, 1.16 (5th ed.). 568 14 visual impacts of telecom facilities, while also pursuing other important priorities. Ultimately, this collaborative framework ensures that wireless services are deployed efficiently while maintaining safety standards and the unique aesthetic character desired by all community members. The Commission vastly exceeds its expertise and authority when it attempts to run roughshod over a fully developed set of state statutes, regulation and common law related to land use with nary an interest in the present system. Federal constitutional protections combined with state and local law contain extensive protections and procedures for the protection of landowners and permittees, including wireless companies.47 The Commission’s NPRM does not acknowledge or seek to understand this context when considering possible action. The Commission is rushing ahead to propose action when it does not even comprehend the basic protections for all permitees embedded in zoning and land use jurisprudence or the specific protections that have already been adopted for wireless companies. Such action without sufficient knowledge and fact-finding is arbitrary and capricious. Aesthetic regulations are a particular class of protections that safeguard important economic interests such as property values, tourism, and quality of life.48 As local governments 47 See generally, e.g., 8 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 25 (3d ed. 2024). For example, California (as explained below) provides for favorable treatment for wireless providers in some cases. Cal. Gov’t Code § 65964(b). The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act requires wireless communications equipment to be permitted by right or through special land use approval (similar to a conditional use permit) if certain requirements are met. Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3514. 48 E.g., Matthew Carmona, Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic and environmental outcomes, JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN (June 12, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1472523, at 24(1), 1–48 (a rich body of work supports private and public economic benefits, including rising property values, from increased “place quality”). Research also demonstrates the negative impact of items such as billboards which impose economic harms. Jonathan Snyder and Samuel S. Fels Fund, Beyond Aesthetics: How Billboards Affect Economic Prosperity, HBAE PROSPERITY (December 2011) https://www.scenic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Beyond_Aesthetics1.pdf. 569 15 have previously documented, intrusive wireless installations may affect property values; even small reductions in property values could have significant economic effects.49 For example, one study found a visible antenna up to 1,000 feet away results in a market diminution for residential homes — impacts shared by every home in an area with an aggregate, significant impact.50 The Commission has recognized that local decisions “avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments are . . . permissible.”51 And federal courts have recognized that aesthetic concerns can be a legitimate factor in local zoning decisions with respect to wireless deployments.52 There is simply no authority for the Commission to make these aesthetic judgments on a national scale in place of local communities. D.Conditional Use Permits are common and legitimate tools for land use management. Illustrating the Commission’s lack of experience or knowledge of land use regulation, it seeks comment on whether it could preempt use of CUPs53 both as they are used generally in wireless infrastructure siting, and specifically under Section 6409.54 For example, the Commission asks whether it should adopt a rule that prohibits any new conditions as part of a CUP renewal process “once a particular deployment is found to be an eligible facilities request and the permit is 49 Smart Communities, Comments, WT Docket No. 16-421, 8 (filed March 8, 2017), Report and Declaration of David E Burgoyne for the Smart Communities Siting Coalition, Attach. 3 at 2, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1030998488645/1. 50 Id. 51 Small Cell Order, at ¶ 87. 52 See, e.g., Green Mountain Realty Corp. v. Leonard, 688 F.3d 40, 53 (1st Cir. 2012); Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 430 F.3d 529, 533 (2d Cir. 2005); Portland, 969 F.3d at 1032. 53 As the Commission noted, states use different terminology for CUPs. NPRM, n.150. Other common names include “special permit,” “special exception,” and “special land use approval.” See generally 3 Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 61:9 (4th ed.). 54 NPRM, ¶¶ 27, 63-65. 570 16 granted.”55 Such an action would be inconsistent with the zoning process, which is inherently intended to evolve with time and changing community needs. Zoning, and CUPs as a particular zoning tool, represent a core government function used to keep pace with community growth and changes in development. As the leading municipal treatise explains, “Zoning is not static, but it changes with changed conditions and the complexities of a modern age. If the rule were otherwise, there could be no progress.”56 Even though zoning rules must change with time, a wide body of common law and jurisprudence governs and protects all land use including the rights of land owners and permit-holders.57 Thus, a locality cannot deprive property owners without due process of law: the validity of every change of, or exception to, use restrictions depends upon its own circumstances. A change in zoning restrictions cannot be made to accommodate private interests detrimental to the welfare of other property owners in the same district.58 Zoning requires a variety of tools to achieve its objectives while giving due consideration to all. As the leading treatise explains, “Zoning laws regulate land uses in two basic ways: some uses are permitted as a matter of right if the uses conform to the zoning ordinance; other sensitive land uses require discretionary administrative approval pursuant to criteria in the zoning ordinance and require a conditional use permit.”59 Thus, CUPs or special permits are one tool that local 55 NPRM, ¶ 27. 56 § 25:183. Change of uses and restrictions, 8 McQuillin, supra, § 25:183. 57 Id. 58 Id. (citing extensive cases). 59 § 25:145. Use control through zoning laws, 8 McQuillin, § 25:145. 571 17 jurisdictions use to ensure that its regulations and allowed uses continue to be compatible with their locations. CUPs are attractive because they are certain, predictable, and transparent.60 In some jurisdictions, including Michigan, such approvals run with the land and are generally not subject to expiration once the use is established.61 However, placing limits on the duration of use permits is one tool that is well within local government authority as a valid exercise of land use power.62 In many cases, a party that can demonstrate it meets the CUP criteria can expect to get a permit; the local board’s job is to determine whether the criteria are met. In some cases, state laws like those in California63 and Michigan have constrained zoning authority to create special protection for a wireless provider’s benefit.64 As a general matter, CUP holders are protected under land use law, just like other land users and owners. The leading case in California considering the rights of a wireless provider with respect to the expiration of its 10-year CUP, fully considers whether the CUP holder had “a fundamental vested right,” if so “the trial court must exercise its independent judgment on the 60 Special or conditional use permits typically “must be granted pursuant to standards in the zoning ordinance that specify both the types of property uses that are specially permitted and the criteria that must be met for their approval.” § 14:1. Special use permits, generally, 2 Am. Law. Zoning § 14:1 (5th ed.). 61 See Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 61:50 (4th ed.). 62 Existing zoning law typically requires special use conditions to be “reasonable, which is usually explained as requiring that the conditions must be related to the proposed use of the property and must be intended to minimize adverse impacts from the proposed special use.” § 14:17. Special permit conditions, id. at § 14:17. 63 Cal. Gov’t Code § 65964(b) (creating a presumption that an original issuance of a CUP should be at least 10 years, except in certain circumstances). The Commission’s criticism of Monterey, CA’s ordinance is therefore misplaced. See NPRM, ¶ 27. The Commission’s other reference to Monterey, CA is actually to Monterey Park, CA. See NPRM, n.174. 64 The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act requires wireless communications equipment to either be permitted by right or through special land use approval if certain conditions are met. Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3514. 572 18 evidence and find an abuse of discretion if the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.”65 If there is no vested right the court must determine whether the local findings “are supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.”66 In the Ninth Circuit opinion, the court noted, “[American Tower Corporation] agreed to the original CUP’s terms, so [it] knew it would have to remove its facilities if it did not renew the CUPs after ten years.”67 As Chief Justice Roberts has said, “a telecommunications company is no babe in the legal woods.”68 These companies are more than able to understand and comply with the express terms of a CUP. Zoning law sufficiently governs when a permittee obtains a vested right that would overcome a locality’s decision. There is no possible justification for the Commission to wade into this area of the law. For these reasons, it would be vastly outside of the Commission’s authority and would be arbitrary and capricious for the Commission to broadly preempt CUPs as to time limits; preempt CUPs as to aesthetic conditions; or limit CUPs to “legitimate safety concerns.”69 CUPs also do not violate Section 6409. Section 6409 is meant to allow only insubstantial changes to “existing” towers and base stations, meaning those towers and base stations that have been “reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process.”70 The law surely never contemplated that by requiring approval of insubstantial changes to existing approved facilities, a permit holder could suddenly be empowered to evade the normal application of land 65 Am. Tower Corp. v. City of S.D., 763 F.3d 1035, 1057–59 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 66 Id. at 1057. 67 Id. at 1059. 68 T-Mobile South v. City of Roswell, Ga., 574 U.S. at 315 (Roberts, C.J. dissenting). 69 NPRM, ¶ 65. 70 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(5). 573 19 use and zoning laws to the entire facility. By definition, such a change would no longer be “insubstantial” and thus is not covered by Section 6409.71 If the Commission were to preempt CUPs or special permits, it would also arbitrarily and capriciously contradict earlier findings of the Commission that the mere requirement to obtain a variance under local law is not a violation of Section 253 or 332. The Commission previously rejected an industry request for a broad preemption decision that “zoning ordinances requiring variances for all wireless siting requests are unlawful.”72 The Commission concluded it needed specific evidence and that “any further consideration of blanket variance ordinances should occur within the factual context of specific cases.”73 E.Justifications for small cell rules for fees or other matters do not apply to other facilities, particularly macro facilities. The Commission impermissibly proposes to extend some of the rules adopted in the Small Cell Order to facilities that do not qualify as small wireless facilities,74 even though virtually all of the Commission’s Small Cell Order was justified by the supposedly unique attributes of small cell technology and the unique need for the industry to rapidly and widely deploy 5G. The Commission also ignores its interpretation of Section 332 falls under a legal shadow after the demise of Chevron. 71 See infra Part IV. 72 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance, WT Docket No. 08-165, FCC 09-99, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994, ¶ 67 (2009) (Shot Clock Order). 73 Id. Further as we explain here, Section 253(d) permits only preemption of a specific ordinance or law and requires notification to a particular community when preemption of its law or ordinance is requested. Infra Part III. 74 NPRM, ¶ 31. 574 20 The Commission justified its rulings as to small wireless facilities because, from a regulatory perspective, “new small cell deployments that have antennas often no larger than a small backpack . . . raise different issues than the construction of large, 200-foot towers that marked the 3G and 4G deployments of the past.”75 The Commission focused on “boost[ing] the United States’ standing in the race to 5G.”76 The Commission specifically defined small wireless facilities as to their size,77 and many of the Commission’s justifications of its rules were premised entirely on the small, unobtrusive size of these facilities anticipated to be placed in streets on light poles and utility poles. As important, the Commission also relied upon 5G’s unique need for densification which required adding many hundreds of thousands more small antennas, compared to prior wireless technologies.78 The Ninth Circuit upheld some of the Commission’s rules on the premise that 5G “requires the installation of thousands of ‘small cell’ wireless facilities.”79 For this reason, the Court found the Commission’s policies apply “differently in the context of 5G, because state and local regulation . . . is more likely to have a prohibitory effect on 5G technology than it does on older technology . . . [as] it requires rapid, widespread deployment of more facilities.”80 The 75 Small Cell Order, ¶ 3. 76 Id. at ¶ 7. See also, e.g., id., ¶ 24 & n.46. 77 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l). 78 For example, the Commission based its conclusions on extensive representations from providers and experts. Small Cell Order at ¶ 47, n.46 (Verizon would “require 10 to 100 times more antenna locations than currently exist”; AT&T would “deploy hundreds of thousands of wireless facilities in the next few years alone—equal to or more than the number providers have deployed in total over the last few decades”; Sprint would “build at least 40,000 new small sites over the next few years”; experts stated the total number of small antennas would “‘roughly double the number of macro cells built over the last 30 years’” or require “3 to 10 times the number of existing sites”). 79 Portland, 969 F.3d at 1031. 80 Id. at 1035. 575 21 findings with respect to the need for densification with small wireless facilities cannot just be ported over to larger facilities. 1.Expanding the application of small wireless facility rules to other facilities does not make sense. The Commission asks if it needs to affirm its finding that “state and local regulations that prevent the densification of a network can be an effective prohibition of covered services” when it comes to 5G technology.81 It should not for two reasons. First, the “densification” the Commission now refers to expands the term significantly as compared to the small wireless facility densification of 2018. The Commission proposes to define the term as “the build-out of facilities in support of 5G services…including macro sites and small wireless facilities, that can transmit frequency signals that travel short distances and efficiently reuse finite spectrum resources to provide higher bandwidth applications.”82 Under this definition, virtually any facility regardless of size or proposed coverage area is now eligible for favorable treatment. What is lost is the unique justification for small cell rules: the twin elements of small size and volume.83 Second, macro sites and small cells are fundamentally different in physical footprint and impact, often requiring very different review considerations, and therefore should not be treated interchangeably or subject to the same timelines, standards, or conditions. For example, structural considerations such as wind and load bearing, and locational considerations (in the right-of-way vs. outside of it) are vastly different between the two types of facilities and therefore are subject 81 NPRM, ¶¶ 69-74. 82 Id. ¶ 71. 83 Portland, 969 F.3d at 1037-38 (twice citing the Commission’s conclusions targeting the particular attributes of small cells, “even fees that might seem small in isolation have material and prohibitive effects on deployment, particularly when considered in the aggregate given the nature and volume of anticipated Small Wireless Facility deployment’”) (emphasis added). 576 22 to materially different engineering and safety review. For example, the City of Ann Arbor’s hands- on experience with both “small” and macro cell towers led it to conclude that the vastly differing height of the towers alone (from a mere 40 feet to 200+ feet) means the City cannot use common siting rules for both types of towers. Other communities have come to similar conclusions. Treating them as if they are the same is factually wrong. 2.The Commission’s existing fee rules are not justifiable and cannot be expanded. Like other rules adopted and affirmed under Chevron deference, the Commission’s existing fee rules are under a cloud since they are grounded in an incorrect interpretation of effective prohibition which is not reasonable and not the law adopted by a significant number of federal courts.84 Moreover, even if the original rules were properly adopted, the Commission should not expand its rules with respect to fees as they apply to small wireless facilities to other wireless facilities.85 The Commission seeks comment on whether its specific findings as to small wireless facilities should be applied to all wireless facilities. In doing so, the Commission posits an incomplete and flawed set of economic principles that leave out a basic understanding of two different local government functions: (1) zoning regulator; and (2) landlord. The Commission ignores, as explained above, that its existing small cell fee rules were upheld only via a 2 to 1 split among the 3-judge panel, based on Chevron deference and premised on the unique high volume attributes of small cell technology. Its rules are precariously justified and the Commission’s faulty reasoning in the NPRM does nothing to improve their foundation or rationale. Nor can the Commission resort to using Section 253(d) to adopt broad, prescriptive rules and safe harbors. The 84 Supra Part II.A. 85 NPRM, ¶ 41. 577 23 statute is limited in scope—enabling the Commission to preempt a specific state or local law or ordinance.86 Instead of expanding the application of flawed principles, the Commission must re- evaluate its existing rules in the current legal context, and further take into account the different local government roles vis-à-vis wireless facility placement. a.The Commission should not further regulate fees. Local governments are already subject to numerous restrictions on their ability to charge fees (as opposed to taxes) for general revenue raising purposes.87 Permitting fees typically fall within the category of user fees which are already required to be cost-recovery based.88 For example, California state law requires permit fees for telecommunications facilities not to exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service.89 Such limitations apply to all costs incurred to 86 Congress crafted Section 253(d) to preempt specific policies of a particular state or local government. Congress directed that notice and an opportunity to comment is required before the Commission determines that “a State or local government”—i.e., an individual State or local government—has violated subsection (a) or (b). 47 U.S.C. § 253(c) (emphasis added). Only then is the Commission permitted to preempt a state or local law. 87 See generally 16 McQuillin Municipal Corporations. Chapter 44 Taxation (3d ed. 2024). 88 A valid user fee must normally: (1) be charged in exchange for a particular government service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner not shared by other members of society.; (2) paid by choice, in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the government service; and (3) the charges collected must be to compensate the governmental entity providing the services for its expenses and not to raise revenues. § 44:24. User fees distinguished from “taxes,” 16 McQuillin, supra, § 44:24. 89 Cal. Gov’t Code § 50030: Any permit fee imposed by a city, including a chartered city, a county, or a city and county, for the placement, installation, repair, or upgrading of telecommunications facilities such as lines, poles, or antennas by a telephone corporation that has obtained all required authorizations to provide telecommunications services from the Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, shall not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes. 578 24 engage in land-use planning. Localities must regulate uses and manage the right-of-way for all users and set permitting and other fees borne by all entities seeking permits or other services. Even if the Commission regulates fees, it cannot limit fees to incremental costs, as it appears to acknowledge.90 As the Local Community Wireline Coalition explained in the wireline docket, and incorporated in these comments by reference, the Commission cannot prohibit localities from recovering common costs even if they are difficult to allocate.91 Judge Bress’ dissent in Portland on the flaws in the Commission’s economic analysis as to both the cost-based fee rules and safe harbors is compelling and shows why they are flawed. He explained that “fees are prohibitive because of their financial effect on service providers, not because they happen to exceed a state or local government’s costs.”92 He noted that the Commission’s “commonsense observation” that reducing fees will produce savings to those that pay fees, “would seemingly mean that any fee in any amount could qualify as an effective prohibition, once aggregated.”93 And he pointed out that, even if those savings could potentially be reinvested in deploying small cell facilities in other jurisdictions, “it does not follow that every type of fee rises to the level of an ‘effective prohibition,’ which is the line Congress drew in the Telecommunications Act.”94 Thus the Commission’s rule lacks a limiting standard.95 The Commission also has not considered the role of third-party tower infrastructure firms in its justification for cost-based limits. As the Commission is aware, often wireless infrastructure 90 NPRM, ¶¶ 46-47; id., n.100 (recognizing that common costs of shared plant should be included in the context of tariffs). 91 Local Community Wireline NOI Reply Comments at 21-22. 92 Portland, 969 F.4th at 1054 (Bress, J. dissenting). 93 Id. at 1055. 94 Id. at 1055. 95 Id. (citing Iowa Utilities). 579 25 is not owned by the company providing personal wireless service.96 While the Commission has found Section 332 protects those firms, it hast not taken account of whether such third-party infrastructure companies pass along any cost savings they experience as a result of the Commission’s rulings on fees. If a third-party infrastructure company pays a community only a cost-based fee to use municipal street lights for a distributed antenna system, what impact does that have on the wireless company that rents the distributed antenna system from the infrastructure company at a market rate? The Commission made no provision what-so-ever to ensure that the savings from its fee limits actually flow through to the companies that provide wireless service. If only the infrastructure company benefits, the whole justification of the Commission’s assumptions disappears. The Commission’s rules therefore are, on their face, arbitrary and capricious because nothing prohibits these infrastructure companies from charging market rates to their customers, the wireless companies, while the infrastructure companies pocket the difference between market rates and regulated rates. b.The Commission cannot regulate rent charged by local governments as landlords. The Commission has incorrectly conflated local governments role as regulator and as landlord. The Commission must maintain a hands-off approach to any proprietary fees or rents charged by local governments as landlords. As the Commission recognized more than a decade ago, courts have consistently recognized that in “determining whether government contracts are subject to preemption, the case law distinguishes between actions a State entity takes in a proprietary capacity— actions similar to those a private entity might take—and its attempts to regulate.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “[i]n the absence of any express or implied implication by Congress that a State may not manage its own property when it pursues its purely proprietary interests, 96 NPRM, n.33. 580 26 and when analogous private conduct would be permitted, this Court will not infer such a restriction.” Like private property owners, local governments enter into lease and license agreements to allow parties to place antennas and other wireless service facilities on local-government property, and we find no basis for applying Section 6409(a) in those circumstances. We find that this conclusion is consistent with judicial decisions holding that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act do not preempt “non regulatory decisions of a state or locality acting in its proprietary capacity.”97 This decision was correct, and existing rules or proposals to act contrary to it are wrong. And while every new technology self-servingly claims that deregulation is essential for national competitiveness, the benefits of 5G and the causation between the Commission’s rules and current deployment levels have not borne out.98 While the goal of the Communications Act is to promote competition, it is focused on doing so through adherence to market principles, which include requiring market participants to pay market rates for resources used. The Commission incorrectly claims that localities do not compete against one another, when they can and do compete with one another for businesses and services, and have in fact vigorously competed for deployment of advanced infrastructure.99 In sum, the Commission’s rules limiting fees and rent are no longer justifiable as to small wireless facilities and cannot justifiably be extended or made more severe. Nor is it necessary or advisable, as the Commission proposes, to codify its ruling in Clark County that a locality “has the 97 Shot Clock Order, ¶ 249 (citations omitted). 98 George S. Ford, Ph.D., The 5G Promise Falls Short of Reality: Examining Economic Impact Claims, PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVES (May 28, 2025), https://www.phoenix- center.org/perspectives/Perspective25-03Final.pdf. 99 E.g., Christian Gonzales, How state and local governments win at attracting companies, MCKINSEY &COMPANY (2019), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our- insights/how-state-and-local-governments-win-at-attracting-companies#/. 581 27 burden of demonstrating to the Commission why fees above safe harbor levels should not be preempted.”100 3.Other Commission proposals should not be pursued. For the reasons discussed above, the stricter shot clocks, application start dates, and aesthetic rules relating to 5G are not applicable to the broader range of existing and perhaps future wireless technology. The Commission has offered no explanation or justification as to why the rules that it carefully crafted for 5G small cell technology should apply more broadly. It ignores that the Commission is bound by widespread and existing case law. The Commission could not, without more, adopt its proposals in this docket. F.A deemed granted remedy is not available under Section 332. The Commission raises the specter of adopting a deemed granted remedy under Section 332 without even discussing its extensive past consideration and rejection of this approach.101 The Commission has determined multiple times that it should not adopt a deemed granted remedy for a “failure to act” under Section 332. In 2009, the Commission rejected an industry proposal seeking such a remedy, correctly concluding that the statute directs aggrieved parties to go to the courts to seek case-specific remedies for failures to act after examining all of the relevant facts.102 The Commission noted that courts had not generally found an injunction 100 NPRM, ¶¶ 41, 42. 101 NPRM, ¶ 39. 102 Shot Clock Order, ¶ 39. (“Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) states that when a failure to act has occurred, aggrieved parties should file with a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days and that “[t]he court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.”). See also Arlington, 668 F.3d at 250. 582 28 mandating grant of the application was “always or presumptively appropriate.”103 The Commission rejected adoption of a deemed granted remedy a second time, for small wireless facilities, in 2018 for similar reasons, stating: Our approach advances Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)’s provision that certain siting disputes, including those involving a siting authority’s failure to act, shall be heard and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction on an expedited basis. The framework reflected in this Order will provide the courts with substantive guiding principles in adjudicating Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) cases, but it will not dictate the result or the remedy appropriate for any particular case; the determination of those issues will remain within the courts’ domain.104 The Commission’s decision not to create a deemed granted remedy was upheld by the Ninth Circuit when it rejected an industry challenge.105 It further noted the distinction between the obligation to “act” under Section 332 and the obligation to “approve” in Section 6409.106 Although in 2018 the Commission held open the possibility of revisiting establishing a deemed granted remedy under Section 332,107 such a step is not permitted by statute—particularly post-Chevron. That the Commission adopted a deemed granted remedy for Section 6409 applications provides no authority to do so under Section 332. The Commission premised its adoption of a deemed granted remedy on the particular language in Section 6409, because it states “without equivocation that the reviewing authority ‘may not deny, and shall approve’ any qualifying application.”108 The Commission concluded “this directive” “leaves no room for a lengthy and 103 Id.See also Shot Clock Order, n.99 (a “local authority’s exceeding a reasonable time for action would not, in and of itself, entitle the siting applicant to an injunction granting the application”). 104 Shot Clock Order, ¶ 124. 105 Portland, 969 F.3d at 1044. 106 Id. 107 Small Cell Order, ¶ 128. 108 2014 Broadband Deployment Order, 29 FCC Rcd., at 12961, ¶ 227. 583 29 discretionary approach . . . once the application meets these criteria, the law forbids the State or local government from denying it.”109 The mandatory language which justifies a deemed granted remedy in Section 6409110 does not appear in Section 332, and therefore could not be justified as a remedy for an effective prohibition. Further, as explained in more detail below, Section 253(d) does not apply to individual permitting denials and cannot be used.111 Expanding the remedy would ignore the premise of Section 6409, which is a dramatic and extreme solution applying only to “insubstantial” changes. Section 6409, by its terms, addresses minor changes to existing installations that fall within explicit and objective criteria adopted by the Commission. The function of Section 6409, which applies only to facilities that have already been through an approval process, cannot logically apply to wholly new facilities. III.A ROCKET DOCKET DEPRIVES LOCAL COMMUNITIES OF DUE PROCESS AND WILL PRODUCE FLAWED DECISIONS. The Commission seeks comment on whether it can reduce reliance on the courts in resolving disputes under Section 332 and whether it should “create an accelerated process or ‘rocket docket’” for wireless disputes under Section 253(d).112 The Commission cannot resolve disputes under Section 332, which puts remedies firmly in the hands of the courts. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) specifically permits persons adversely affected by a State or local government to “commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.”113 A party may petition the Commission for relief only if it is “inconsistent with clause (iv).” 109 Id. 110 47 U.S.C. § 1455. 111 Infra Part III. 112 NPRM, ¶¶ 79-82. 113 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). 584 30 Clause (iv) governs only “the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions” as long as they “comply with the Commission’s regulations.”114 As explained above, the legislative history further confirms Congress intended the courts to have exclusive jurisdiction over all other disputes arising under Section 332.115 As noted earlier, the Commission has repeatedly recognized this reality.116 That may explain why the Commission proposes reliance on Section 253(d), but in doing so the Commission fares no better. Section 253(d) is explicitly limited to enforcing Section 253(a) and (b), not a broad range of actions.117 Federal courts addressing the issue have found Section 332 provides the exclusive vehicle to challenge individual permitting decisions; Section 253 can be used to challenge generally-applicable laws.118 Section 253 cannot be used to obtain relief in place of Section 332 where a Section 332 claim falls short.119 Even if the Commission had authority here, it should not adopt a rocket docket. Congress wisely delegated the duties of fact-finding and resolving individual disputes to “courts of competent jurisdiction.” The predictable and well-established court rules of discovery and 114 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 115 H.R. Rep. No. 104-458, at 208 (1996); supra Part II.B. 116 Supra Part II.F. 117 47 U.S.C. § 253(d). 118 Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC v. City of Rio Rancho, NM, 476 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (D.N.M. 2007) (Section 332 is for individual permitting decisions); Cox Commc’ns PCS, L.P. v. City of San Marcos, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1277 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (Section 332 does not allow applicants to challenge generally-applicable laws, only individual decisions). 119 Vertical Broad., Inc. v. Town of Southampton, 84 F. Supp. 2d 379, 388 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (provider cannot use Section 253 to avoid defects in its Section 332 claim). 585 31 evidence are needed when facts about a particular wireless decision are in dispute. Local courts possess expertise over zoning and land use completely outside of the Commission’s ken. The Commission’s NPRM in this docket and previous rulings, for example, illustrate its carelessness with fact-finding, crediting plainly baseless claims, inaccurate articles or other questionable bases for drawing its conclusions. For example, Local Communities note that the Commission has established some basic protections for the use of Section 253(d) to preempt local or state regulatory authority, which are fully appropriate but have not been followed in this docket or the Wireline NOI docket even as the Commission proposes to preempt dozens of local ordinances and policies. Specifically the rules state: In the case of petitions for rulemaking that seek Commission preemption of state or local regulatory authority, the petitioner must serve the original petition on any state or local government, the actions of which are specifically cited as a basis for requesting preemption. Service should be made on those bodies within the state or local governments that are legally authorized to accept service of legal documents in a civil context. Such pleadings that are not served will be dismissed without consideration as a defective pleading and treated as a violation of the ex parte rules unless the Commission determines that the matter should be entertained by making it part of the record under § 1.1212(d) and the parties are so informed.120 Any process adopted to implement Section 253(d) should at least start with the rules already in place.121 But if the Commission nonetheless moves forward to adopt a rocket docket, the Commission should explore relevant options in more detail through further notice and comment. Any more formal process should look to the procedures under Section 208,122 which provide for discovery and counterclaims which would be necessary to protect localities’ due process rights 120 47 C.F.R. § 1.1204(b) n.4. 121 The Commission has proposed in the instant NPRM to preempt many localities but has not served any of them. 122 47 U.S.C. § 208; 47 C.F.R. § 1.720 et seq. 586 32 and develop an accurate factual record. Any such process should take into account appropriate timelines and safeguards relevant to participation by a state or local government, a question which requires further factual development. IV.THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ADOPT ITS PROPOSALS PURSUANT TO SECTION 6409 AND SHOULD REPEAL EXISTING FLAWED RULES. A.The Commission should not adopt its proposed changes. The Commission should reject its proposals to exclude conditions that minimize the visual impact of the facility if it does not disguise the facility, and to eliminate protection for aesthetic- related siting conditions in its rules if the proposed change falls within the Commission’s limits on height, cabinets, appurtenances and excavation.123 The Commission should not limit concealment protections to conditions that make a facility look like something else by excluding other concealment conditions, such as color requirements or set-back requirements that ensure the facility is not visible from the street, or shielding that does not disguise, but merely hides, the facility. Excluding these conditions from protection will counter-productively increase burdens. Conditions that minimize visual impact, but fall short of a disguise, offer important flexibility for providers and communities to identify mutually acceptable and reasonable sites for wireless facilities. The Commission’s proposal will irrationally incentivize localities to impose conditions that are more difficult to meet and often less effective. The Commission’s proposal will slow down deployment as localities must develop site conditions that will be protected by Commission rules, even if the community would be satisfied with less burdensome visual conditions. 123 NPRM, ¶ 23. 587 33 The Commission should not adopt its proposal to codify guidance that limits the circumstances when a siting condition, supported by express evidence, is not binding. The Commission’s current rules state that, to be binding, a siting condition must be supported by express evidence and must not prohibit a modification that falls within the Commission’s thresholds for height, cabinets, appurtenances and excavation in subsections (i)-(iv) of its rules.124 The Commission now proposes to modify this rule with examples that would be dependent upon the reasonableness of the condition, regardless of whether it was a binding condition supported by express evidence.125 This additional limitation, concluding that conditions which comply with the Commission’s rules may not be binding if they are not “reasonable,” is not consistent with Commission guidance or its rules. Further, a reasonableness standard introduces ambiguity into a process that is supposed to be simple because it is objective and easy to apply. The point of the highly specialized process under Section 6409 is rapid processing of objectively insubstantial changes. But for a locality (or a wireless provider) to determine whether the mandatory approval process should apply under this new guidance, the parties would now need to determine whether a condition was reasonable, not just whether it was a validly-adopted condition and whether the proposed change fits within the Commission’s objective thresholds. This will slow things down 124 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7)(vi). 125 Specifically, the Commission states its new codified guidance would state: If there was express evidence that the shroud cover requirement was a condition of the locality’s original approval, the locality could enforce its shrouding condition if the provider could reasonably install a four-foot shroud to cover the new four-foot antenna. The locality also could enforce a shrouding requirement that was not size- specific and that did not limit modifications allowed under section 1.6100(b)(7)(i)- (iv). NPRM, ¶ 24 (emphasis added). 588 34 and will unfairly impinge on localities that complied with the Commission’s rules. To adopt such a change would be arbitrary and capricious. The Commission also asks whether it should codify the following guidance: Under the proposal, existing walls and fences around non-stealth designed facilities would be considered aesthetic conditions and not concealment elements. However, if there was express evidence that the wall or fence was a condition of approval in order to fully obscure the original equipment from view, the locality may require a provider to make reasonable efforts to extend the wall or fence to continue covering the equipment.126 Local Communities agree that permit conditions should continue to apply when they are adopted to obscure the original equipment from view, but as explained above, Local Communities do not agree that a reasonableness condition is helpful or will effectively implement the goals of Section 6409. Further, as explained above, the Commission should not preempt any CUPs under Section 6409.127 B.The Commission must ensure mandatory Section 6409 changes remain insubstantial. The Commission should reconsider its current rules and only adopt new rules or guidance that complies with the limits inherent in Section 6409. By its terms, eligible facility requests only apply to a modification that “does not substantially change . . . physical dimensions.”128 The Commission’s existing rules do not comply with that statutory standard. For example, the Commission’s existing rules permit unlimited additional cabinets and unlimited additional equipment that does not meet the definition of cabinets under the Commission’s most recent interpretations. 126 NPRM, ¶ 25 (emphasis added). 127 Supra Part II.C.2. 128 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1). 589 35 Likewise some of the guidance, as proposed, is flawed as it does not consider the cumulative impact on stealth facilities on locations that might contain multiple collocations where providers might be able to obtain multiple mandatory changes via Section 6409. The Commission’s assertion that one coaxial cable would not render the stealth design ineffective129 is meaningless as the proposed guidance does nothing to prevent multiple cables or multiple other changes that could reasonably be expected cumulatively to produce excessive visual impacts that would render the stealth design ineffective. The Commission should, at a minimum, account for such cumulative effects in its guidance. Under the new legal standards appropriately cabining the Commission’s authority to interpret statutory terms, the Commission has less latitude to stretch the statute than it once had. The Commission’s rules therefore should appropriately limit mandatory changes to insubstantial ones. V.THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADDRESS RF RULES BUT NOT ADOPT OTHER PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS. The Commission does not need to adopt new rules prohibiting what federal law already accomplishes: local governments are already prohibited from considering radiofrequency (RF) emissions.130 Local Communities do support initiation of proceedings to thoroughly review the latest scientific data and update the Commission’s current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Many commenters have highlighted the need for updates to the Commission’s RF emissions standards both in this docket and in the Delete, Delete docket.131 Local governments hear public 129 NPRM, ¶ 21. 130 NPRM, ¶ 61. 131 See, e.g., PA Safe Technology, GN Docket No. 25-133 at 1-2 (filed April 11, 2025); People’s Initiative, GN Docket No. 25-133 at 2-3 (filed April 11, 2025); Environmental Health Sciences, GN Docket No. 25-133 at 2-20 (filed April 11, 2025). 590 36 concerns about RF emissions on a regular basis, often at meetings that last long into the evening or early hours of the morning, even though local officials are barred by federal law from considering the health and environmental effects of RF emission exposure if proposed facilities meet existing standards. As multiple commenters have noted, the Commission has yet to take action following the D.C. Circuit Court’s 2021 decision overturning the Commission’s decision to terminate its Notice of Inquiry on this topic because “the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.”132 Thirty-year-old standards do little to quell public concerns about the issue—particularly given the rapid advancement in RF technology. The Commission should therefore comply with the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling and finish its proceeding to consider whether its current RF guidelines should be the subject of a rulemaking proceeding, or alternatively, provide a reasoned justification that its existing guidelines do, in fact, protect against the harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation.133 It is in everyone’s best interests to recognize that siting RF emitting equipment ever closer to the general public will heighten RF anxiety, and the Commission alone bears the regulatory authority and responsibility to address public concerns about siting in closer proximity to the public through updated standards. 132 Env’t Health Tr. v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 133 See id. at 944, the Commission must: (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment. 591 37 The Commission should not act on its other proposals, such as further action on moratoria, which is unnecessary given the current guidance and ample opportunities for wireless companies to address any violations through existing legal mechanisms. Further, Local Communities do not support Commission action on Artificial Intelligence. As explained above, the Commission lacks legal authority to address AI beyond its authority over common carriage and personal wireless services. VI.CONCLUSION The Commission should not proceed on the proposals it has put forward, instead it should issue a further notice considering adequately the legal implications of the new developments in administrative law and determining how to better align Commission actions within the confines of its authority. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Cheryl A. Leanza Cheryl A. Leanza Gail A. Karish Gerard Lavery Lederer Tillman L. Lay BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 1800 K Street N.W., Suite 725 Washington, D.C. 20006 Cheryl.Leanza@bbklaw.com Counsel for Arlington, TX; Bellevue, WA; Boston, MA; Bowie, MD; Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA; Coachella Valley Water District; Culver City, CA; Dallas, TX; District of Columbia; Fontana, CA; Gaithersburg, MD; Henderson, NV; Hillsborough, CA; Howard County, MD; Marin County, CA; Monterey, CA; Montgomery County, MD; Ontario, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Piedmont, CA; Piscataway, NJ; Plano, TX; Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; and Upland, CA 592 38 Michael J. Watza (P38726) Nathan D. Inks (P80213) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 400 Renaissance Center, Suite 400 Detroit, MI 48243 O: (313) 309-7288 C: (248) 921-3888 mike@bloomsluggett.com nathan@bloomsluggett.com Counsel for Ann Arbor, MI; Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-Of-Way; Michigan Municipal League; and Michigan Townships Association December 31, 2025 593 39 APPENDIX Description of Client Coalitions The MML is a Michigan non-profit corporation, an association representing approximately 524 political subdivisions, predominantly cities and villages. Its purpose is to make Michigan’s communities better by thoughtfully innovating programs, energetically connecting ideas and people, actively serving members with resources and services, and passionately inspiring positive change for Michigan’s greatest centers of potential: its communities. See https://mml.org/. The MTA is a Michigan non-profit corporation, an association representing approximately 1,240 townships. Its purpose is to advance local democracy by fostering township leadership and public policy essential for a strong and vibrant Michigan. See https://michigantownships.org/. PROTEC is a thirty-year-old governmental consortium of more than one hundred Michigan municipalities focusing on our public rights-of-way and the intersection with those many utilities occupying and those seeking access to occupy and utilize our public rights-of-way. See https://www.protec-mi.org/. The Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues is a coalition of 74 municipalities dedicated to supporting the interests of Texas cities and their citizens with regard to utility issues. Comprised of large municipalities and rural villages, TCCFUI monitors the activities of the United States Congress, the Texas Legislature and state and federal regulatory agencies. See https://tccfui.org/. 594 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9h MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203 Subject: Confirmation of the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2026 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council review, make changes if necessary, and approve the Mayor’s Council assignments for 2026. Exhibit: 2026 Council Assignments 595 CITY OF BURLINGAME 2025 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS – Revised January 20, 2026 Committee Schedule Bold names are members, alternates in parentheses. 1 ABAG – City Delegate Annually Stevenson (Colson) 2 Advanced Life Support (Ambulance) JPA Meets on the third Wednesday of January, May, and September at 6:30 p.m. Thayer (Pappajohn) 3 Airport Land Use Commission (NB: C/CAG subcommittee) Meets quarterly Pappajohn 4 Americans Supporting Americans Meets as needed Thayer 5 Audit Committee Meets two to three times per year, including once in December Colson & Stevenson 6 Caltrain Modernization Policymaker Group Meets on the fourth Thursday of each month, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Stevenson (Thayer) 7 Central County Fire Board Meets four times a year, generally the second Wednesday of February, April, September, and December, at 4:00 p.m. (NOTE: Minimum 2-year terms. Stevenson appointed January 2022.) Stevenson & Thayer 8 Chamber of Commerce Liaison Meets on the second Tuesday of each month, 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Pappajohn & Stevenson 9 City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Meets on the second Thursday of each month, 6:30 p.m. Stevenson (Pappajohn) 10 City/Schools Liaison Committee Meets three times a year, usually midweek in the afternoon Colson & Pappajohn 596 11 Commute.org (formerly called Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance) Meets every other month on Thursday at 8:00 a.m. Thayer (Brownrigg) 12 Dog Park Advisory Group Meets as needed Colson & Pappajohn 13 Economic Development Subcommittee Meets on the second Thursday of the month, 8:15 a.m. Colson & Pappajohn 14 Emergency Services Council (quarterly) Meets on the third Thursday in January, April, June, and September, 5:30 p.m. at Hall of Justice in Redwood City Pappajohn (Stevenson) 15 Enterprise Property Committee Meets as needed Brownrigg & Colson 16 Housing Fund (HOPE) Subcommittee Meets as needed Brownrigg & Colson 17 Measure I Oversight Committee Meets one to two times a year Colson & Stevenson 18 Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) Meets on the fourth Thursday of every month, 6:30 p.m. at 2075 Woodside Road, Redwood City, CA 94061 Colson (Thayer) 19 Post Office / Town Square Advisory Group Meets as needed Brownrigg & Colson 20 San Mateo County Home For All Meets quarterly and as needed via Zoom and in person, various locations Colson (Stevenson) 21 SFO Community Round Table Meets quarterly on the first Wednesday each month at 7:00 p.m. Thayer (Pappajohn) 22 RethinkWaste (formerly South Bay Waste Management Authority) 2026 Chair Master Plan Committee Finance Committee Meets quarterly, 2:00 p.m., Thursdays Brownrigg (Pappajohn) 597 HIGH PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES (APPOINTED BY MAYOR) 23 Broadway Grade Separation Meets as needed Stevenson & Thayer 24 City Hall Modernization and Safety Improvements Meets as needed Colson & Stevenson 25 Sea Level Rise Shoreline Protection Improvements Meets as needed Brownrigg & Colson 26 Recycled/Reclaimed Water Technology Meets as needed Stevenson & Thayer 27 Shuttles Meets as needed Brownrigg & Thayer 28 Vision Zero Meets as needed Pappajohn & Stevenson OTHER COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS; NOT SELECTED BY THE MAYOR 29 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Meets on the third Thursday of every other month, starting in January Stevenson 30 C/CAG Finance Meeting Meets quarterly, 12:00 p.m. at San Mateo City Hall, 330 W 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403 Colson 31 C/CAG Resource Management and Climate Protection Meets on the third Wednesday of the month, 3:00 p.m. in Redwood City or San Mateo Colson 32 OneShoreline Meets on the fourth Monday of month, 4:00 p.m. at 1700 S. El Camino Real Suite 502, San Mateo, CA 94402 Colson (North County Representative) 33 OneShoreline (San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Resiliency District) Meets on the second Monday of the month at 4:00 p.m. at San Mateo City Hall Colson (North County Representative) 34 Peninsula Clean Energy Committees: Executive Committee Audit Committee Finance Committee Meets monthly Colson 35 San Mateo County Housing and Development Committee Meets as need, four to six times a year Colson 598 36 Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) 2026 Chair Loan Committee Meets on the fourth Wednesday of the month Brownrigg ALL COUNCILMEMBERS MAY ATTEND THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS 37 Council of Cities Meets usually on the fourth Friday of each month, rotates between San Mateo County cities All 38 Peninsula Division League of California Cities Meets quarterly lunch on Wednesdays, plus January reception for newly elected Councilmembers All 599 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9i MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Alyssa Diaz, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two vacancies on the Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Committee. The vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Committee members Peter Roddy and Todd Gemmer. The recommended deadline is Friday, February 27, 2026. The appointments are for three-year terms ending February 20, 2029. BACKGROUND The City’s current commissioner (and committee member) appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner or Committee Member desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. 600 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9j MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Alyssa Diaz, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Impending Vacancies on the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill three impending vacancies, each with a four-year term, on the Planning Commission. The vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Chris Horan, Sean Lowenthal, and Audrey Tse. The recommended deadline is Friday, February 20, 2026. This will allow applicants an opportunity to view the January 26 and February 9, 2026, Planning Commission meetings. BACKGROUND The City’s current Commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two- year waitlist will be informed of the vacancies. 601 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Helen Yu-Scott, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Tamar Burke, Assistant City Attorney – (650) 558-7275 Subject: Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 6.54 "Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District" to Adjust the Fiscal Year of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District from October 1 - September 30 to July 1 - June 30; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378, 15601(b)(3) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider any protests to adjusting the fiscal year of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID) from October 1 – September 30 to July 1 – June 30, and if there is not a majority protest, introduce and adopt the first reading of the proposed Ordinance amending the DBID fiscal year. Recommended Procedure and Order of Operations Open the public hearing, receive the staff report, and ask any questions of staff. Receive any public comment and protest votes. Close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out the number of written protests filed with the City; and Discuss the Ordinance and by motion determine whether to bring it back for a second reading and adoption. BACKGROUND Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the Burlingame City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1735 in 2004, establishing the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID) for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the downtown Burlingame Avenue business area. A majority protested the renewal of the DBID in 2007, and the DBID assessment was not renewed at that time. In the summer of 2010, the DBID was reinstated after the City Council amended the ordinance to revise the assessment method and amount (Ordinance No.1854, BMC 6.54 et seq.) Since that time, the DBID has provided important services to enhance downtown Burlingame businesses' activities, events, and publicity. 602 Burlingame Ave. (Downtown) BID - Intent to change fiscal year period January 20, 2026 2 DISCUSSION The DBID currently operates on a fiscal year that begins October 1 and ends September 30. California Streets and Highway Code section 36541 authorizes the City Council by resolution of intention to change the method and basis of levying assessm ents, including changing the fiscal year for the District, provided that notice is given and a public hearing is held in accordance with the statute. The DBID desires to align the District’s fiscal year with the City’s regular fiscal year, beginning July 1 and ending June 30, to improve administrative efficiency, budgeting consistency, financial reporting, and service coordination. With the City Council's support, the District wishes to adjust the next fiscal year and every subsequent fiscal year to begin on July 1st. The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the public hearing for adjusting the DBID’s fiscal year on December 15, 2025, and established January 20, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time (Resolution No.148-2025). Following the Council’s adoption of the Resolution of Intention, the Resolution of Intention and the Notice of Public Hearing were published in a local newspaper on January 7, 2026, and the Finance Department mailed a copy of the adopted Resolution of Intention and a Notice of Public Hearing as required by law to all affected businesses within the DBID. The public hearing allows the businesses to voice their opinions, comments, suggestions, and concerns directly to the City Council. Members of the public may view the meeting either in person or by logging into the Zoom meeting through the link published within the meeting agenda on the City’s website or by accessing the meeting by phone. Access information will be found at www.burlingame.org. At the public hearing, the City Council may receive testimony and evidence. Interested persons may submit oral protests at the hearing, or written protests or comments before or at the public hearing. Written protests may also be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at City Hall. Any written protest against the proposed assessments or programs and services must be filed with the clerk at or before 7:00 pm on January 20, 2026. Each written protest must identify the business and its address and include a description of the business and the amount of the assessment imposed on that business for the 2025-26 fiscal year. A written protest that does not comply with the Streets and Highways Code will not be counted in determining a majority protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if owners representing 50% or more of the total assessments levied by the DBID during the 2025-2026 fiscal year have submitted lawful written protests, then the City Council shall not consider an ordinance adjusting the fiscal year of the District for one year following the finding of a majority protest. If there is no majority protest, the City Council may introduce and have the first reading of the ordinance, with a second reading at a subsequent regular City Council meeting. 603 Burlingame Ave. (Downtown) BID - Intent to change fiscal year period January 20, 2026 3 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact from changing the fiscal year period, except for staff time. Exhibit: Proposed Ordinance 604 ORDINANCE N0. __ -2026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 6.54, “BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,” OF TITLE 6 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BY ADJUSTING THE FISCAL YEAR TO JULY 1 – JUNE 30; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15601(b)(3) WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame originally established the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District ("District") in 2004 for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district, and WHEREAS, a majority protest was made against renewal of the District in 2007 and, accordingly, the District was not renewed at that time; and WHEREAS, in 2010 the District was re-instituted after the City Council amended the ordinance to revise the method and amount of the assessments and no majority protest was made against the revised assessments (Ordinance No. 1854, codified in Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 6.54 et seq.); and WHEREAS, the District has provided important services in enhancing the downtown Burlingame Avenue business area, its businesses and properties; and WHEREAS, the District currently operates on a fiscal year beginning October 1 and ending September 30; and WHEREAS, California Streets and Highways Code Section 36541 authorizes the City Council, following a Resolution of Intention, to change the method and basis of levying assessments, including changing the fiscal year for the District, provided that notice is given and a public hearing is held in accordance with the statute; and WHEREAS, the District desires to align the District’s fiscal year with the City’s regular fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30, to improve administrative efficiency, budgeting consistency, financial reporting, and coordination of services; and WHEREAS, the District, with the support of the City Council, wishes to adjust the next fiscal year and every subsequent fiscal year begins on July 1st; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 36541(b), on December 15, 2025, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to change the fiscal year of the District to July 1 – June 30, and set a public hearing on the proposed change for January 20, 2026 (Resolution no. 148-2025); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 36523, copies of the City Council’s Resolution were duly mailed to all business owners within the District, and the Resolution of Intention was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Burlingame as required by applicable law; and 605 WHEREAS, following the public hearing on January 20, 2026, held pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 36524 and 36541, all oral and written protests were duly considered, and the City Council determined that no majority protest existed within the meaning of the Streets & Highways Code Sections 36524, 36525 and 36541. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals Incorporated The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. Amending Section 6.54.010 of Chapter 6.54 of Title 6 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.54.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, “Definitions”, is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: “The following definitions shall apply to this chapter: ‘District’ means the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District. ‘Financial’ means a business that offers bank, savings and loan, thrift, title insurance, or credit union financial services. ‘Fiscal year’ means July 1st to and including June 30th of the following year. ‘Government’ means public, local, state or federal agencies. ‘Professional’ means attorneys, architects, engineers, surveyors, physicians, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors and others in a medical/health service field, consultants, real estate brokers, laboratories (including dental and optical), hearing aid services, artists, insurance brokers, and designers. ‘Restaurant’ means businesses that sell prepared food and/or drink and includes cafés, eating establishments, sandwich shops, dinner houses, restaurants, bars, fast food services, and other similar businesses. ‘Retail’ means businesses that buy and resell goods and includes all businesses not covered by other definitions set out in this section, at least 50% of whose gross income is derived from ‘retail sales’ as that term is defined under the California Sales and Use Tax Law. The fact that a substantial part of its business consists of sales and other than retail sales does not exclude such business from this classification so long as such other business component does not account for more than 50% of such business's gross income. 606 ‘Service’ means businesses that sell services, include general offices, news and advertising media, printers, photographers, personal care facilities and outlets, contractors/builders, service stations, repairing and servicing businesses, automobile repair shops, insurance brokers, renting and leasing businesses, utilities, vending machine businesses, beauty service, and other similar businesses not otherwise included in the other definitions of this section. ‘Salons’ mean personal service businesses which provide tanning, nail and hair personal services to individual customers on the premises.” Section 3. Amending Section 6.54.070 of Chapter 6.54 of Title 6 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.54.070 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, “Collection of benefit assessment”, in its entirety is hereby amended to read as follows: “The benefit assessment authorized by this chapter shall be billed in May of each year, shall be due on July 1st of each year and shall be delinquent on August 1st of each year. The city will make such collections in the same manner as it collects the business license fee. The city will forward collected funds to the advisory board monthly.” Section 4. No Other Changes Unless otherwise explicitly amended as described herein, all other provisions of Chapter 6.54 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Section 5. CEQA Determination The City Council finds and determines this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Section 6. Severability Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance are expressly dependent on one another and are intended to operate jointly. If any portion of either Section 2 or Section 3 is held invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then both Sections 2 and 3 shall be rendered invalid and without effect. In such event, the provisions of the prior ordinance that Sections 2 and 3 sought to amend shall automatically remain, or revert to being, in full force and effect as if this Ordinance had not amended them. Section 7. Effective Date 607 The Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption. Section 8. Publication The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance according to the provisions of state law. Section 9. Codification Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Burlingame Municipal Code. Sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall not be so codified. _____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 20, 2026, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on February 2, 2026, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _____________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 608 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2026 From: Brad McCulley, City Librarian – (650) 558-7401 Subject: Consideration of Arts Commission Task Force Findings RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the following recommendations from the ad hoc Arts Commission Task Force – Leslie Holzman (Chair), Preeti Deb, and Janet Martin – and give guidance regarding next steps. BACKGROUND At the August 19, 2024, City Council meeting, the Parks and Recreation Director, City Librarian, and Community Development Director submitted a staff report recommending the establishment of a City Arts Liaison Committee in order to give the process of considering public art a more professional review. This Arts Liaison Committee would, in turn, work with the relevant commission or board to accept or refuse art donations. This Arts Liaison Committee was intended to be a stopgap measure until an actual Arts Commission was feasible. At the December 16, 2024, City Council meeting, staff recommended foregoing the Arts Liaison Committee and forming an ad hoc Art Commission Task Force to explore the feasibility of a permanent Arts Commission, in place of arts liaisons, to provide guidance on the following topics: ● Inventory and assessment of current public art ● Processes for acquiring art ● Funding sources for future public art ● Community & Public art engagement ● Art Commission make-up, staffing, and experience The City Council subsequently appointed Preeti Deb, Leslie Holtzman (Chair), and Janet Martin as task force members. DISCUSSION 609 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 2 Working with the City Librarian, this Task Force met regularly over the past year to provide feedback and recommendations on the five Arts Commission topics requested by the City Council. The group also discussed the need for and benefits of art in a public setting and how art can benefit the Burlingame community. Some examples of topics discussed included: ● Building a Sense of Place – Art reflects a community's history, values, and diversity, creating unique landmarks and a stronger sense of belonging. ● Fostering Social Cohesion – Shared art experiences connect people, encourage interaction, and build social bonds, turning public areas into community centers. ● Promoting Dialogue – Public art sparks conversations, raises awareness about social issues, and challenges assumptions, giving voice to communities. ● Driving Local Economy – Vibrant public art attracts visitors, supports local businesses, revitalizes neglected areas, increases property values, and contributes to economic growth. ● Enhancing the Visual Environment – Art transforms dull spaces into engaging, user-friendly environments, improving walkability and aesthetic appeal. ● Increasing Accessibility – Art democratizes by bringing it out of galleries and into everyday life, making it accessible to all, regardless of background. ● Improving Mental Health – Art provides therapeutic benefits, reduces stress, sparks joy, and offers moments of hope and contemplation. ● Stimulating Creativity & Learning – Art inspires critical thinking, problem-solving, and new ideas, enriching educational and personal development. Art Inventory At the City Council's suggestion, a college intern was brought on board to assist with an art inventory. Leo Liu, a student at UC Santa Barbara, began work in mid-April and continued until the end of August. Much of this work involved visiting each piece of art, researching its history, and adding metadata for the cataloging process. There are currently 38 cataloged pieces of art listed in the Burlingame Art Visual Map 2025. Not all pieces come under the heading of “public art” in the sense that the City of Burlingame is responsible for their maintenance. Some are privately owned but visible to the public. This map will continue to be a work in progress, but currently, the basic framework is a Google map created by a previous intern in the City Clerk’s office. One of the intern’s additional goals was to research other possible art cataloging databases or software that may be useful in the future. As public art increases and as the need for more robust cataloging of the City’s art progresses, the amount of data recorded will require a more formal database or software to encompass all the information needed, such as appraisals, provenance documents, and maintenance schedules. The following software was reviewed and may be appropriate for this purpose: CollectiveAccess (https://www.collectiveaccess.org/), CollectionSpace (https://collectionspace.org/), and Artlogic (https://artlogic.net/). Processes for Art Acquisition Over the years, the City has received donations of many interesting pieces of art. After losing their 610 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 3 rented space in North Burlingame, for example, the former Peninsula Museum of Art donated the iconic Benny Buffano owl sculpture located at the entrance of the Main Library and known locally as Owlbert. Lance Fung, a consultant the City hired to help with the Anson Burlingame piece in Washington Park, donated the art installation “Words” by artist Robert Barry. The installation is situated on a hillside on Airport Boulevard, facing the Bay. Even rarer but just as interesting is the 17th-century Flemish tapestry depicting scenes from the Crusades found in a Hillsborough basement in the 1960s and now hanging in the Main Library foyer. There are many other options for acquiring public art that the City could consider in the future, including: Direct commissioning – The City could directly engage a specific artist to create a custom, new work of art according to negotiated specifications, rather than purchase an existing piece. Depending on the agreement with the artist, the City could give input on the piece at different levels, such as selecting the subject or even the style. Meanwhile, the artist provides their expertise and artistic vision to bring this request to life in a personalized piece. Some cities maintain art registries or rosters of pre-qualified artists to streamline the art commissioning process. Partnerships with developers – The following City codes, regulations, and policies encourage partnerships with developers or mandate the inclusion of public art in projects: o Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.12.070 Design Principles for the Innovative Industrial Zoning District. Art and Murals. Subdivision C: Use of murals, artwork, sculptures, special paving, and fountains is encouraged to be incorporated into building design to provide interest and excitement to the district. o North Rollins Road Specific Plan (5.10 Art in Public Spaces): The North Rollins Road Specific Plan requires commercial development over 2,000 square feet and residential development over 10 units to install public art as part of the project or pay a 0.5 percent in- lieu fee. The Community Benefit Development Incentive allows projects that must provide a community benefit to provide additional public art, above the 0.5 percent minimum, as a community benefit at a total valuation of 0.7 percent of the project. o Downtown Specific Plan: The Downtown Specific Plan has a variety of policies to encourage the installation of public art within open spaces and in the streetscape design. o Zoning Code Update (DRAFT): The Zoning Code Update the City Council will be considering in February 2026 includes the addition of public art as a community benefit option in the high-density residential, industrial, commercial and mixed-use zoning districts (R-3, R-4, BFC, I-I, NBMU, and RRMU zones). A project can receive additional height, density, or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with the incorporation of community benefits. The Public Art Community Benefit option requires the installation of public art with a valuation of 1.0 percent of the project construction costs with the project. Loan programs with Bay Area artists and museums – Art loan programs involve formal agreements for artists, collectors, or other museums to lend artworks to a borrowing institution (like a museum) for specific periods, allowing display, research, or broader public access, often with strict insurance, handling, and documentation, while benefiting lenders with visibility and museums with richer collections. These range from short-term exhibition loans to long-term 611 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 4 loans (years), extended loans (decades), and even "permanent loans" (intended gifts for tax benefits). Art residencies and competitions – Art residencies and competitions are structured programs to engage artists in the creation of public art, foster community engagement, and enhance civic cultural landscapes. These programs are typically governed by clear policies and managed through a formal selection process to ensure transparency and artistic merit. Donations and gifts – Art can and has been donated to the City of Burlingame many times over the years. If donated or loaned, artwork should meet the criteria for selection or acceptance, placement or site selection, and funding for projected maintenance. Proposed Funding for Burlingame Public Art Program/Arts Commission Any of the following funding recommendations could be relevant for a viable Arts Commission to be successful. The Council may want to consider more than one option or choose one and build a funding framework over a period of time with a combination of funding sources. Once one or more of these programs is in place, then funds will accrue in a more substantial way that can be used for ongoing maintenance, conservation and repairs, arts and cultural programming, and permanent or temporary artwork commissions, rather than relying on a budget allocation from the General Fund. Percent-for-Art Program: This type of program would necessitate the passage of an ordinance requiring developers to contribute a small percentage of their new building or large-scale renovation project costs towards public art. The funds are usually earmarked for on-site public art projects or contributed to an in-lieu fund. Such a fund can be used for commissioning artwork, artwork maintenance and conservation, or arts programming. Percent-for-Art programs are a common way to enrich public spaces and enhance the community's cultural environment. The Task Force recommends a Burlingame Percent-for-Art Program that requires private developers of non-residential buildings over $500,000 to allocate 1% of project costs for on-site public art or contribute 1% of project costs to the City of Burlingame Public Art Fund. Residential projects over 10 units would be required to allocate 0.5% of project costs for on-site public art or contribute the equivalent to the Public Art Fund. To implement a percent-for-art requirement would necessitate a nexus study, which is recommended to be undertaken as soon as feasible. Without this funding mechanism, very little public art in Burlingame will be realized, but it is also recognized that this will take time to complete. The following Percent-for-Art programs are in place in nearby cities: San Francisco ● Private development: requires 1% of the construction cost for qualifying projects, typically in downtown C-3 zones and other districts, to provide public art or pay an in-lieu fee to the Public Art Trust Fund. ● Civic projects: require 2% of the total gross estimated construction cost for public projects. Peninsula/South Bay ● Belmont: Developers must provide visible on-site public art worth 1% of the construction valuation or pay an in-lieu fee of 1.1% of the building valuation. 612 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 5 ● Palo Alto: Private developers must provide on-site public art equal to 1% of the first $100 million of construction valuation. For municipal projects, the City allocates 1% of its annual Capital Improvement Program budget. ● Redwood City: Developers of certain projects are required to allocate 1% of the construction cost to public art or pay an in-lieu fee. ● San Jose: The City's ordinance sets aside 1% of the annual budget for capital improvement projects. Private developers can either dedicate 1% of project costs to on-site artwork or pay 0.6% of project costs into a public art trust fund. Maintenance Fund: Until a dedicated funding source is established, the Task Force recommends that, in the first year, a $50,000 budget be earmarked for the Arts Commission to undertake an initial conservation/maintenance assessment of existing public artwork in the City collection. Because the City owns and is responsible for the care of many pieces of artwork, the identification of appropriate ongoing maintenance needs and any immediate repairs or conservation measures should be a priority. Once the needs are understood, and until such time as other funding mechanisms contribute to a workable fund, the Arts Commission would request funding from the City Council for a small budget for specifically identified conservation and repair projects. Arts Activation Fund: Additionally, the Task Force recommends that the Arts Commission receive a $50,000 programming budget to activate arts and cultural activities in the community (see community engagement section). CIP Budget Percent: The Task Force also recommends that 1% of the City of Burlingame’s annual capital improvement program CIP budget be allocated to on-site public art or contributed to the Public Art Fund. Grants: An Arts Commission can pursue sponsorships and grant opportunities from the federal government, the state, private foundations, and corporations for arts and cultural programming. Voluntary Arts Contribution Fund: The City Council might also consider an opportunity for donation “crowdfunding,” such as the San Francisco County model of annually including a flyer promoting its Voluntary Arts Contribution Art Fund with the property tax bill. (see attachment) TOT Percentage: In the future, the City Council might consider a measure to increase the transient occupancy tax (TOT) to be more in line with neighboring cities. If so, a small percentage of the TOT could be allocated to arts and cultural uses in Burlingame. (Note that TOTs are usually levied as general taxes. Any specific promise to the voters to spend a certain percentage of the TOT on arts and cultural uses would turn the tax into a specific tax, requiring a 2/3 vote in favor.) In San Francisco, for example, Proposition E, passed in 2018, ensures that 1.5% of San Francisco’s 14% hotel tax is directed to arts and culture initiatives . TOT rates in nearby cities range from 2% in Burlingame and Redwood City to 14% in Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Francisco, to 15.5% in Palo Alto. Public Art Engagement 613 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 6 The Task Force envisions a Burlingame where engaging, vibrant, and diverse public art strengthens the community, fosters a sense of place and belonging, and catalyzes positive social change. A universal sentiment among the Task Force members was that art in Burlingame should illuminate the local human experience and inspire connection and inclusion. The following attempts to articulate this sentiment: An Arts Commission values: ● Responsiveness to Community Needs: Dedicated to evaluating local issues and needs when commissioning/accepting art. ● Cultural and Racial Diversity and Inclusion: Celebrates the rich tapestry of cultures within the community and actively promotes artistic expressions that reflect this diversity. ● Accessibility: Believes that public art should exist in hubs throughout the communities and geographies of our city (Downtown Burlingame, Broadway, and in the parks across the city). And be dedicated to developing programs that funnel art created by the community into our public spaces. ● Collaboration and Partnerships: Supporting local organizations and artists. ● Education and Enrichment: Recognizing the transformative power of arts education and its ability to enhance learning, creativity, and critical thinking. ● Accessibility and Equity: Public Art in Burlingame should invite everyone to participate in the conversation. Public art should exist in hubs throughout the communities and geographies of our city. Examples: Downtown Burlingame, Broadway District, and the parks across the city. ● Place Making and Place Keeping: Art should help create the “feeling of Burlingame” - a place where residents feel seen and experience a sense of belonging. The Task Force developed the following examples of proposed initiatives and timelines: Quick Initiatives – Year 1 ● Free Vendor Artist Booth at the Fresh Market: Create a dedicated space where local artists and artisans can sell their work, building visibility and economic opportunity for Burlingame's creative community. ● Community Input: Community members can provide direct input on arts projects, funding priorities, and vision for public art in Burlingame. ● Student-Led Beautification Projects: Collaborate with schools to allocate small grants for students to transform overlooked local spaces, such as electrical boxes, fire hydrants, trash cans, and water utilities, into works of art. Foundational Programs – Years 1-2 ● Annual Community-Centered Public Art Grants: Award five grants of $5-$10K each to fund temporary, community-centered public art projects that activate underused spaces and respond to local priorities such as climate resilience, equity, and cultural awareness. ● Cultural Ambassadors Program: Appoint Cultural Ambassadors from diverse backgrounds to connect with local artists and arts organizations. These ambassadors will inform the community about grants, promote informational sessions, and ensure resources reach artists on the ground. ● Burlingame Mural Project: Similar to the SF StreetSmARTS Mural Program, pair artists with property owners and local businesses to paint murals that beautify neighborhoods and deter 614 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 7 graffiti, bringing vibrancy to commercial corridors and residential areas (e.g. Broadway/Burlingame Plaza). Longer-Term Vision – Years 2-3 ● Creative City Making Initiative: Include local artists in City development projects, integrating artistic perspectives into urban planning and infrastructure improvements. Example: Minneapolis Creative CityMaking ● Artist in Residence (AIR) Program: Partner artists with City departments to create art that strengthens civic dialogue and community engagement. This would be open to Bay Area artists, with priority given to Burlingame residents. ● Community Arts Festival: Launch an annual arts festival featuring live art-making contests, mural competitions, performances, and exhibitions that celebrate local talent and bring the community together. ● Central Cultural Hub: Support the development of a low-cost community arts center that provides studio space, performance venues, classes, and resources to democratize access to arts programming. Art Commission Make-up, Experience, Potential Duties, and Staffing The Task Force recommends that the Arts Commission be made up of five members appointed by the City Council who have demonstrated a “deep interest in and appreciation of artistic and cultural matters.” Similar to most of the City’s other Commissions, the terms would be three years each. At least four of the members should be persons active in and representative of one or more of the following fields: architecture, art, design, video/film, literary arts, marketing/advertising, music, public relations, theater, or visual arts. Commissioners must be at least 18 years of age, although the City Council could also consider appointing a non-voting 16 – 18 year old student interested in the arts and City government to the commission. The Task Force further recommends that the City Council consider allowing one or two members of this Commission to reside in Hillsborough. As with the Library Board, many Hillsborough residents consider the Burlingame downtown area and business districts an extension of their community. The Commission’s potential duties include: Advisory Role: Advise City Council, City staff, and other Boards and Commissions on matters relating to culture, the arts, and, in some cases, historical preservation. Public Art Management: Oversee the acquisition, installation, maintenance, and, if necessary, removal of artwork in public spaces. Policy Development: Develop and recommend policies, guidelines, and strategic plans for arts facilities, public art, and cultural programming. Community Engagement & Advocacy: Promote the arts, increase public access to cultural events, and foster relationships with local arts organizations and artists. Financial Oversight: Review and recommend the allocation of City funds for arts, culture, and special events. Project Review: Working with different City departments, evaluate proposals for new art projects, including reviewing the artist, site, and design. 615 Art Commission Task Force January 20, 2026 8 The Library will provide staff support to the Arts Commission. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact will vary based on Council decisions related to recommended funding sources described above. Exhibit: San Francisco Voluntary Art Contribution Flyer 616 VOLUNTARY ARTS CONTRIBUTION FUND making a big difference San Francisco isn't just where we live - it's where creativity thrives. Our theaters, concert halls, galleries, and cinemas make this city a world-class arts destination. Circus Bella, Photo by: Aaron Weinstock Since 1984, the Voluntary Arts Contribution Fund (\/ACF), a program of Grants for the Arts, has been powered entirely b y residents like you. By donating through Give2SF.org, you help keep the arts vibrant in every neighborhood, from world- renowned institutions to small community stages. Your contribution helps local arts organizations repair and maintain facilities, make capital improvements, and purchase essential equipment. These behind-the-scenes investments that keep performances happening and creativity flowing. Here's how you can support us: Scan the QR code and give today! Or visit Give2SF.org San Francisco is a city where the arts aren't just surviving, they're thriving! P/gem cutandkeep ffifssgffon mryourremm. P/aies cutandindude This sgffon with yourproperty taxbill. Other way to donate: Thank you for donating to Voluntary Arts Contribution Fund. This contribution is to be used exclusively for public purpose only. No goods or services were received in exchange for this gift. Give2SF's Federal Tax IQ # 94-6000417 Amount $ Date: I have added the following amount to my property tax payment. [:l $50 Q $100 Q $500 Q Other: Name: Email: City law requires us to disclose certain information about the sources of outside funding. Please check the boxes that apply to you so that we can comply with our disclosure obligations. [2 I have no financial interest with the City. Q I am currently seeking or have obtained within the last 12 months - a contract, lease, license, permit, or other entitlement for use from a City Department. If so, which depdment:617