HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.18.2020 P&R Commission Packet - FINAL
Agenda
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
7:00 p.m.
Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The regular meetings are held
on the third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Services
Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. If this is your first time, the following is a
general outline of our procedures.
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public
record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular
meeting will be made available for public inspection at the Parks and Recreation Department in the
Municipal Services Building. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular
meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the
location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Commission on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Chamber and submit it to the Director of
Parks and Recreation. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda item number you wish to address or the topic
of your public comment. California law prevents the Commission from taking action on any item not on the
Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for
investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name
and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER
SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
If you have special questions, please contact the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Director will be
pleased to answer your questions when the Commission is not in session.
KRISTY CAMACHO
CHAIRPERSON
ROBERT UY BETTY BATTAGLIA
VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER
RUTH DeNARDI STEPHEN FIRPO
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
WILLIAM LOCK
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
SHARON RANALS
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Agenda
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
Municipal Services Building Community Room
33 Arroyo Drive
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
7:00 p.m.
A G E N D A
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Agenda Review
V. Approval of Minutes of the January 21, 2020, Meeting
VI. Citizen Participation (Citizen comment on items not agendized/informational only)
VII. Beautification Committee
VIII. Old Business
A. Urban Forest Master Plan Update
IX. New Business
A. Preschool Study Session and Waiting List Survey
X. Friends of Parks and Recreation
XI. Items from Commission
XII. Items from Staff
A. Calendar of Events
B. Administrative Update
XIII. Adjournment
Next Meeting:
Regular Meeting: Tuesday, March 17, 2020
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES FROM MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of South San
Francisco was held on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, at the Municipal Services Building, 33
Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
II. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Battaglia, Camacho, DeNardi, Firpo, Lock, and Uy
Absent: All Present
Staff: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director
Angela Duldulao, Recreation Manager
Kari Jung, Administrative Assistant
Laura Armanino, Childcare Supervisor
Kelli Jo Cullinan, Senior Services Supervisor
Emma Lewis, Natural Resource Specialist
Kim Morrison, Childcare Assistant Supervisor
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Complete
IV. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE December 9, 2019, MEETING: No changes and
approved by motion as written. Motion: Commissioner Firpo / Seconded: Commissioner
DeNardi. Commissioner Lock abstained from voting due to his absence from the meeting.
VI. Citizen Participation:
None
VII. Presentation of Be a Team, Keep South City Clean Poster contest
Manager Duldulao presented the Commission with the results of the “Be a Team, Keep
South City Clean” poster contest. Chair Camacho assisted with presenting certificates to
the winners:
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of the Meeting of January 21, 2020
Page 2
Winners were selected from over 300 participants in kindergarten through 5th grades (one
from each grade level). Judges included Commissioners Uy and Lock, Cultural Arts
Commissioners, and Childcare staff:
Laura Armanino, Childcare Supervisor
Kelli Jo Cullinan, Senior Services Supervisor
Kim Morrison, Childcare Assistant Supervisor
Elisa Espinoza
Alondra Gomez
Kerry West
Casey Cullinan
Commissioner Uy extended a thank you to the participants expressing that the amazing
artwork was helpful in spreading the message.
Commissioner Lock concurred, adding that the parents should be proud as the artwork
submitted exceeded expectations. The new Civic Center Campus will have a place to
display the artwork.
Commissioner DeNardi shared that she found the artwork expressive and wanted the kids
to keep finding ways to share positive messages.
Chair Camacho congratulated the winners and thanked the childcare staff for their efforts
and acknowledged John Baker, School Board Trustee, for his presence.
Manager Duldulao informed the parents that staff would be displaying the artwork in the
MSB over the next few months.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of the Meeting of January 21, 2020
Page 3
Childcare staff was excused from the meeting to attend the SSFUSD Kindergarten
Information night and staff a table for families interested in afterschool programs.
VIII. Beautification Committee:
Rich Busalacchi shared that the committee discussed planning an Arbor Day event either
the 24th or 25th of April and that the Department’s Natural Resource Specialist, Emma
Lewis, made a presentation on the Sign Hill Stewards program which will be presented to
Commission later this evening.
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
Election of Secretary – Chair Camacho requested nominations for Secretary from the
Commission. Commissioner DeNardi nominated Commissioner Lock and Commissioner
Battaglia seconded. Commissioner Lock was elected to Secretary with a unanimous vote.
X. New Business:
A. Sign Hill Restoration Project Update
Deputy Director Mediati reminded the Commission that the City applied for $75,000
grant funding in 2017 for weed eradication and native planting which was awarded
in 2018 thanks to County Supervisor Pine’s office and paid for by Measure K funds.
He then introduced Natural Resource Specialist Lewis who updated the Commission
with a presentation on the Sign Hill Stewards project. Key points presented included:
The first volunteer event was held earlier in January and was well attended.
The official City flower is the Coast Iris and listed as a rare plant.
Harvard Ecologist, Edward O. Wilson, identified the ecosystem as one of 18
global biodiversity hotspots in need of protection.
Four Project Goals:
1. Identify, protect, and restore habitat for special-status animal and
plant species.
2. Protect and restore native grasslands.
3. Identify and remove stands of priority invasive plant species.
4. Establish a diverse and dedicated volunteer base to help with
restoration efforts.
Commissioner Firpo inquired if planting was occurring now and if tools were needed
or provided for the volunteer events. Natural Resource Specialist Lewis advised that
tools and snacks are provided for volunteers.
Commissioner Camacho commented that the information regarding the ecosystem as
one of 18 global biodiversity hotspots in need of protection was an interesting fact and
should be utilized when advertising volunteer events and updating status on the project,
along with the status of the Mission Blue Butterfly and the Coastal Iris.
Deputy Director Mediati confirmed that the next IPP event is scheduled for February
22nd at Sign Hill (outside of Emma’s project events on 02/12 and 02/15) from 9:00 a.m.
– 12:00 p.m. He thanked Emma and Josh for their efforts.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of the Meeting of January 21, 2020
Page 4
B. 2020 Calendar of Events Update
Manager Duldulao shared a draft of the recently updated Events Calendar which is
now presented in a brochure format. The most notable change is the July 4th fireworks
show and the September 100 year City Hall celebration are now being combined into
one event to be held in September, date to be determined. The April 24 date listed for
Arbor Day is the actual date of Arbor Day and not necessarily the event date.
Chair Camacho inquired if the City was hosting an Earth Day event as in the past.
Deputy Mediati advised that the City hasn’t hosted an Earth Day event since 2017
and was not planning to for 2020.
Commissioner Battaglia inquired if Movie Nights in the Park would be taking place
with the ballfield renovation projects. Deputy Mediati shared that the Movie Nights
took place in a different area than the ballfields and were scheduled for June and
August.
Commissioner Camacho inquired if the Wreath Making Workshop listed as
December 6th should be updated to the 13th or if it had been changed. Deputy Mediati
confirmed that the 13th was not ideal due to conflicting reservations and that the
workshop had been moved back to the 6th.
C. CPRS District 4 Awards Update
Deputy Mediati thanked the Commission for their quick responses to attend the
District 4 Awards Dinner (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) scheduled for
02/27 at 6:00 p.m. in Mountain View. Transportation is being arranged, and everyone
can meet up at the MSB. Volunteer awards include Jim Elder, Woody, Elder, former
Cultural Arts Commissioner Rena Donati, Richard Holt, and the Circle 3.0 tree
planting event.
Chair Camacho expressed her disappointment that she would be unable to attend.
XI. Friends of Parks and Recreation:
Nothing to report at this time.
XII. Items from Commission:
Commissioner Lock thanked the commissioners for electing him as Secretary. He also
wished everyone a Happy Lunar New Year.
Commissioner DeNardi reported that the agave plants on Westborough Blvd are growing
beautifully and that she appreciates receiving the weekly reports to council in the packets.
Commissioner Uy thanked the commissioners for electing him as Vice-Chair. He recently
visited several artificial turfs while visiting in Orange County and is impressed with the new
biodegradable options being utilized and agrees that this will be a good choice for the ball
fields at Orange Park, especially when the weather is bad.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of the Meeting of January 21, 2020
Page 5
Commissioner Firpo shared that IPP planting project at Orange Park was great, and Happy
New Year.
Commissioner Battaglia expressed that she had been under the weather in December,
however she attended the Council reorganization and the wreath making workshop.
Chair Camacho thanked staff for the bi-weekly reports sharing that she finds them helpful
in keeping up with what is going on. She was wondering if Little Steps could be added to
the REAL Holiday Boutique. She shared that the IPP cleanup event in December was
freezing cold, but a lot of fun. Seeing staff in their element and bonding while beautifying
our City was nice. Erin did a phenomenal job with the Nutcracker along with all of the
supporting recreation staff. Tribute to Commissioner Holt at the performance was
wonderful. She reiterated how much fun she had at the wreath workshop and reported to
Greg and Josh that she was really impressed with their team and how well organized the
event was.
XIII. Items from Staff:
A. February Calendar of Events.
Manager Duldulao shared the upcoming February calendar of events, highlighting:
Sr. Chinese New Year Party at the MSB on the 7th
Sr. Valentine Dance at Magnolia Center on the 14th
Cultural Arts General Art Show on the 14th-15th
District IV Awards Dinner in Mountain view on the 27th
Chair Camacho requested that 2 months of events be provided at future meetings.
B. Administrative Updates
Deputy Director Mediati pointed out that the Building Maintenance Facilities updates
are included in the new format presented giving the Commission more visibility on
the projects from that division.
Chari Camacho requested additional information from recreation staff regarding the
Big Lift conference to have information to share regarding the preschool expansions.
Manager Duldulao responded that staff will follow up on the request and then
acknowledged the promotions to full time staff for:
Kerry West, Rec Comm Srvcs Coordinator - Childcare
Alondra Gomez, Rec Comm Srvcs Coordinator - Childcare
Aleni Capaz, Rec Comm Srvcs Coordinator - Childcare
Veronica Ortiz, Rec Comm Srvcs Coordinator - Classes
C. CPRS Statewide Conference Registration
Commissioner Lock reminded the Commission that there are two awarding bodies to
provide recognition: CPRS and CAPRCBM.
The conference is 03/11 – 03/13 in Long Beach, CA this year and will be in San Diego
next year. Chair Camacho decided to join Commissioner Lock at the conference.
Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of the Meeting of January 21, 2020
Page 6
XIV. Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Kari Jung, Administrative Assistant II
Staff Report
DATE: February 18, 2020
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Urban Forest Master Plan Update RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the final draft Urban Forest Master Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As reported at the November 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, the City Council authorized funding for the creation of a citywide Urban Forest Master Plan. The purpose of an Urban Forest Master Plan is to develop a clear set of goals, policies and objectives that will provide direction for the development, improvement and enhancement of the City’s parks,
neighborhood and street trees, which collectively serve as the city’s “urban forest.” The plan will
serve as a tool to guide tree care and reforestation measures on an immediate, as well as long-term basis. As a reminder, the scope of the analysis for this plan includes the following:
1. Ensure that the City has an accurate and complete picture of its urban forest, both on public and private lands. The plan incorporates information from the City’s tree inventory. 2. Establish the urban forest as a public resource in a meaningful way. 3. Conduct analysis of canopy coverage and recommend an achievable goal for future canopy
coverage.
4. Establish the importance of sustainability in a meaningful way. The plan describes the need to create a more robust and climatically appropriate tree genera and updates the City’s preferred species list. 5. Provide a vision and strategic plan for effective and efficient management of the urban
forest – employing best practices and technical standards that reflect the latest
advancements in the field. 6. Review and incorporate resources (both within and external to the City), such as existing plans, the municipal code, and other professional resources. 7. Engage the community as stewards of the urban forest through education and
Staff Report To: Parks and Recreation Commission Date: February 18, 2020 Subject: Urban Forest Master Plan Update
encouragement. 8. Include a monitoring plan that will address the effectiveness of the plan. At the November 2019, staff received excellent feedback from the Commission, which was
forwarded to consultants and incorporated into the plan attached to this report. Some minor formatting changes will be made prior to the February 26, 2020 City Council Meeting, when City Council will be asked to formally adopt this plan, however the content presented here is what is proposed for the final document.
CONCLUSION A copy of the plan is attached to this staff report for the Commission’s information.
By: Greg Mediati Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
ATTACHMENT 1- Urban Forest Master Plan
CITY OFSouth San Francisco
URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
Someone is sitting in the shade today
because someone planted a tree a long
time ago.”
WARREN BUFFET
Prepared by:
DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC.
1500 North Mantua Street,Kent, OH 44240
www.daveyresourcegroup.com
CITY OF
South San Francisco
URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
Prepared for:
CITY OFSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
400 Grand Ave
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Acknowledgements
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR:
Rich Garbarino
VICE MAYOR:
Mark Addiego
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Karyl Matsumoto, Mark Nagales, Buenaflor Nicolas
PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
CITY STAFF AND DEPARTMENTS
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FIRE
DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, INC.
THANKS FOR GUIDANCE FROM FRIENDS OF THE URBAN FOREST.
SPECIAL THANKS TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPANTS.
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1 WHAT DO WE HAVE?
1 WHAT DO WE WANT?
2 HOW DO WE GET THERE?
3 HOW ARE WE DOING?
Introduction
6 COMMUNITY
South San Francisco History
7 VISION STATEMENT
7 TREE AND CANOPY BENEFITS
Air Quality Improvements
Carbon Dioxide Reductions
Water Quality Improvements
Energy Savings
Health Benefits
Wildlife Habitat
Wind Protection
Calculating Tree Benefits
What Do We Have?
14 HISTORY OF URBAN FORESTRY IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
15 John and Tina Previti
16 MICROCLIMATES
18 CLIMATE CHANGE
19 URBAN FOREST RESOURCE
Tree Canopy
Priority Planting
Community Tree Resource
31 URBAN FORESTRY OPERATIONS
Services
Tree Care Equipment
Tree Inventory Management
Pest Management
Safety
Community Engagement and Outreach
Sign Hill
Funding
Interdepartmental Coordination
Community Partnerships
Development
45 POLICIES AND REGULATION
Federal and State Law
South San Francisco Municipal Code
City Of South San Francisco General Plan
City Of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
48 TREE CARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
48 CONCLUSIONS
Table of Contents
How do we get there?
Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations
and cost efficiency
Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service.
Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments.
Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks staff in City development projects.
Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers.
Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively.
Focus Area: Enhance community safety
Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety.
Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest.
Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire.
Goal 9: Improve public safety.
Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits
of trees and canopy
Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting.
Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040.
Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality.
Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property.
Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur.
Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest
Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community.
Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach
when responding to pests and disease pathogens.
How are we doing?
78 MONITORING
Annual Plan Review
Resource Analysis
Canopy Analysis
Community Satisfaction
78 REPORTING
State of the Community Forest Report
What do we want?
51 MANAGING PARTNERS
51 COMMUNITY MEETING
52 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
53 ONLINE SURVEY
60 PLAN GOALS AND ACTIONS
Focus Area: Align urban forest management policy with community expectations
and cost efficiency
Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service.
Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments.
Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks staff in City development projects.
Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers.
Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively.
Focus Area: Enhance community safety
Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety.
Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest.
Goal 8: Reduce the risk of wildfire.
Goal 9: Manage risk.
Focus Area: Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits
of trees and canopy
Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting.
Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040.
Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality.
Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property.
Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur.
Focus Area: Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest
Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community.
Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
Goal 19: Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach
when responding to pests and disease pathogens.
Table of Contents
Appendices
79 APPENDIX A: Acronyms
80 APPENDIX B: References
84 APPENDIX C: Industry Standards
ANSI Z133 SAFETY STANDARD, 2017
ANSI A300
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
87 APPENDIX D: Online Community Survey Results
105 APPENDIX E: Soil Volume and Tree Stature
107 APPENDIX F: Alternative Planter Designs
Figures
29 FIGURE 1: Most Prevalent Species In South San Francisco
40 FIGURE 2: South San Francisco 2018-2019 Budget
53 FIGURE 3: Responses to “Trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco”?
53 FIGURE 4: Responses to “Are there enough trees in South San Francisco”?
54 FIGURE 5: Responses to “Where would you like to see more trees planted”?
54 FIGURE 6: Responses to “What Canopy Goal Should South San Francisco Adopt”?
55 FIGURE 7: “Which benefits provided by trees do you value most?
Please select the top three benefits”.
55 FIGURE 8: “Describe your awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s
urban forest program. Please check all that apply”.
56 FIGURE 9: “What level of care for public trees would you prefer”?
56 FIGURE 10: “Should the City require professional licensing for tree care providers”?
57 FIGURE 11: “Would you support a higher penalty for unpermitted removals”?
57 FIGURE 12: “What topic about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)”?
58 FIGURE 13: “What education topics about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)”.
58 FIGURE 14: “What volunteer/collaborative efforts interest you most?
Please select all that apply”.
59 FIGURE 15: “What is your age”?
59 FIGURE 16: “What neighborhood do you live in”?
Maps
17 MAP 1: Climate Zone Map
20 MAP 2: Land Cover Summary
21 MAP 3: South San Francisco Parks
22 MAP 4: South San Francisco Zones
24 MAP 5: Planting Priority
26 MAP 6: South San Francisco Inventoried Trees
Tables
4 TABLE 1: Summary of Goals and Existing Policies of the Plan
Scope & Purpose
The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) serves as a guide for
managing, enhancing, and growing South San Francisco’s urban
forest and the community tree resource over the next 20 years.
Whereas the urban forest includes all of the trees and woody
shrubs in South San Francisco, the community tree resource
is comprised of publicly managed trees along streets, in parks,
and at City facilities. While the UFMP is primarily focused on
the stewardship of the community tree resource, the Plan also
considers private trees because they contribute significantly to
South San Francisco’s livability and environmental quality.
In summary, the UFMP aims to:
• Recognize best management practices that promote tree
health, maximum benefits, and community safety
• Promote community outreach, engagement, and advocacy
for the urban forest
• Develop a more cohesive organizational structure to
facilitate collaboration among all departments and staff
who impact or affect the urban forest
• Nurture an ethic of stewardship for the urban forest
among City Staff, community organizations, businesses,
and residents
• Increase health and resiliency in the urban forest by
improving species diversity, and by managing pests
and invasive species
• Identify baseline metrics and clear goals for urban
forest managers
The UFMP includes short-term actions and long-range planning
goals to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater
canopy cover. The UFMP suggests reasonable time frames
for achieving goals, based on available resources and
community support.
South San Francisco has been
recognized as a Tree City USA
for 32 years.”
8 Scope and Purpose
9
WHAT DO
WE HAVE?
HOW DO WE
GET THERE?
WHAT DO
WE WANT?
HOW ARE
WE DOING?
Executive Summary
South San Francisco’s community urban forest includes an
estimated 15,000 public-managed trees along streets and medians,
in parks and open space, and around City facilities. Along with
their aesthetic contribution, these trees provide valuable and
critical services to the community including benefits to air quality,
water quality, stormwater management, energy savings, wildlife
habitat, and socioeconomics. The Urban Forest Master Plan
(UFMP) is a road map which provides long-term management
goals and timelines to effectively preserve and enhance the
environmental benefits provided by this critical component of
infrastructure.
The UFMP’s structure is based on the understanding of what we
have, what we want, how we get there, and how we are doing. This
structure, known as adaptive management, is commonly used for
resource planning and management (Miller, 1988) and provides a
conceptual framework for the process of improving urban forest
management.
The plan development process for the UFMP involved a
comprehensive review and assessment of the existing urban forest
resource, which included composition, value, and environmental
benefits. The process explored community values and vision,
including those expressed in guiding documents such as the
General Plan 2040, the Climate Action Plan, City Ordinance, state
law, and other regulatory and policy documents.
The process also evaluated funding and the current service levels
for both in-house and contracted tree crews. In addition to Parks
staff, there are multiple stakeholders, internal and external,
who play a role in the planning, design, care, and advocacy of
the urban forest. These stakeholders include City departments,
utility providers, nonprofit organizations, Parks and Recreation
commission, and community members. Each of these stakeholders
played a role and provided input for the development of this plan.
People don’t remember each tree in a
park but all of us benefit from the trees.”
YOKO ONO
10 Executive Summary
WHAT DO WE HAVE?
The review process identified challenges facing the urban forest,
most notably, climate change. The predominate impact of climate
change on the urban forest is the effect on tree species that
historically have been successful in the region but now, with rising
temperatures and more extreme periods of drought, may no longer
thrive in the changing environment.
In addition to climate change, the City is still recovering from a
financial crisis in the late 2000s. The financial crisis prompted a
hiring freeze, resulting in numerous vacant positions as staff retired
or left the City. More specifically, the tree crews were reduced by
a third. Currently, tree care is highly reactive, and as a result,
not all trees are receiving adequate care.
Despite challenges, the City has numerous opportunities to
expand the urban forest. As identified by an Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment, the City currently has 8.7% canopy cover, but has
the potential to achieve 22.6%.
With the support of (1) Council Members and the Parks and
Recreation Commission; (2) an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
that includes GIS mapping of the location and extent of South
San Francisco’s entire tree canopy (public and private); (3) a Tree
Preservation Ordinance that promotes the protection of certain
species and sizes of trees throughout the community; and (4) a
well-trained and motivated Parks staff, South San Francisco has
the tools and information necessary to make well-informed and
effective management choices. These management choices will
increase the environmental benefits and value from the City’s
public trees.
South San Francisco’s Urban Forest Benchmark Values
Community Urban Forest (Public Tree Resource)
Inventoried trees (2018)10,831 trees and 1,505 vacant sites
Estimated non-inventoried trees 4,000 trees
Species Diversity (Inventoried Trees, 2018)
Total number of unique species 165
Prevalence of top ten species 60.4%
Species exceeding recommended 10%1
Urban Tree Canopy Cover (Public and Private, 2016)
Overall canopy cover 7.2%
Overall canopy cover (excluding open water)8.7%
Impervious surfaces 58.2%
Canopy cover – Parks and Open Space 22.7%
Canopy Benefits (Public and Private, 2016)
Carbon stored to date 62,113 tons $2.2 million
Annual Canopy Benefits (Public and Private, 2016)
Annual carbon benefits 3,142 tons $110,772
Annual air quality benefits 39,822 pounds $20,119
11Executive Summary
WHAT DO WE WANT?
A primary emphasis for the UFMP is to identify adequate resources
to ensure that critical tree care needs can be addressed in a timely,
cost-effective, and efficient manner. This includes the proactive
identification of risk and mitigation measures to promote public
safety and reduce liability. The current inventory of City-owned
trees does not include all City-trees and does not have a historic
record of maintenance. Trees are living organisms, constantly
changing and adapting to their environment and increasing in size
over time. Because of this, trees have specific needs at various life
stages, including training for proper structure when they are young
and increased monitoring and proactive risk management when
they become mature.
Deferring maintenance can have a significant effect on the overall
health, structure, value, and lifespan of a tree. In addition, deferred
maintenance often results in higher costs and less beneficial
results, including increased risk potential. As a result, the UFMP
identifies goals for optimizing urban forest programming, existing
funding, staffing, and urban forest policy.
HOW DO WE GET THERE?
The UFMP identifies four focus areas and 19 goals for preserving
the health, value, services, and sustainability of South San
Francisco’s community urban forest. Each of these goals is
supported by comprehensive objectives and actions. Recognizing
that community engagement is integral to success, the UFMP
includes firm objectives for engaging the community and
encouraging partnerships and collaboration.
HOW ARE WE DOING?
The long-term success of the UFMP will be measured through
the realization of Plan goals and demonstrated through increased
value and environmental services from the urban forest. The Plan
identifies methods of measurement, priorities, potential partners,
and estimated costs. Since the UFMP is intended to be a dynamic
tool, it can and should be updated in response to available resources
and opportunities. One of the greatest measures of success for the
UFMP will be its level of success in meeting community expectations
for the care and preservation of South San Francisco’s urban forest.
Executive Summary
12 Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Table 1: Summary of Goals and Existing Policies of the Plan
Focus Areas Align urban forest management policy with community expectations and cost efficiency.
Enhance community safety.Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public health benefits of trees and canopy.
Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable urban forest.
Goals and Existing Policies Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service.
Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and
departments.
Goal 3: Advance the role of Park Staff in City development projects.
Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers.
Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively.
Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety.
Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest.
Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire.
Goal 9: Improve public safety.
Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting.
Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040.
Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality.
Goal 14: Promote good maintenance
practices for trees on private property.
Goal 15: Review and update Municipal
Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur.
Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the
community.
Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach
when responding to pests and
disease pathogens.
Primary Objectives • Increase efficiency to respond in a timely manner to community concerns for trees.
• Unify guiding documents to transcend departmental changes and address inefficiencies and reduce confusion.
• Improve communication and coordination with other City departments.
• Increase the role of Park Staff in design review.
• Encourage the inclusion of trees in
development projects to expand the tree canopy on public property.
• Expand tree canopy through new development projects.
• Provide water to trees to encourage
establishment.
• Implement policies and procedures that make that tree work as safe as possible.
• Develop a risk management policy/procedure.
• Focus fire mitigation efforts on Sign Hill
and other areas of vulnerability.
• Maintain trees throughout their lifetimes
to improve structure in maturity and reduce the likelihood of structural failures in the future.
• Invest in trees for the long-term environmental benefits provided to the community.
• Improve the diversity of the urban forest on public and private property, to create a more resilient urban forest.
• Explore alternative designs instead of removals.
• Discourage the removal of protected trees.
• Improve everyday care of trees, to
prevent future removals.
• Expand canopy cover to increase
environmental benefits.
• Educate the community about property
owner responsibilities for the care of
City trees.
• Reduce unethical and/or poor pruning
practices and unnecessary removals on private property.
• Meet the changing needs of the urban
forest and the community through clear and concise and current policy.
• Engage the community in urban forestry activities and educational events.
• Provide sustainable and adequate resources to sustain the urban forest for future generations.
• An educated community increases support and understanding of urban forestry policies and procedures.
• Market urban forestry through a variety means to promote participation from all community members
• Work with volunteer tree advocates to promote urban forestry events and distribute urban forestry educational
materials.
• Employ multiple tools and strategies to prevent and/or manage pests and
pathogens.
13Executive Summary
Introduction
South San Francisco, also known as “South City” by locals, is in
San Mateo County on the San Francisco Peninsula. A capital
of biotechnology, South San Francisco has attracted various
biotechnology companies to the area.
South San Francisco experiences a Mediterranean climate
with mild winters and dry cool summers, with an average high
temperature of 65.9°F and an average low temperature of 50.6°F.
The average annual precipitation is 20.6 inches, with most rainfall
occurring between November and April (Climate South San
Francisco−California, 2018). The City, like much of the peninsula,
experiences fog in the mornings and evenings, with glimpses of
sunshine throughout the afternoon.
COMMUNITY
South San Francisco History
Separated from the greater San Francisco area by the San Bruno
Mountain State and County Park, the City of South San Francisco
is marked by the prominent Sign Hill to the north, noting South
San Francisco as “The Industrial City,” and reflecting the City’s long
history of industry.
1700s
The Ohlone Tribe were the first to call the San Francisco
Peninsula home, relying on the bay and surrounding hills for fish
and game. The arrival of Spaniards in 1769 led to the decimation
of the Ohlone. For the remainder of the century, the Mexican
government controlled the area and awarded large land grants to
its supporters.
1800s
In 1835, Señor Don Jose Antonio Sanchez was granted the vast
Rancho Buri Buri. Following his death, his children inherited the
land. The land changed ownership numerous times, eventually
leading to the introduction of ranching in the area (History of
South San Francisco, 2017).
In 1889, Gustavus F. Swift appointed Peter Iler of Omaha,
Nebraska to find a location in California where a meat packing
plant could be established. Swift formed South San Francisco Land
and Improvement Company and the Western Meat Company
(which later would be known as Swift & Co.). These companies
attracted industries and workers to the area, thus increasing the
area’s population. With the increased population, the area was
incorporated in 1908. The area continued to grow during World
War II. The growth led to the expansion of residential areas as well
as creating a thriving shipbuilding industry.
1900s
In 1968, Swift & Co. closed (Spangler, 1968). By 1978, a
biotechnology company called Genentech established its
headquarters in South San Francisco. Genentech attracted other
biotechnology companies to the area and contributed to the City’s
new identity, “The Birthplace of Biotechnology” (Genentech,
2018).
2000s
Today, South San Francisco is home to the largest biotech cluster
in the world. There are over 200 biotech companies making up
11.5-million square feet of biotech space on 500 acres (Biotech in
South San Francisco, 2018).
14 Introduction
MISSION STATEMENT
The Parks and Recreation Department mission is to provide opportunities for physical, cultural and
social well being; protect and enhance the physical
environment; and ensure the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open space.
15Executive Summary
Introduction
Air Quality Improvements
Trees improve air quality in five (5) fundamental ways:
• Lessening particulate matter (e.g. dust and smoke)
• Absorbing gaseous pollutants
• Providing shade and transpiring
• Reducing power plant emissions by decreasing energy
demand among buildings
• Increasing oxygen levels through photosynthesis
Trees protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate
matter (PM₁₀), including dust, pollen, and smoke. The particulates
are filtered and held in the tree canopy until precipitation rinses
the particulates harmlessly to the ground. Trees absorb harmful
gaseous pollutants like ozone (O₃), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and
sulfur dioxide (SO₂). Shade and transpiration reduce the formation
of O₃, which is created at higher temperatures. Scientists are
now finding that some trees may absorb more volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) than previously thought (Karl, 2010;
McPherson and Simpson, 2010). VOCs are carbon-based particles
emitted from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other
human activities.
TREE AND CANOPY BENEFITS
Trees in the urban forest work continuously to mitigate the effects
of urbanization and development as well as protect and enhance
lives within the community. Healthy trees are vigorous, producing
more leaf surface and canopy cover area each year. The amount
and distribution of leaf surface area are the driving forces behind
the urban forest’s ability to produce services for the community
(Clark et al, 1997). Services (i.e. benefits) include:
• Air quality improvements
• Carbon dioxide reductions
• Water quality improvements
• Aesthetics & socioeconomics enhancements
• Energy savings
• Health benefits
• Wildlife habitat
• Wind protection
16 Introduction
Introduction
Carbon Dioxide Reductions
As environmental awareness increases, governments are paying
attention to global warming and the effects of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes the
Earth’s surface, it is reflected into space as infrared radiation
(heat). Greenhouse gases absorb some of this infrared radiation
and trap this heat in the atmosphere, increasing the temperature
of the Earth’s surface. Many chemical compounds in the Earth’s
atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide
(N₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), water vapor, and human-made gases/
aerosols. As GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back
into space is reduced and more heat is trapped in the atmosphere.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth may result in
changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns, commonly
referred to as “climate change.” In the last 150 years, since large-
scale industrialization began, the levels of some GHGs, including
CO₂, have increased by 25% (Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the
Climate, 2018).
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) passed in 2006
set the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal into law. In December
2007, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the
2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO₂). As of 2007, regulations require that the largest
industrial sources of GHG must report and verify their emissions.
In 2011, the ARB adopted the cap-and-trade regulation. Under
a cap-and-trade system, an upper limit (or cap) is placed on
GHG emissions. This cap can be applied to any source, industry,
region, or other jurisdictional level (e.g., state, national, or global).
Regulated entities are required to either reduce emissions to
required limits or purchase (trade) emission offsets to meet the
cap. In 2011, the ARB approved four (4) offset protocols for issuing
carbon credits under cap-and-trade, including the Forest Offset
Protocol (Compliance Offset Protocol Urban Forest Projects,
2011). This Protocol recognizes the key role forests play in fighting
climate change. The USDA Forest Service Urban Ecosystems and
Social Dynamics Program (EUP) recently led the development of an
Urban Forest Project Reporting Protocol.
The Protocol, which incorporates methods of the Kyoto Protocol
and Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), establishes methods for
calculating reductions, provides guidance for accounting and
reporting, and assists urban forest managers in developing tree
planting and stewardship projects that could be registered for
GHG reduction credits (offsets). The Protocol can be applied to
urban tree planting projects within municipalities, campuses, and
utility service areas anywhere in the United States. Trees and
forests reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide CO₂ in two ways:
• Directly, through growth and carbon sequestration
• Indirectly, by lowering the demand for energy
Trees and forests directly reduce CO₂ in the atmosphere through
growth and sequestration of CO₂ in woody and foliar biomass.
Indirectly, trees and forests reduce CO₂ by lowering the demand
for energy and reducing CO₂ emissions from the consumption of
natural gas and the generation of electric power.
17Introduction
Water Quality Improvements
Trees and forests improve and protect the quality of surface
waters, such as creeks and rivers, by reducing the impacts of
stormwater runoff through:
• Interception
• Increased soil capacity and infiltration rate
• Reduction in soil erosion
Trees intercept rainfall in their canopy, which acts as a mini-
reservoir (Xiao et al, 1998). During storm events, this interception
reduces and slows runoff. In addition to catching stormwater,
canopy interception lessens the impact of raindrops on barren
soils. Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and
rate of soil infiltration by rainfall and snowmelt (Xiao et al, 1998).
Each of these processes greatly reduces the flow and volume of
stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and
other pollutants from entering streams, rivers, and lakes. Urban
stormwater runoff is a major source of pollution for surface waters
and riparian areas, threatening aquatic and other wildlife as well
as human populations. Requirements for stormwater management
are becoming more stringent and costly. Reducing runoff and
incorporating urban trees in stormwater management planning
have the added benefit of reducing the cost of stormwater
management, including the expense of constructing new facilities
necessary to detain and control stormwater as well as the cost of
treatment to remove sediment and other pollutants.
Introduction
It would be so nice to come home from
the hustle and bustle and feel a sense of
calm in a nicely wooded neighborhood.”
18 Introduction
Energy Savings
Urban trees and forests modify climate and conserve energy in
three (3) principal ways:
• Producing shade for dwellings and hardscape reduces the
energy needed to cool the building with air conditioning
(Akbari et al, 1997)
• Tree canopies engage in evapotranspiration, which leads
to the release of water vapor from tree canopies and
cools the air (Lyle, 1996)
• Trees in dense arrangements may reduce mean wind speed
and solar radiation below the top of the tree canopy by up to
~90% compared to open areas (Heisler and DeWalle, 1988)
An urban heat island is an urban area or metropolitan area that
is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to
human activities.
Trees reduce energy use in summer by cooling the surrounding
areas. Shade from trees reduces the amount of radiant energy
absorbed and stored by hardscapes and other impervious
surfaces, thereby reducing the heat island effect. Transpiration
releases water vapor from tree canopies, which cools the
surrounding area. Evapotranspiration, alone or in combination
with shading, can help reduce peak summer temperatures by 2
to 9°F (1 to 5°C) (Huang et al, 1990). The energy saving potential
of trees and other landscape vegetation can mitigate urban heat
islands directly by shading heat-absorbing surfaces, and indirectly
through evapotranspiration cooling (McPherson, 1994). Individual
trees through transpiration have a cooling effect equivalent to
two (2) average household central air-conditioning units per day
or 70 kWh for every 200 L of water transpired (Ellison et al,
2017). Studies on the heat island effect show that temperature
differences of more than 9°F (5°C) have been observed between
city centers without adequate canopy cover and more vegetated
suburban areas (Akbari et al, 1997).
Trees also reduce energy use in winter by mitigating heat loss,
where they can reduce wind speeds by up to 50% and influence
the movement of warm air and pollutants along streets and out
of urban canyons. Urban canyons are streets flanked by dense
blocks of buildings, affecting local conditions, such as temperature,
wind, and air quality. By reducing air movement into buildings
and against conductive surfaces (e.g., glass and metal siding),
trees reduce conductive heat loss from buildings, translating into
potential annual heating savings of 25% (Heisler, 1986).
Three trees properly placed around the home can save $100-
$250 annually in energy costs. Shade from trees significantly
mitigates the urban heat island effect - tree canopies provide
surface temperature reductions on wall and roof surfaces of
buildings ranging from 20-45°F and temperatures inside parked
cars can be reduced by 45°F. Reducing energy use has the added
bonus of reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuel
power plants.
Introduction
19Introduction
Several studies have examined the relationship between
urban forests and crime rates. Park-like surroundings increase
neighborhood safety by relieving mental fatigue and feelings of
violence and aggression that can occur as an outcome of fatigue
(Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community
Development, 2009). Research shows that the greener a building’s
surroundings are, fewer total crimes occur. This is true for both
property crimes and violent crimes. Landscape vegetation
around buildings can mitigate irritability, inattentiveness, and
decreased control over impulses, all of which are well established
psychological precursors to violence.
Residents who live near outdoor greenery tend to be more
familiar with nearby neighbors, socialize more with them, and
express greater feelings of community and safety than residents
lacking nearby green spaces (American Planning Association,
2003). Public housing residents reported 25% fewer domestic
crimes when landscapes and trees were planted near their
homes (Kuo, 2001). Two studies (one in New Haven, CT and the
other in Baltimore City and County, MD) found a correlation
between increased tree coverage and decreased crime rates,
even after adjusting for a number of other variables, such as
median household income, level of education, and rented versus
owner-occupied housing in the neighborhoods that were studied
(Gilstad-Hayden et al, 2015; Troy et al, 2012).
A 2010 study investigated the effects of exposure to green space
at school on the academic success of students at 101 public
high schools in southern Michigan (Matsuoka). The study found
a positive correlation between exposure to nature and student
success measured by standardized testing, graduation rate,
percentage of student planning to go to college, and the rate of
criminal behavior. This trend persisted after controlling for factors
such as socioeconomic status and race or ethnicity. Conversely,
views of buildings and landscapes that lacked natural features
were negatively associated with student performance.
Health Benefits
Exposure to nature, including trees, has a positive impact on
human health and wellness through improvements in mental and
physical health, reductions in crime, and academic success.
A study of individuals living in 28 identical high-rise apartment
units found residents who live near green spaces had a stronger
sense of community and improved mental health, coped better
with stress and hardship, and managed problems more effectively
than those living away from green space (Kuo, 2001). In a greener
environment, people report fewer health complaints (including
improved mental health) and more often rate themselves as being
in good health (Sherer, 2003). Other research has revealed lower
incidence of depressive symptoms in neighborhoods with greater
access to green space (Jennings & Gaither, 2015).
Trees shade impervious surfaces and prevent the sun’s rays from
hitting them, thus reducing heat storage and later release, which
contribute to the urban heat island effect. Tall trees that create
a large shaded area are more useful than short vegetation. Trees
also contribute to cooler temperatures through transpiration,
increasing latent heat storage (the sun’s energy goes to convert
water from its liquid to vapor form) rather than increasing air
temperature (sensible heat). According to a study conducted by the
Nature Conservancy, it is estimated that trees have the potential
to reduce summer maximum air temperatures by 0.9 to 3.6° F.
Trees help to address public health concerns for both heat and air
quality. Globally, an annual investment of $100 million in planting
and maintenance costs would give an additional 77 million people
a 1° C (1.8° F) reduction in maximum temperatures on hot days
(McDonald et al, 2016).
Trees create a haven for relaxation and
reflection. It is vital for our physical and
emotional to be closer to nature.”
Introduction
20 Introduction
Wildlife Habitat
Trees provide important habitat for birds, insects (including bees),
and other animal species. Their greatest contributions include:
• Preservation and optimization of wildlife habitat
• Natural corridors for increased movement and dispersal
Furthermore, trees and forest lands provide critical habitat (for
foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals, birds, fish, and
other aquatic species. Trees can offer pollinators a valuable
source of flowering plants. With an array of flowering trees that
provide pollen and nectar in the urban forest, bees are provided
with additional food sources. Increasing tree species diversity and
richness contributes to greater numbers of bird species among
urban bird communities (Pena et al, 2017). Wooded streets
potentially function as movement corridors, allowing certain
species—particularly those feeding on the ground and breeding in
trees or tree holes—to fare well by supporting alternative habitat
for feeding and nesting (Fernandez-Juricic, 2001). Greater tree
density also contributes to bat activity in urban environments and
improves outcomes for both birds and bats (Threlfall et al, 2016).
Restoration of urban riparian corridors and their linkages to
surrounding natural areas has facilitated the movement of wildlife
and dispersal of flora (Dwyer et al, 1992). Usually habitat creation
and enhancement increase biodiversity and complement other
beneficial functions of the urban forest. These findings indicate an
urgent need for conservation and restoration measures to improve
landscape connectivity, which will reduce extinction rates and help
maintain ecosystem services (Haddad et al, 2015).
Wind Protection
Trees reduce wind speeds relative to their canopy size and height
by up to 50%, and when in dense arrangements up to 90% (Heisler,
1990). When selecting trees for use in areas that frequently
experience high winds, several tree attributes can optimize their
success withstanding high winds, and therefore the wind reduction
benefits they provide. Characteristics such as lower tree stature,
dense foliage and wood, pyramidal structure, and branch flexibility
lend to high wind resistance. Ensuring the root system and canopy
are unimpeded to spread horizontally is also important (Gilman
and Sadowski, 2007). An individual tree’s profile interplays with
their proximity to other trees and city structures to decrease wind
speeds. As there can be many complex variables when studying
wind flow dynamics, trees are often a neglected. Nevertheless,
trees are a contribute significantly to wind reduction. Recent work
shows wind models are more accurate when trees are taken into
consideration, and GIS data of city trees provides an opportunity
to quantify the effects of trees on wind speeds (Salim et al. 2015).
Calculating Tree Benefits
Communities can calculate the benefits of their urban forest by
using a complete inventory or sample data in conjunction with the
USDA Forest Service i-Tree software tools. This state-of-the-art,
peer-reviewed software suite considers regional environmental
data and costs to quantify the ecosystem services unique to a
given urban forest resource.
Individuals can calculate the benefits of trees to their property by
using i-Tree Design. (www.itreetools.org/design)
Owls roosting in a palm tree in Orange Memorial Park.
Introduction
[Trees planted along sidewalks] would make our city look
much more beautiful and give our wildlife a place to rest/live.”
21Introduction
What do we have?
While Al passed away in 2006 his legacy of Sign Hill is still enjoyed
by the community. However, due to growing concerns for fire
hazards and wildlife habitat, tree planting on Sign Hill has ceased
and Arbor Day activities now occur in City parks.
Following concerns by the Historic Society about the removal of
palms in Orange Memorial Park, a Tree Preservation Ordinance
was adopted by the City Council in 1989. The palms were planted
by John Previti, a City gardener, in remembrance of fallen military
service members from South San Francisco.
For 32 years, South San Francisco has been recognized as a Tree
City USA. As part of meeting the standards for this recognition,
the City has organized Arbor Day events that include community
tree plantings. In 2008, in celebration of the City’s 100th birthday,
100 trees were planted. In more recent years, due to water
restrictions brought on by extended periods of drought, tree
plantings have not been as robust. However, in 2018 as a result of
increased rainfall and recently lifted watering restrictions, the City
set out to plant 100 trees but instead planted 250.
Tree maintenance has always been the responsibility of the Parks
Division. Over time, the Parks Division has shifted back and
forth between the Departments of Public Works and Parks and
Recreation. Currently, the Parks Division is under the Department
of Parks and Recreation. The Division has a tree crew consisting
of two tree trimmers and two ground workers. The crew is
responsible for pruning (for clearance and visibility), structural
pruning, utility pruning, removals, stump grinding, and emergency
response. The City maintains contracts with tree care professionals
to address pruning and removals of trees in areas that are difficult
to access or a crane is needed.
HISTORY OF URBAN FORESTRY IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Three hundred years ago, the landscape of South San Francisco
and the surrounding area was quite different than it is today.
Historically, the area was predominately grassland, dotted with oak
chaparral shrublands. Therefore, most trees that exist in South San
Francisco were likely planted by someone.
Over time, South San Francisco’s urban forest has engendered
the support of many advocates within the Parks and Recreation
Department and the general community. One of the most notable
volunteers is pharmacist Alphonse “Al” Suebert. For over 40
years beginning in the 1960’s, Al, along with the Beautification
Committee, led the planting of trees on Sign Hill for annual Arbor
Day celebrations (Wolfe, 2012). Al was a catalyst for developing
the trail system throughout the open space and single-handedly
planted an estimated 5,000 trees. In 1991, in recognition of Al
Suebert’s life commitment to tree planting and conservation in the
community, he was awarded the National Arbor Day Foundation
Lawrence Enersen Award.
When I was 10 and 11 years old Mr. E. De
Monty was our teacher, we planted the
trees on the hills...”
22 What do we have?
What do we have?
John and Tina Previti
In the 1940s, newlyweds John and Tina Previti moved from their
hometown of Chicago to South San Francisco, where John landed
a position as a gardener with the City’s Parks Department. Tina
was disappointed that there were no rows of palm trees in the
City, which she had heard was common in California. On a visit to
Mission San José de Guadalupe, the couple admired the Canary
Island date palms (Phoenix canariensis). John harvested some of
the fallen dates from the Mission, sprouted them in paper cups,
and nurtured the young seedlings. In 1946, John planted the
young trees in a row along Tennis Drive and also gave seedlings
to neighbors as gifts (S. Ranals, personal communication, August
8, 2018). It has been noted that the Canary Island palms reflect
some of the residents’ Mediterranean heritage, where they had
immigrated to South San Francisco.
John’s intention with the planting on Tennis Drive was to create a
living tribute to South San Francisco veterans who were killed in
the line of duty (located near the war memorial at the corner of
Tennis Drive and Orange Avenue). The stately and historic row of
palms marks the main entrance to the City’s central park.
23What do we have?
MICROCLIMATES
Like much of California, South San Francisco experiences periods
of drought. In addition to periodic drought, the geography has
a strong influence over the local climate, with the San Francisco
Bay to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and San Bruno
Mountain to the north. Elevations range from 250 feet to 1,314
feet at the summit (San Bruno Mountain Park Natural Features).
It is challenging to grow trees in the City because of the dry
Mediterranean climate with dominant westerly winds for most of
the year along with moderate temperatures and year-round fog.
Average hourly wind speeds in South San Francisco are nearly 9
miles per hour (Average Weather South San Francisco). In some
parts of the City, there are persistent 20–40 mile per hour winds.
Trees can help mitigate the effects of wind. However, individual
trees in clusters (i.e., group plantings) can become more vulnerable
to windthrow if adjacent trees are removed.
The topography of the City also creates pockets of microclimates
where some areas have persistent fog year-round, some parts
of the City have fog for portions of the day, and other areas are
hotter, drier, and windier than the surrounding terrain. Considering
the climate variability across the City, the tree species that perform
well in these areas can be highly variable and fog may increase the
threat of certain pests and pathogens.
The different climate zones, illustrated in Map 1, are defined
as follows:
• Zone 1 – persistent fog
• Zone 2 – fog primarily through the afternoon
• Zone 3 – fog primarily in the morning
• Zone 4 – urban landscape that experiences more
heat and high winds
• Zone 5 – industrial landscape with bay influence
and wind influence
Map 1: Climate Zone Map
What do we have?
24 What do we have?
While these climate zones are a relatively short distance away
from one another the types of trees that should be planted in each of these zones is highly variable and zone dependent.Zone 1 is characterized by persistent fog, therefore any
sunlight that is present during the day is highly valued. It is important to factor lighting and canopy density when
considering trees for this zone. Because sun light is a precious commodity to residents in these areas, tree species that do not block the sun are preferred.
While Zones 2 and 3 both experience periods of fog, the time
of day that the fog occurs influences the types of trees that
are best suited to the area. Zone 3 experiences some fog in the
morning, but the afternoon is sunny and has greater potential
for warm temperatures. This area can benefit from taller trees
with greater canopy density to improve shade and reduce
afternoon temperatures. In contrast, Zone 2 has fog through the
afternoon, and benefits more from the same tree species that are
recommended for Zone 1 as well as species that can tolerate
more sunlight.
Zone 4 has additional challenges that are primarily derived from
the urban environment. Highly urbanized areas generally have
more compacted and poorly drained soils. These types of soils
encourage the roots of some tree species to become more
“aggressive” causing problems with hardscape (such as lifting
sidewalks). Additionally, pollutants (air and soil) and other stressors
(e.g., temperature and moisture extremes) are more prevalent
in urban environments. As a result, careful species selection is
especially important for Zone 4 as some trees are better able to
withstand these extreme conditions than others.
Moisture from the Bay creates a unique conflict for trees in Zone
5. Moisture in this microclimate creates an atmospheric salinity
which is not tolerated by all tree species.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Bay Area’s Mediterranean-type climate and microclimates (areas
impacted by regional topography, fog exposure, wind, and
heavy urbanization) are important factors to include in climate
change projections (Cayan & Peterson, 1993; Kottek et al, 2006).
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies that the
Bay Area is already experiencing symptoms of climate change,
including: increased maximum temperatures from 1950–2005, less
frequent coastal fog, sea level rise, historic El Niño influence, and
drought (Ackerly et al, 2018). These symptoms are expected to
get worse over the next century. Precipitation is predicted to be
characterized by “booms and busts” with very wet and very dry
periods (Ackerly et al, 2018). Along with increased temperatures,
heat waves have the potential to be especially harmful as much of
the Bay Area lacks cooling infrastructure (i.e., air conditioning) and
much of the population has never had that exposure (Ackerly et
al, 2018). With higher temperatures and heat waves, there will be
a greater demand for electricity for cooling purposes, leading to
increased energy costs.
Because South San Francisco has historically enjoyed mild coastal
temperatures year-round, residents might not always appreciate
shading benefits of trees. Additionally, residents probably have not
considered planting a tree in anticipation of the potential increases
in temperatures that might result because of climate change.
Recent historic fires in California have increased awareness about
communities’ vulnerabilities to fire and how climate change and
urban development are contributors to fire risk. In response to
these dangers, the management of vegetation, planning, and
building standards is critical to fire management.
Trees have a role to play in response to climate change, where
they can reduce air and surface temperatures by shading and
evapotranspiration (Akbari et al, 1997). Strategically planting trees
in proximity to buildings can reduce the need for air conditioning,
in turn reducing energy usage, air pollution, and associated
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, trees can contribute to
stormwater management strategies by reducing the surface area of
hardscape as well as impacts from precipitation events. However,
climate change also poses a risk for urban forests as many species
of trees will be vulnerable to hotter temperatures and longer
periods of drought. Some pests and pathogens are also expected
to increase with warming temperatures. Increasing species
diversity with an emphasis on species that are better adapted to
warmer climates and low-water use is critical for maximizing the
resiliency of the overall urban forest.
What do we have?
25What do we have?
URBAN FOREST RESOURCE
The development of the UFMP included an assessment of the
urban forest, including tree canopy (public and private) and analysis
of the community tree inventory (public trees on streets, in parks,
and at City facilities).
Tree Canopy
Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees
and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from
above. Understanding the location and extent of tree canopy
is critical to developing and implementing sound management
strategies that will promote the smart growth and resiliency of
South San Francisco's urban forest and the invaluable services it
provides. A tree canopy assessment provides a bird’s-eye-view
of the entire urban forest and includes consideration of tree
canopy along with other primary land cover, including impervious
surface, bare soils, and water. This information helps managers
better understand tree canopy in relation to other geospatial
data, including:
• Distribution of tree canopy within the community
• Geopolitical patterns in canopy distribution
• Identification of potential planting areas
The analysis does not distinguish between trees on public and
private property since the benefits of trees extend beyond
property lines. The information can be used by urban forest
managers to explore tree canopy in conjunction with other
available metrics, including geography, land use, and community
demographics. This data also establishes a baseline for assessing
future change.
Land Cover Summary
The City of South San Francisco encompasses 11 square miles
(7,021 acres) with nearly 1,202 acres of open water. Excluding
impervious surface (4,038 acres) and open water (1,204 acres),
South San Francisco contains approximately 1,079 acres which
have the potential to support tree canopy. The following
characterizes land cover in South San Francisco:
• 8.7% (508 acres) overall canopy cover (excluding open
water), including trees and woody shrubs
• 58.2% (4,038 acres) impervious surface, including roads,
parking lots, and structures
• 25.8% potential canopy cover (excluding open water)
• 62,113 tons of stored carbon (CO₂) in woody foliar
biomass
• $167,686 total annual environmental benefits provided
by both public and private trees
What do we have?
With all the new developments the
city should require developers to plant
a certain amount of trees with each
development.”
26 What do we have?
Map 2: Land Cover Summary
27What do we have?
Tree Canopy by Parks
South San Francisco has 25 areas designated as parks,
covering 156 acres. Among the top ten largest parks in the
City, Sellick Park has the highest percent canopy cover at 50.8%,
with a potential canopy cover of 87.8%, followed by Brentwood
Park with a 49.7% canopy cover and a potential canopy cover of
84.2%. Both parks highlight an opportunity for additional planting
in South San Francisco parks.
Overall, tree canopy covers 22.7% of parks and open space areas.
The assessment identified an additional 32.2 acres of potential
planting sites, indicating that parks and open space areas have the
potential to support 43.3% canopy cover. 1
1. Future plantings on Sign Hill are prohibited therefore, this park was not included
in potential canopy cover calculation.
Map 3: South San Francisco Parks
What do we have?
28 What do we have?
Tree Canopy by Zoning
Zoning reflects a community’s plan for growth in specific areas.
Canopy cover can vary significantly between different zones.
Much of the City’s 7,021 acres is assigned a zoning designation,
with the exception of seven acres. Low density residential zoned
land (1,767 acres) encompasses the greatest area, followed by the
Open Space designation (1,125 acres). Low density residential has
the greatest amount of canopy at 189 acres (10.7%). Parks and
Recreation has the highest canopy cover at 19.9% (45 acres). When
open water is excluded, areas zoned as Open Space have the
second highest tree canopy cover at 17.2%
Map 4: South San Francisco Zones
What do we have?
29What do we have?
Priority Planting
South San Francisco has an estimated 1,079 acres of public and
private land where additional trees could be planted. Of the 1,079
acres, 376 are identified as high or very high priority planting
areas where additional trees will provide the greatest return on
investment. To identify potential planting areas, Davey Resource
Group (DRG) evaluated areas with pervious surface and no
existing tree canopy (i.e., turf, low-lying vegetation, and bare soils)
identified by the land cover assessment. DRG then coordinated
with City Staff to identify areas where additional trees are
undesirable, including sports fields, cemeteries, golf courses, and
other sites where tree planting is contrary to planned land use.
The remaining areas where prioritized via GIS remote sensing and
based on site design and environmental factors (proximity to
hardscape, canopy fragmentation, soil permeability, slope,
and soil erosion factors).
It is important to note that this analysis provides a snapshot of
current conditions and may not fully account for some existing
young trees. Site visits are necessary to determine suitability
as well as the actual number and location of planting sites. The
potential canopy cover for South San Francisco is estimated to
be 25.8%, which includes priority planting area (1,079 acres) and
existing canopy (508 acres).
Map 5: Planting Priority
What do we have?
30 What do we have?
COMMUNITY TREE RESOURCE
Community trees (publicly managed trees along streets, in parks,
and at City facilities) play a vital role in South San Francisco. They
provide numerous tangible and intangible benefits to residents,
visitors, and neighboring communities.
The City recognizes that public trees are a valued resource, a vital
component of the urban infrastructure, and part of the City’s
identity. As of 2018, the public tree inventory included 10,831
trees. However, some public trees have not yet been inventoried
(Staff estimates there are approximately 15,000 community trees).
Structure
A structural analysis is the first step towards understanding
the benefits provided by these trees as well as their
management needs. In 2018, South San Francisco’s
community tree resource includes 10,831 trees and 165
unique species. Considering species composition and diversity,
and relative age distribution (diameter at breast height, also
known as DBH), DRG determined that the following information
characterizes the community tree resource:
• The most prevalent species in South San Francisco
is Monterey pine (Pinus radiata, 15.8%), followed by
Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa, 8.4%),
blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus, 6.8%), flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana, 6.4%), and Australian blackwood
(Acacia melanoxylon, 6.2%)
• 65.0% of the population are 12-inches or less in diameter
• 10.9% of the population are 24-inches or greater in
diameter
Map 6: South San Francisco Inventoried Trees
What do we have?
31What do we have?
Species Diversity
Maintaining species diversity in an urban forest is essential.
Dominance of any single species or genus can have detrimental
consequences in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or
other stressors that can severely affect a public tree resource and
the flow of benefits and costs over time. Catastrophic pathogens,
such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer
(Agrilus planipennis), Asian long-horned beetle (Anoplophora
glabripennis), invasive shot hole borer (Euwallacea sp.), and
Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum) are some examples of
unexpected, devastating, and costly pests, as well as pathogens
that highlight the importance of diversity and the balanced
distribution of species and genera.
In light of significant pests and diseases, many cities are opting to
increase diversity to improve resilience. The widely used 10-20-30
rule of thumb states that an urban tree population should consist
of no more than 10% of any one species, 20% of any one genus,
and 30% of any one family (Clark et al, 1997). While this rule does
ensure a minimum level of diversity, it may not encourage enough
genetic diversity to adequately support resilience. Therefore the
10-20-30 rule should be considered a minimum goal. Managers
should always strive to increase the range of representation among
species and genera within an urban forest.
The most prevalent species in South San Francisco is Monterey
pine (Pinus radiata, 15.8%), followed by Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis macrocarpa, 8.4%), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus,
6.8%), flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana, 6.4%), and Australian
blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon, 6.2%). The prevalence of
Monterey pine exceeds the general rule that no single species
should represent 10% of the urban forest resource. Only 23
of the 165 species in South San Francisco’s community tree
resource represent greater than 1% of the overall population.
However, the top five most prevalent species represent 43.6%
of the overall population.
Future tree planting should focus on increasing diversity and
reducing reliance on overused species. As over-predominant
species are removed and replaced, new species should be
introduced when possible. New species should be resistant to
the known pest issues that currently pose a threat to the region.
In addition, consideration should be given to species that
withstand higher temperatures and periods of drought.
What do we have?
[I] would like to see more deciduous
trees planted in street medians and
public spaces.”
32
Age Distribution
Age distribution can be approximated by considering the DBH range of the overall
inventory and of individual species. Trees with smaller diameters tend to be younger. It is
important to note that palms do not increase in diameter (DBH) over time, so they are not
considered in this analysis. In palms, height more accurately correlates to age.
The age distribution of the urban forest is a key indicator and driver of maintenance
needs. The age distribution of South San Francisco’s public tree resource (excluding
palms) reveals that 65.0% of trees are 12-inches or less diameter and 10.9% of trees are
larger than 24-inches diameter.
Trees greater than 24-inches diameter require more regular inspections and routine
maintenance as they mature. Managers can gain a better understanding of the specific
risks that individual mature trees pose with regular inspection and risk assessment.
Many medium and large-stature tree species still have a lot of growing to do before they
reach maturity, with 4,113 trees (38.7%) in the inventory less than six inches in diameter.
Training, defined as the selective pruning of small branches to influence the future shape
and structure of a young tree, is critical at this stage to prevent costly structural issues
and branch failures as these young trees mature into their final size in the landscape.
Intermediate aged trees, with a diameter between 7 and 24-inches, represent 48.7% of
the inventory with 5,172 trees in total. Similarly, the younger trees would benefit from
structural pruning.
A high proportion of young, large and medium-stature tree species is a positive indicator
for future benefits from the urban forest, since large shade trees typically provide more
shade, pollutant uptake, carbon sequestration, and rainfall interception than small trees.
Mature trees, trees with a diameter greater than 24-inches, represent 10.9% of the
inventory 1,155 trees in total. When trees reach mature stature, they provide the
greatest benefits. However, mature trees should be regularly assessed for health and risk
factors as they approach or reach the end of their natural lifespan. They may have higher
maintenance needs or require removal to reduce risk and liability.
Figure 1: Most Prevalent Species in South San Francisco
18.3%
1.0%
1.0%
1.2%
1.2%
1.3%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
2.2%
2.4%
2.7%
2.8%
4.1%
4.8%
6.2%
6.4%
6.8%
8.4%
15.8%
0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%14.0%16.0%18.0%20.0%
all other species
yucca spp.
kanooka
sweetgum
Brisbane box
stone pine
London plane
Coast live oak
Bailey acacia
eucalyptus spp.
privet
pittosporum spp.
bottlebrush
red maple
New Zealand Christmas tree
cherry plum
evergreen pear
myoporum
coast redwood
southern magnolia
black acacia
callery pear
blue gum
western cypress
Monterey pine
% of Inventory
33What do we have?
URBAN FORESTRY OPERATIONS
The Parks Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation
is responsible for planting, maintenance, and protection of all
trees within the public right-of-way, parks, and public places. The
Division performs the following services:
• Tree pruning
• Tree removals
• Tree planting
• Tree irrigation
• Tree protection and preservation
• Community engagement and outreach
Urban forestry operations are mainly led by a Parks Supervisor.
At one time, the City had three tree crews consisting of six crew
members in total. As a result of the 2008 financial crisis and
subsequent funding reductions, staff reductions were also made.
In 2019, four staff members (two crews) care for about 15,000
community trees. The tree crews also assist with every-day park
maintenance activities approximately 2-3 weeks a year.
On average, the Parks Division is able to respond to tree-related
service requests within two weeks. Tree work is often scheduled
daily on a reactive basis to address emergency and priority service
requests. Tree crew schedules are typically organized around street
sweeping schedules to avoid conflicts with parking, but not all
streets have street sweeping signage. Therefore, managing traffic
and parking around tree maintenance activities can be a challenge.
In conjunction with the Two-County (San Mateo and Santa Clara)
Regional Internship Program, the City of South San Francisco
has created several paid internship opportunities. For the Parks
Division, an Urban Forestry & Parks Operations Intern was added
in 2019 to help maintain and update the City’s tree inventory,
identify and record locations for future tree planting, assist with
the development of tree pruning grid system maps and with
applications for forestry related grant programs.
Supplementary to Parks staff, contactors are primarily used for
pruning and removal of trees in areas that are difficult to access or
require the use of cranes. Contracted tree operations are generally
funded through the Parks operating budget or the Common Greens
Fund, depending on the location of the work. On-call agreements
have improved response times and increased efficiency and
coordination.
What do we have?
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
MANAGER OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SUPERVISOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARBORIST TECHNICIAN
TREE CREW II TREE CREW II
TREE TRIMMER I TREE TRIMMER II
34 What do we have?
SAFETY
While tree care is dangerous, proper training and good safety
practices can help make the work safer. The City uses a contractor
to provide safety training and consulting for all City departments.
However, to better address the specific needs for training in
arboriculture and tree care operations, Parks staff also attend
workshops and safety training through International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) and Western Chapter ISA sponsored events.
Parks staff have been proactive in ensuring that tree crew
members are trained thoroughly and are provided with all
necessary personal protective equipment (PPE). However, there
are currently no documented or formalized standard operating
procedures (SOP) for safety practices.
Climbing equipment (e.g., ropes, saddles, helmets, etc.) and tree
pruning tools (e.g., pole saws, hand saws, and chainsaws) are
inspected daily by tree crews. Tree crews assess all work sites
for potential hazards, energy sources, and Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) prior to beginning work. During these “tailgates”
and job site meetings, safety concerns are freely discussed, but there
are no formal processes to record participation and understanding.
TREE CARE EQUIPMENT
The City’s Fleet Services Division is responsible for maintaining
vehicles and heavy equipment, including determining the
anticipated useful lifespan for all equipment. Because of heavy
utilization, tree equipment has a shorter lifespan than regular
equipment (especially aerial lifts and chippers). Often, there is not
enough consideration for the workload or the hours of utilization
of equipment used by the tree crew. For instance, the Parks
Division has a front loader; however, it is nearing the end of its
useful life.
Currently, there is only one chipper with a winch that can only be
used by one crew at a time (therefore productivity is reduced).
Much of the equipment used regularly by tree crews is more than
25 years old and finding replacement parts can be challenging or
impossible. In addition, outdated equipment does not always have
the latest safety features. For instance, the City’s woodchipper
has minimum safety features but does not include secondary
safety features, such as feed control bars, bottom feed stops, and
emergency pull ropes. In addition, the feeder tray requires two
people to lift, while modern chipper feeder trays are light enough
for one person to safely lift.
What do we have?
Internal decay in trees is not necessarily indicative of structural
weakness, nor does it always warrant removal of the tree. In an
effort to avoid removing trees solely on detection of internal decay,
the City purchased a sonic tomographer and resistograph.
These tool allows for the Parks staff to determine the extent of
decay in the tree with colored imagery and scientifically based
measurements on loss of strength. In combination with the
mapping of the decay and external visual assessments of the tree,
Parks staff are better able to assess the risk of a tree and take the
necessary actions.
When the structural integrity of large trees is unknown, a
resistograph can be used to determine structural stability. The
resistograph has a maximum drilling depth of 500mm and is paired
with a Bluetooth printer that prints out the results so it can be
taken into the field. It also holds the information within the unit
and can then be downloaded to a computer for further analysis.
In conjunction with the sonic tomographer, unnecessary removals
of large trees can be avoided, as Parks staff have a better
understanding of the internal structure of a tree.
35What do we have?
SERVICES
Tree Pruning
In-house crews are responsible for most pruning, including utility
pruning around secondary power lines. All tree crew members
are required to have ACRT arborist training, line clearance/rescue
certifications, or other equivalent training.
In partnership with City GIS Staff, Parks staff have developed a grid
pruning schedule that is connected to the City’s GIS mapping system.
Currently, this schedule is in the beta testing stages and is intended to
provide more efficient scheduling for tree maintenance activities.
Some residents request annual pruning of their city trees, which
is not always conducive of tree health. Ideally, City trees should
be pruned on a five to seven-year maintenance cycle (using a grid
system). However, with current tree crew workloads and limited
capabilities of the current inventory management software, most
grids are pruned partially and not on a predictable schedule.
TREE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT
A tree inventory for South San Francisco was completed in 2015
(initially conducted in 2010). The inventory does not include all
neighborhoods within the City. It also does not include some trees
in easements, tree wells, or park strips. The inventory also does
not distinguish between City trees and privately managed trees,
especially trees included in developer’s agreements.
Tree Inventory Management Software
The current tree inventory software has limited capabilities,
particularly with maintenance histories. The software is incapable
of being interconnected with city grids, making grid pruning
scheduling difficult.
What do we have?
36 What do we have?
Tree Removals
Preserving a healthy public tree is ideal. Yet, there are situations
where a tree should be removed. Reasons for a removal may
include but are not limited to concerns for public safety, disease,
tree health, structural issues that cannot be corrected through
pruning, internal decay, or inappropriate species selection for the
site at planting.
Residents can submit requests for tree removals by contacting the
Parks Division. Staff inspects all trees and evaluates requested
removals on a case-by-case basis. There are circumstances where
a request for removal of a tree will be approved. However, if a tree
is mature and in good health, that tree will be preserved to provide
benefits to the community for as long as possible. Trees are not
permitted to be removed due to leaf debris, nuisance fruit, tree
root interference in aged clay sewage pipes, or blocked views.
Wood Chips and Wood Reuse
Wood chips from pruned or removed trees are utilized in
landscape beds throughout the City, at public buildings, and parks.
Some chips are diverted to a landfill, particularly if woodchips
include Acacia species, which can be invasive.
To divert biomass from the landfill, the City has utilized the
wood from trees that are removed to construct benches, raised
flower beds, and signs in parks. Staff plans to expand tree reuse
opportunities by using an Alaskan mill to create lumber to build
new items (benches, etc.).
What do we have?
Stump Grinding
Following a tree removal, tree crews are scheduled to remove
stumps with two stump grinders: a large tow-behind stump grinder
and a smaller walk-along stump grinder.
37What do we have?
TREE PLANTING
Historically, the City has planted an average of 20 to 30 trees
annually. Species selection and planting location have not always
been considered when planting new trees. For instance, many
streets have overhead utilities in the right-of-way over sidewalks
and parking strips. Due to federal and state regulations, utilities
must maintain clearance around high-voltage power lines. As a
result, medium and large-stature trees that were planted below
power lines are often heavily pruned and poorly structured. In
many cases, these trees are eventually removed. Current policies
focus on planting the right tree species in the right place to avoid
problems in the future. Staff is also focusing on ways to improve
species diversity.
In 2018, more than 400 trees were planted (this is more
than was planted in the last ten years). Parks staff provides
recommendations to residents on selecting trees species.
Additionally, residents may purchase trees at wholesale prices
through the City’s vendors.
When streets are narrow or parcel space is limited, trees often
compete with hardscape and the demand for parking space.
Municipal Code (Title 20 Zoning) specifies that maximum lot
coverage by impervious surfaces shall not exceed 40% of the gross
land area. However, enforcement of this requirement has been
relaxed and in many neighborhoods planting sites for street trees
have been paved over in favor of parking. In an effort to increase
the number of street trees, Parks staff have begun reclaiming
tree wells and removing concrete where appropriate and where
American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance allows.
Memorial Tree Planting Program
While currently on hold due to an extended period of drought, the
Memorial Tree Program (established in 1982) provided residents
with an opportunity to purchase a tree for the City in honor or in
memory of loved ones. Plaques for the trees that were planted
are displayed at the Municipal Services Building. In the past, the
program was popular, having provided approximately 350 trees.
The Memorial Tree Program was paused due to the drought, but
Staff are looking to re-institute the program.
What do we have?
38 What do we have?
Circle 3.0
Through grant funding provided by California’s Initiative to Reduce
Carbon and Limit Emissions, Circle 3.0 provided 200 15-gallon
trees to Paradise Valley and Peck’s Lot Neighborhoods. This grant
also provided another 200 5-gallon trees elsewhere in the City for
the 2019 Arbor Day Celebration.
Tree Irrigation
Currently, two full-time staff members use a water truck to
irrigate newly planted trees to aid in their establishment. Despite
recent relief from a few relatively wet winters, California is
still considerably dry and water is becoming more expensive.
Additionally, the water truck used for irrigation requires the driver
to hold a Class B driver’s license. This requires a full-time staff
member to drive the truck, which increases the cost to irrigate
trees. Approximately 500 trees are irrigated manually each week
during dry months.
Treegator®
Treegator bags are slow release watering systems for newly
planted trees. Easily installed and with no required tools, these
green bags are placed at the base of newly planted trees and
are refilled with water on a weekly basis. The bags slowly drip
15 gallons of water into the soil, allowing the water to percolate
deeper into the soil profile. The City currently has 30-40 Treegator
bags on-hand, with another 200 currently in use in the field. The
use of Treegator bags have improved tree establishment and
reduced mortality rates for newly planted trees.
Water Cistern
To reduce irrigation costs, there is a proposal to install a cistern
under an existing ballfield in Orange Memorial Park. This project
has the potential to provide an inexpensive water source for Parks
staff to water trees.
39What do we have?
When residents submit building permits, the Planning Division
is responsible for the review and approval of applications. The
Division uses a work-flow software, Track-it!, which provides
an opportunity for other Departments to comment during plan
review. Ideally, the Parks Department should review design plans
for tree placement, species selection, and options for the retention
of existing trees. However, while Parks Staff currently provide final
inspection of newly installed trees and can request revisions prior
to final sign-off, existing work-flow practices often do not allow
for enough time or notice to illicit and implement comment from
the Parks Department prior to plan approval. Going forward, Parks
sees value in greater participation in plan review through the use
of Track-it!.
Parks staff are frequently called upon from Public Works to
inspect tree and hardscape conflicts. Trees roots can lift sidewalks
and create a need for sidewalk repairs. In some cases, trees that
are causing problems with sidewalks are in poor condition and
are removed. In other circumstances, Parks staff coordinates
with Public Works Staff to make sidewalk repairs and avoid tree
removal through root pruning.
Similarly, to tree and sidewalk conflicts, Parks staff frequently
respond to concerns about tree roots and sewage lines. Residents
with old, cracked, clay sewer pipes often experience issues with
tree roots exploiting existing cracks in sewer lines to get water. This
occurrence can result in sewage back-ups into homes. While the
tree roots can exacerbate the problem, in all cases trees are taking
advantage of already corrupted lines, which need to be replaced. In
such instances, Parks staff will not remove a healthy City tree that
has impacted sewage lines. Root pruning will only be performed in
instances where tree roots have crushed sewage lines.
TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
Tree removals are not uncommon in South San Francisco. Be that
as it may, Parks staff strive to protect and preserve trees whenever
possible. Through collaboration with other City Departments,
Parks staff provide solutions to any tree-related conflicts with
existing or future infrastructure.
Parks staff are responsible for reviewing applications for tree
permits. A permit is required to prune or remove any tree
protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. However, not
everyone is aware (or compliant) with the requirement to obtain a
tree permit and trees are often illegally pruned or removed.
For Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), Parks staff promote
alternative solutions to the removal of healthy and well-established
trees within project boundaries. Engineering uses a construction
management software called e-Builder for real-time collaboration
on active CIPs. When included, Parks staff have an opportunity
to review designs and the ability to recommend design changes
to protect such trees. If a tree is recommended by Parks staff for
preservation, Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) can be added directly
into the design specifications. As part of this process, Parks
staff setup TPZ on CIP construction sites and regularly inspect
compliance with the TPZ. For more information on Tree Protection
Zones see Appendix F.
What do we have?
40 What do we have?
Pest Management
Like any urban forest, South San Francisco has pest problems.
With a changing climate, a highly mobile population and proximity
to a large port of entry for international trade, South San Francisco
has some characteristics that make the community especially
vulnerable to potential introduced pests. As such, the Parks
Supervisor is required to hold a Qualified Applicator Certificate
to appropriately respond to pest problems. Additionally, Parks
staff regularly consult a Pest Control Advisor (PCA), who is also an
arborist, to get recommendations for pest management strategies.
Although Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer is not currently a problem
in South San Francisco, research suggests that there is potential
for the pest to spread to northern California. As a result of a wide
host-range, many species of trees in South San Francisco are
vulnerable to this invasive pest (Mitchell, 2019). Similarly, citrus
greening (Candidatus liberibacter asiaticus), a bacterial disease that
causes bitter, hard fruit production, is among the most concerning
pest as it threatens the viability of California’s citrus crop. While
citrus species represent less than 1% of the public tree population,
many residences in South San Francisco grow citrus trees. Due to
quarantines in place to protect California’s citrus crop, infected
trees must be destroyed and disposed of appropriately (Grafton-
Cardwell et al, 2019). The result of either Polyphagous Shot Hole
Borer or citrus greening would be significant losses to canopy on
both public and private property.
At this time, there are no major active threats to South San
Francisco’s urban forest. Existing pests that require management
to control include:
Pocket Gophers
As of late, South San Francisco has been contending with pocket
gophers (Thomomys bottae) gnawing on tree roots which damages
and kills trees. Gophers have extensive burrow systems that are
characterized by crescent or horseshoe shaped mounds that can
cover an area that is 200 to 2,000 square feet (Salmon, 2009).
Parks staff have primarily managed this pest through trapping.
Staff recently incorporated an integrated pest management
(IPM) strategy including carbon monoxide fumigation and natural
enemies, utilizing owls to reduce the pocket gopher population.
Parks staff have assembled “owl houses” in Orange Memorial Park
and in other parts of the City to encourage nesting of owls within
the City.
Pine Bark Beetles
With recent periods of drought, Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and
other pine species in South San Francisco have been susceptible
to native bark beetle species. Generally, native bark beetles attack
only the most stressed pines; however, with higher population
densities, they can attack and kill healthier trees (Swain, 2015).
With continued dry conditions, these beetles have the potential
to be even more destructive. There are few treatments for bark
beetle infestations. Preventative maintenance practices are
the best tools for combating these pests, including: removing
trees as infestations are detected, pruning trees in the colder
winter months when the insects are less active, and irrigating
trees (Swain, 2015). Insecticides are available for highly valued,
uninfected host trees, but Parks staff have not used this method
(Seybold, 2011).
Many of the pines in South San Francisco are also susceptible to
pitch canker, caused by the fungus Fusarium circinatum.
Myoporum Thrips
Myoporum thrips (Klambothrips myopori) is an invasive species
from New Zealand that has been a problem for Myoporum
plants in South San Francisco (Bethke and Bates, 2013). Thrips
feeding damage stunts, curls, and discolors leaves. Additionally,
the new branch growth becomes distorted, typically folding
downward. When thrips are persistent, death can occur even
in well-established plants (Bethke and Bates, 2013). Parks staff
have managed the pest primarily by avoiding planting Myoporum
species and by pruning infested terminal shoots and removing and
disposing of infected shoots.
Sudden Oak Death
Sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) is a plant pathogen that
infects susceptible trees, such as coast live oak (Querus agrifolia).
While this pest is not currently a problem in South San Francisco,
the presence of fog makes host species more susceptible to this
pathogen as the moisture assists in the spread of the infection
(Parke and Lucas, 2008).
41What do we have?
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH
Community engagement opportunities are available during the
annual Arbor Day celebration. At the events, Parks staff actively
work with volunteers to plant trees properly and distribute
educational information on trees.
Important tree information can be accessed through the Parks
Division Tree webpage. The site advertises tree planting events
and other community engagement activities. Information on the
Tree Preservation Ordinance is summarized on the webpage for
ease of access. Links are also available with information on tree
permit applications and definitions for pruning and trimming as
defined by Title 13 of Municipal Code. The webpage also includes
information to help guide residents about species of trees that are
recommended for the local environment.
Parks staff periodically update the webpage to include links to
external education materials, including information about species
selection, proper tree care, benefits of trees, and homeowner tree
care accidents. In addition to the Parks Division webpage, Parks
staff promote and share volunteer opportunities and other tree
care information through social media, emails, and newsletters.
Sign Hill
Sign Hill, a historic sign and prominent landmark in South
San Francisco, can be seen from most parts of the City and is
important to community members. The sign is a nod to the history
of industry in the community. Today, the hillside is a 66 acre open
space, and a popular hiking destination with panoramic views of
the San Francisco Bay and Peninsula.
Although naturally the hill would have few trees and be dominated
mostly by grasses, community members have planted an
assortment of trees over the years on the hill, including citrus trees
and an avocado tree. However, eucalyptus, cypress, pines, and
acacia species dominate much of the hill side and are known to be
particularly flammable.
What do we have?
42 What do we have?
With many introduced species, there are concerns about the impact on native grass species. To protect the habitat, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ordered tree planting to cease
on the hill.
Several neighborhoods border Sign Hill, which is concerning for
Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI), the area where houses meet or
intermingle with undeveloped wildland vegetation (Radeloff et
al, 2005). With recent California fires, creating a defensible space
around structures has been heavily discussed in communities that
are near forested areas. There are active efforts to reduce ladder
fuels, fuel that can carry a fire burning in low-growing vegetation
to taller vegetation, in Sign Hill areas that are adjacent to homes
(Menning and Stephens, 2007).
Tree maintenance on hills is challenging to manage, as steep grades
make moving tree removal equipment into project areas both
difficult and expensive. To address some vegetation management in
these areas, Parks has purchased a slope mower (a “Green Climber”)
which can operate remotely and can better handle the open space’s
steep slopes. While the green climber can assist with reducing some
of the ladder fuels, larger dead trees will still need to be removed
according to standard forestry maintenance practices.
In an effort to be proactive City Staff contracted with Davey
Resource Group Vegetation Management Services to formulate
a Cooperative Forest Management Plan to address the specific
management needs for the area.
Parks staff identified management priorities and objectives for
Sign Hill and Davey Resource Group identified corresponding
management strategies to achieve Parks staff desired results.
The primary objective for Sign Hill is to create defensible space
around structures, such as the homes adjacent to the open space.
As funding comes available, another objective is to reduce the
fuel load. In the event of a fire, this strategy would allow for low-
intensity fire that may be more easily managed to benefit the
overall health of the forest and reduce risk to infrastructure. Along
with creating defensible spaces around structures, Parks staff
identified the creation of sheltered fuel breaks along roads
and near trending ridgelines throughout the open space as an
objective. Other secondary objectives are to create a healthier
forest to improve and maintain watershed protection and
recreational opportunities for the community, reduce susceptibility
to bark beetles and other pests and diseases, and promote diverse
habitat to promote wider wildlife diversity and browse material for
deer and other species.
To achieve management objectives, some important management
measures should be implemented. Management Measures include
1) restore to a healthier and fire resilient state through fuel
reduction, 2) remove competing vegetation to increase vertical
and horizontal spacing, and 3) remove dead or dying trees and
selectively thin forested areas.
Specific strategies to employ to reduce fuels include 1) not
removing healthy trees greater than 12-inches diameter, 2)
removing dead or dying trees of any size class, 3) 50-70% of brush
and slash shall be masticated or removed and chipped (achieve
residual tree density of 50 to 100 trees per acre (20-foot spacing)),
4) dead surface fuel depth shall be less than three inches, 5)
retaining standing dead trees for wildlife habitat and 6) retaining
dominant and co-dominant trees except where removal of co-
dominant trees is needed to improve forest health and fire safety
and as determined by an RPF.
Some considerations for vegetation management include:
• Avoid ground-based equipment on slopes over 40% or on
unstable ground. If such conditions exist material should
be removed by hand and removed to areas with slopes
less than 40%
• Avoid use of equipment under saturated soil conditions
• Use mulch to provide effective erosion control
• Install erosion control structures along roadsides
• Reduce fuels by removing small diameter trees and brush
to create vertical and horizontal separation between the
ground and lowest branches
• Improve wildlife habitat through fuel reduction
• Improve access to remote areas to improve overall
aesthetics and recreation opportunities
43What do we have?
Summary of Annual Funding
The total 2018-2019 municipal budget for South San Francisco is
approximately $105 million. The Parks and Recreation Department
has a budget of over $16 million (of which approximately $462,134
is the annual budget for the tree crew).
Park Impact Fee
Developers are required to provide three acres of park space
per 1,000 people. However, there is no current requirement to
provide trees.
Tree Permit Fees
Tree permit application fees are $100. This money is set aside for
tree plantings. In addition to the application fee, unreturned $350
tree replanting deposits are also allocated towards tree plantings.
Tree removal permit fees are refunded when tree replanting
requirements are met.
FUNDING
Stable and predictable funding is critical to effective and efficient
management of the urban forest. Trees are living organisms,
constantly growing and changing over time and in response to their
environment. There are a number of factors that affect tree health
and structure, including nutrition, available water, pests, disease,
wind, and humidity. While it might seem like most changes to trees
take a long time to occur, some specific maintenance is critical
at certain stages of life. For instance, young trees benefit greatly
from early structural pruning and training. Minor corrections that
are simple can be applied with low costs when a tree is young.
However, if left unattended they can evolve into very expensive
structural issues and increase liability as trees mature (at which
point it may be impossible to correct the issue without causing
greater harm). Over-mature trees often require more frequent
inspection and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the risk
of unexpected failure. A stable budget allows urban forest
managers to program the necessary tree care at the appropriate
life stage when it is most beneficial and cost effective.
What do we have?
Figure 2: South San Francisco 2018-2019 Budget
Economic & Community Development 9%
City Manager 3%
City Clerk 1%
Library Department 6%
Non-departmental 1%
City Treasurer <1%
Fire Department 26%
Public Works Department 6%
Human Resources 1%
City Council <1%
Police Department 28%
Finance Department 3%
City Attorney 1%
Tree Crew <1%
Parks & Recreation Department 15%
TREE CREW <1%
44 What do we have?
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION
All City departments can confirm with Parks staff if a tree is a city-
owned tree, through the tree inventory database. This allows staff
to identify which trees are City-owned. However, communication
between departments is inconsistent and Parks staff have not
always been included in construction and design discussions
that involve trees or could potentially incorporate trees. This
disconnect reduces the ability for Parks staff to provide effective
input on issues that could affect the urban forest.
Forestry operations could further benefit from increased access
to heavy and specialty equipment. As a result of budget’s being
specific to each City department, heavy equipment is most often
assigned to a specific department. Interdepartmental collaboration
and the establishment of equipment sharing protocols has the
potential to increase Park’s ability to perform tree care operations
more cost-effectively and efficiently.
Planning
The Planning Division is responsible for approving and inspecting
development projects in the public right-of-way. The Division
recommends trees for inclusion in plans as much as possible.
Following project completion, Planning provides a post-
construction inspection for compliance with design plans. If the
requirements are met, the Planning Division will provide a “final
sign-off” on the project. The inspection includes reviewing the
location of trees that have been installed; however, it does not
include a review of irrigation installation (and programming) or
other landscape materials.
Public Works
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and
repairing sidewalks. Heaving sidewalks are common throughout
the City, creating concerns for ADA compliance. In many instances,
lifting sidewalks are a result of inappropriate tree species selection
and tree wells that do not have adequate soil volume to support
root growth. Public Works contacts Parks staff for repairs for
sidewalks, sewers, and lighting that involve any cutting or removal
of tree roots, branches, or entire trees.
Engineering
The Engineering Staff are responsible for maintaining the public
infrastructure within the public right-of-way and for the oversight
for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Engineering Staff work
with Parks staff to address clearance for streets, sidewalks, lights
and signage; visibility for pedestrians on walkways and around
bulb outs; compliance with the ADA; and request input from Parks
staff on CIP during joint coordination meetings. Prior to planting
trees along streets and in center medians, Parks staff work with
Engineering Staff to avoid line-of-sight issues, conflicts with lights
and signage, and ADA compliance.
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement is responsible for investigating concerns
regarding compliance with the Municipal Code. Currently Code
Enforcement is within the Department of Public Works. The most
common complaints received about trees are overgrown trees
and illegal removals of trees designated as protected under the
Tree Preservation Ordinance, heaving sidewalks, fire concerns,
and property boundary disputes. Code Enforcement generally
responds to complaints within a range of 24-hours to 14 days.
45What do we have?
South San Francisco Unified School District
South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department has a joint
use agreement with South San Francisco Unified School District.
The agreement outlines maintenance activities for portions of
school property that provide benefit to the greater community
(e.g., ballfields).
Historically, the School District has not observed the Tree
Preservation Ordinance even though local schools have removed
high numbers of trees without replacing them. With a significant
amount of acreage, trees on school property have the potential to
provide benefits to more than just the children who attend those
schools.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
In California, all utility providers are subject to General Order
95; Rule 35 Vegetation Management (California Public Utilities
Commission, revised 2012) and FAC-003-2 Transmission
Vegetation Management (NERC) which outline requirements for
vegetation management in utility easements. These requirements
include clearance tolerances for trees and other vegetation
growing in proximity to overhead utilities.
Trees located under utility lines should be directionally pruned
by trained, authorized line clearance personnel only to provide
clearance and/or reduce height. Selecting small-stature tree
species that are utility friendly for planting sites in utility right-of-
way can minimize the need for these maintenance activities.
PG&E shares responsibility with tree crews in pruning trees around
secondary lines. In past projects, PG&E removed trees above gas
lines and provided funding to mitigate (plant) trees in other areas.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
In 1955, the California Legislature created the Air District as the
first regional air pollution control agency in the country. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District has a 24-member Board of
Directors composed of locally elected officials from each of the
nine Bay Area counties who oversee policies and adopt regulations
for the control of air pollution within the district.
Bay Area Open Space Council
The Bay Area Open Space Council is a regional network of 75
nonprofits, public agencies, businesses, and individuals that work
to maintain thousands of miles of trails and steward over one
million acres of publicly accessible parks. Cities in the Bay Area
that are members include San Francisco, American Canyon, San
Jose, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek. The Council also engages in
advocacy for regional conservation funding.
California Public Health Advocates
California Public Health Advocates promote health and work to
eliminate health disparities by transforming neighborhoods into
places that nurture well-being through education, research, and
policy recommendations.
Change Lab Solutions
Change Lab Solutions is a public health advocacy group that
works to increase the interaction between public health officials,
cities, and regional planning officials through education and the
facilitation of roundtable discussions.
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Design Review Board (DRB)
Every project that is new or breaking the roofline of a structure
and adds 50% or more to existing structure must go through the
Design Review Board (DRB). The DRB includes two landscape
architect appointees who review landscape plans. For the DRB
to recommend project compliance, the project must meet
development standards. The DRB reviews and recommends
species of trees and the location of trees included in a project.
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is an internal group that
meets once a month to review applications. Representatives from
each department provide input on design plans. Parks staff have an
opportunity to help review tree species selection and placement.
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission consists of South San
Francisco residents who are appointed by the City Council.
Members serve as advocates for parks and recreation needs of the
community, oversee programs and facilities, provide direction to
staff, and serve as the appeal body for the City’s Tree Ordinance.
Improving Public Places Group
In partnership with the Parks and Recreation Department, the
Improving Public Places Group hosts several cleanup days as
well as flower and tree planting events throughout the year.
The Improving Public Places group was founded by current City
Council Member, Karyl Matsumoto. This group assists with
planting, maintaining, cleaning litter, minor trimming, weeding,
spreading mulch, and coordinating special event projects.
What do we have?
46 What do we have?
DEVELOPMENT
Development brings new real estate and economic opportunities
for communities. However, development sometimes comes at
a cost to trees, either through removals or reduced space for
potential future plantings.
Like much of California, South San Francisco has experienced
significant development, particularly with a growing number of
biotechnology companies. Developers, through conditions of
approval and developer agreements are responsible for landscaped
areas with trees. For example, developers provide landscaping and
trees for center medians and areas adjacent to city streets.
Developer agreements are often unclear about the responsibility
of the care of trees planted by developers in the public right-of-
way, as well as species selection.
Developers may not be aware of the important role they have in
the expansion and preservation of the urban forest, benefiting the
community outside of the footprint of the development project.
Some potential opportunities for developers to help with the
urban forest include payment of impact fees as part of developer
agreements and providing volunteers and supplies for tree plantings.
Additionally, another opportunity for developers would be for them
to participate in a “adopt a park or street median” programs.
POLICIES AND REGULATION
City policies and regulations provide the foundation for the urban
forestry program. They outline requirements and specifications for
the planting, installation, and care of South San Francisco’s public
trees and provide the regulatory framework for the protection and
preservation of the urban forest assets as well as the enforcement
of activities and issues that impact the community's trees.
The development of South San Francisco's Urban Forest
Master Plan included a comprehensive review of City policies,
development and construction standards, ordinances and other
regulations that apply to the urban forest. The following provides a
summary of the review process and key findings.
FEDERAL AND STATE LAW
Endangered Species Act
Signed in 1973, the Endangered Species Act provides for the
conservation of species that are endangered or threatened
throughout all or within a significant portion of their range, as well
as the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The
listing of a species as endangered makes it illegal to "take" (i.e.,
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect,
or attempt to do these things) that species. Similar prohibitions
usually extend to threatened species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Passed by Congress in 1918, this Act defines that it is unlawful
to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter,
import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest,
or egg or any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by
the Secretary of the Interior.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act can impact forestry operations
during times when birds are nesting, which may delay work in
order to avoid violating the MBTA.
What do we have?
California Urban Forestry Act
Section 4799.06-4799.12 of the California Public Resources Code
defines a chapter known as the California Urban Forestry Act. The
Act defines trees as a “vital resource in the urban environment
and as an important psychological link with nature for the urban
dweller.” The Act also enumerates the many environmental, energy,
economic, and health benefits that urban forests provide to
communities.
The purpose of the Act is to promote urban forest resources and
minimize the decline of urban forests in the state of California.
To this end, the Act facilitates the creation of permanent jobs
related to urban forestry, encourages the coordination of state and
local agencies, reduces or eliminates tree loss, and prevents the
introduction and spread of pests. The Act grants the authority to
create agencies and mandates that urban forestry departments
shall provide technical assistance to urban areas across many
disciplines (while also recommending numerous funding tools to
achieve these goals).
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
To promote the conservation and efficient use of water and to
prevent the waste of water, a Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance (MWELO) was adopted in 2009 and later revised
in 2015. The Ordinance requires increases in water efficiency
standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through the use
of more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and onsite
stormwater capture. It also limits the portion of landscapes that
can be covered in turf.
47What do we have?
Title 8: Health and Welfare
Prohibits dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees on private
property that create an unsightly appearance or are dangerous to
public safety and welfare or detrimental to neighboring property
or property values.
Title 10: Public Peace, Morals and Safety
Prohibits the removal and vandalism of trees on park property and
restricts the parking of bicycles against trees.
Title 13: Public Improvements
Defines protected trees and provides definitions for “pruning” and
“trimming.” The Title restricts the abuse or mutilation of protected
trees. Title 13 defines the responsibility of property owners to
care for protected trees and authorizes the removal, pruning, or
trimming of protected trees in emergencies. The Title authorizes
the director or designee to make decisions on protected trees and
requires the replacement of protected trees, including issuing fines
for violations.
The Title sets requirements for the planting and maintenance
of trees for new developments and for property that is already
developed. Title 13 establishes an appeal process and authorizes
the use of penalties for violations.
Title 14: Water and Sewage
Authorizes enforcement officials to require the removal of dead
trees to prevent pollutants from entering the City storm sewer
system. The Title also requires the use of design strategies on-site
to conserve natural areas, including existing trees.
Title 15: Building and Construction
Provides a definition for trees.
Title 19: Subdivisions
Provides a minimum number of trees per plot and spacing
specification required by the street tree ordinance of the City.
Requires the replacement of street trees for public improvement
projects as a condition of the approval and acceptance of a project.
Title 20: Zoning
Title 20 establishes lot and development standards, including the
use of trees in the landscape and limits the coverage of a lot by
impervious surfaces. Landscape plans are required to accurately
show existing trees and specify soil depth to achieve reasonable
success of trees with a paved environment and the use of trees in
tree screens in downtown and residential districts.
The Title requires the practical preservation of existing trees.
It also provides some standard for the protection of trees from
construction vehicles and equipment and excavated soils under
the canopy of any trees on a site which are to be preserved. Title
20 provides guidelines for pruning (for clearance and visibility of
street trees) and prohibits the use of signs in the public right-of-
way that harm street trees.
California Solar Shade Control Act
Passed in 1978, California’s Solar Shade Control Act supported
alternative energy devices, such as solar collectors, and required
specific and limited controls on trees and shrubs. Revised in 2009,
the Act restricted the placement of trees or shrubs that cast a
shadow greater than ten percent of an adjacent existing solar
collector’s absorption area upon the solar collector surface at any
one time between the hours of 10am and 2pm.
The Act exempts trees or shrubs that were:
• Planted prior to the installation of a solar collector
• Trees or shrubs on land dedicated to commercial
agricultural crops
• Replacement trees or shrubs that were planted prior to
the installation of a solar collector and subsequently died
or were removed (for the protection of public health,
safety, and the environment) after the installation of a
solar collector
• Trees or shrubs subject to City and county ordinance
Public Park Preservation Act
The Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 ensures that any public
parkland converted to non-recreational uses is replaced to serve
the same community.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
South San Francisco Municipal Code has eight titles that provide
considerations for trees, including: Title 6, Title 8, Title 10, Title 13,
Title 14, Title 15, Title 19, and Title 20.
Title 6: Business Regulations
Provides restrictions for the placement of news racks near trees.
What do we have?
48 What do we have?
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
The South San Francisco General Plan is a document adopted by
the City Council that provides the following:
• A vision for South San Francisco’s long-range physical and
economic development.
• Strategies and specific implementing actions that will
allow this vision to be accomplished.
• A basis for judging whether specific development
proposals and public projects are in harmony with Plan
policies and standards.
• Authorization for City departments, other public agencies,
and private developers to design projects that will
enhance the character of the community, preserve and
enhance critical environmental resources, and minimize
hazards.
• The basis for establishing and setting priorities for
detailed plans and implementing programs, such as the
Zoning Code, the Capital Improvements Program, facilities
plans, and redevelopment and specific plans.
Chapter 3.1 Downtown recommends using emphatic street trees
to help link the downtown area with the BART station.
Chapter 4.3 Alternative Transportation Systems and Parking
suggests the use of street trees as part of frontage improvements
for new development and redevelopment projects.
Chapter 7.1 Habitat and Biological Resources Conservation
identifies threats to historic vegetation, including oak woodlands
and significant stands of trees in South San Francisco, and provides
guidelines for the conservation of these natural resources.
Chapter 8.4 Fire Hazards specifically identifies strategies to
mitigate fire hazards through tree maintenance.
City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
Chapter 5 of the City of South San Francisco Climate Action
Plan defines and lists non-native species and shade trees with
high water usage as favorable for reducing the impact of climate
change, but unfavorable for adapting to climate change.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the significant
environmental impacts of proposed projects that meet specific criteria
and actions to avoid or mitigate those impacts where feasible.
TREE CARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
Private property owners can hire contractors to prune private
trees. However, some tree care companies are not professionally
licensed or may not be knowledgeable about tree physiology
and best management practices (BMPs) for tree care (such as the
consequences of topping trees). While superficially the topping of
trees may be objectionable because of the aesthetic, the bigger
concern with the practice is that it makes individual trees more
vulnerable to pests and disease. In some cases, private trees that
are infested with pests or pathogens pose a threat to the urban
forest, including public trees. Trees that are topped can also
become structurally unsafe when their crowns grow back.
In addition to concerns about the maintenance of trees on private
property, there are concerns about the decreased availability of
planting space on private property as a result of property owners
hardscaping their lots. While Title 20 of the Municipal Code
restricts the percentage of impervious surface on private lots,
violations are evident across the community.
The Tree Preservation Ordinance provides protections for specific
species and sizes. However, this ordinance is not enforceable
on school property. As a result, trees on school property are
frequently removed and never replaced.
What do we have?
CONCLUSIONS
Considering an existing canopy cover of 8.7% (excluding open
water) and a potential canopy cover of 22.6%, South San
Francisco has ample room to grow the urban forest. Areas slated
for development (residential and commercial) will eventually
represent a mixture of land cover that includes both hardscape
(impervious surface) and tree canopy. It is important to recognize
that impervious surfaces and canopy cover can co-exist in
many instances, especially with appropriate design standards.
Canopy that extends over hardscape features, including parking
lots, streets, and structures can add to the overall amount of
canopy cover and reduce the ratio between canopy cover and
impervious surfaces. In addition, shade provided by tree canopy
can demonstrably extend the lifespan of materials used in the
construction of hardscape features (McPherson et al, 2005).
Another opportunity for expanding tree canopy cover is through
collaboration with the South San Francisco Unified School District.
Although many trees have been removed on school properties,
there is a potential to plant new, more appropriate, tree species
that will benefit students as well as the community.
The City currently has an inventory of nearly 15,000 public
trees. The Urban Forest Resource Assessment summarizes the
composition of this community resource. The urban tree canopy
assessment provides a landcover layer that identifies the location
and extent of existing canopy (public and private), establishes a
baseline for monitoring overall tree canopy cover throughout the
community, and augments the City’s GIS database. Tree protection
regulations promote the preservation and protection of some large
or unique tree species. A well-trained and dedicated Parks staff
can provide leadership and expertise to provide stewardship of the
urban forest. All these factors listed above provide the foundation
and tools necessary to make meaningful and effective management
choices about the urban forest and illustrates the investment that
South San Francisco has made in this resource. The information
provides a basis for developing community goals and urban forest
policies and establishes benchmarks for measuring the success of
long-term planning objectives over time.
49What do we have?
Increased interdepartmental coordination for planning and
resource sharing will promote greater efficiencies for urban
forestry operations. Improving standards for planting sites,
including consideration of soil volume, minimum dimensions, and
alternative designs, will improve environmental conditions for trees
in support of community canopy goals.
The urban forest is a living resource subject to environmental
and cultural stressors, including pests, disease, extreme weather
and climate change, pollution, and accidental damage. While it
is impractical to protect and preserve every tree, actions and
strategies that increase overall resilience can ensure that the
community continues to receive a stable flow of benefits. Strategies
that increase forest resilience include increasing species diversity,
planting the right tree in the right location, regular inspection and
maintenance, and management of pests and disease.
A complete inventory of public trees and a comprehensive
inventory management system are vital components for urban
forest management. Ideally, inventory management software
should provide a geospatial data interface to track the location,
species, condition, size (DBH), and maintenance needs of every
public tree. A system that allows managers to track tree history,
create work orders, and create grid-based pruning cycles will
improve program efficiency and provide information and support
for budget requests and scheduling work for tree care.
Requirements and standards for trees can be found in multiple
chapters and sections of the Municipal Code and can be difficult
to locate and interpret. Where confusion exists, codes should be
revised to reduce ambiguity and subjectivity.
Community support for the urban forest is critical for sustainable
programming and the realization of long-term goals. Engaging
community members through workshops, online resources,
and volunteer projects builds an educated community that sees
value in protecting this resource for future generations. South
San Francisco’s Arbor Day celebration and other tree planting
events are especially important for cultivating a greater sense
of ownership and stewardship for the urban forest. Partnering
with volunteer and nonprofit groups could help facilitate further
community engagement and provide support for education and
outreach event campaigns. The urban forest webpage should
continue to provide important links and fact sheets that summarize
key messages to increase community member’s knowledge-base
about trees and the urban forest.
For 32 years, South San Francisco has achieved Tree City USA
status, reflecting the City’s commitment to responsibly care for
trees through tree care ordinances, dedicated funding, and annual
observances of Arbor Day. Beyond this recognition, Parks staff
are motivated to improve the existing urban forestry program
and ensure that the urban forest is preserved and protected for
future generations. With a changing climate and an increasing
risk of introduced pests and disease pathogens, Parks staff are
acutely aware of the challenges and potential vulnerabilities that
urban trees face. Because the urban forest is a dynamic, growing,
and ever-changing resource, it requires sound and proactive
management to fully realize its maximum potential.
The urban forest is a public asset that has the potential to increase
in value and provide benefits.
Stakeholder interviews and a review of operations identified
a number of opportunities and challenges facing South San
Francisco’s urban forestry program over the next couple of
decades, including maintaining adequate resources (staffing,
funding, and equipment), increasing forest resiliency, climate
fluctuations, inventory management, revisions to the Municipal
Code, community engagement, and volunteer coordination.
With limited staffing and equipment, the care of public trees
is currently reactive. Care is focused on clearance pruning and
response to hazardous and emergency situations. Urban trees are
a living resource that benefit from timely maintenance to address
health and safety needs and encourage strong structure. Proactive
inspection and maintenance promotes tree longevity, maximizes
benefits, and helps manage risk potential. Best management
practices (BMPs) suggest a 5-7-year maintenance cycle for all
public trees. Mature, over-mature, and trees in high-use locations
(e.g., retail zones, parks, etc.) often require more frequent
maintenance to maintain clearance and minimize risk.
The Parks Division ensures that tree care staff follow BMPs and
industry standards, including standards for safety and professional
training. However, there is currently no documentation for
operating procedures or standard policies for training, tailgates,
and job-site safety briefings. Developing a policies and procedures
manual will provide documentation of standard operating
procedures and ensure that policies are clearly outlined for existing
and future tree care staff.
What do we have?
50 What do we have?
To better understand how the community values urban forest
resource and to provide residents and other stakeholders an
opportunity to express their views about management policy and
priorities, public input opportunities on the UFMP were provided.
The UFMP development process included a community meeting
and an online survey in addition to a presentation to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
MANAGING PARTNERS
While awareness may vary, many individuals and departments
within the City share some level of responsibility for the
community urban forest, including planning for, caring for, and/
or affecting the policy of urban forest assets. City partners were
invited to participate in an interview and discussion about their
role and perspective for the urban forest as well as their views,
concerns, and ideas for the UFMP. These interviews provided
important information about the current function of the Urban
Forestry program and potential for improvement. Concerns,
requests, and suggestions from all stakeholders were of primary
interest and were provided full consideration in the development
of the UFMP.
Managing Partners
• Department of Public Works
• Engineering Division
• Code Enforcement
• Finance Department
• Parks and Recreation Department
• Parks Division
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• Improving Public Places Committee
• Planning Division
• Friends of the Urban Forest
• Fire Department
What do we want?
Key concepts gathered through the stakeholder interview process
include the following:
1. Community members often request maintenance that
does not support tree health. Education on the benefits
of trees and individual tree health will help foster greater
community support for the urban forest and hopefully
address violations of the Municipal Code.
2. Forestry has historically not been included in department
communications that can potentially impact trees but can
be included moving forward.
3. Trees are primarily valued for aesthetics; privacy
screening, greening, and property value improvements.
4. Loss of canopy cover as a result of climate change,
extended periods of drought, poor species selection,
and development is the biggest challenge looking ahead
to the future.
5. There is a strong desire to have an active and engaged
community group whose goal is to preserve and protect
the urban forest.
6. More interdepartmental coordination is needed as it
pertains to trees, plantings, and removals, etc.
51What do we have?
Most participants indicated support for a proactive management
approach for caring for public trees. This approach would include
cyclical maintenance with regular inspection and pruning of
public trees. Participants indicated that they would need more
information about any changes to the Municipal Code that would
require professional licensing for tree care providers operating
within the City. Community members did not support higher
penalties for illegal removals.
Questions posed to participants about the best methods of
outreach and topics for education indicated that community
members appreciate multiple methods of outreach and
engagement and are interested in a wide range of educational
topics. Among the collaborative efforts proposed to participants
at the meeting, providing high school credits to improve youth
engagement was well supported.
Although participants were not asked directly about the benefits
of trees that are valued most by the community, many expressed
support for trees for noise abatement capabilities, since some
homes are in close proximity to San Francisco International
Airport.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
On November 19, 2019, a Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting was held at the City Council Chambers to discuss
the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) among other items.
Commissioners were given time to review the document
beforehand. Parks Staff presented a draft of the Urban Forest
Master Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission, explained
the intent, importance, and future impacts the document would
have on the community. After the Staff presentation, each
Commissioner asked questions, and provided feedback. Their
thoughts were incorporated into the UFMP whenever possible.
COMMUNITY MEETING
A community meeting was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, from
6:30 pm to 8:00 pm at the City Council Chambers. The meeting
was advertised through social media, City emails, City website,
and City newsletters. The meeting was attended by 22 community
members, four of which were City Staff.
The meeting included a presentation about the community’s urban
forest and current program status. Following the presentation,
attendees participated in a discussion and planning session to
identify goals and objectives for the Plan. Attendees were asked
to provide their expectations for public tree maintenance and
locations for additional tree plantings. Participants were also asked
to share their opinions on 1) effective education and outreach,
2) the best opportunities for providing educational materials and
outreach activities, 3) the professional licensing requirement
for tree care providers within the City, 4) higher penalties for
unpermitted removals, and 5) collaboration opportunities.
Community meeting participants overwhelmingly supported a
canopy goal of 22.6% (potential canopy cover) and did not support
a goal of a no net loss (to maintain the current level of 8.7% canopy
cover). Similarly, the majority favored additional plantings along
streets and in park strips, followed by additional plantings at schools,
but did not support opting for no additional plantings of trees.
What do we have?
52 What do we have?
ONLINE SURVEY
An online survey, available from March 26 to May 6, provided additional opportunity for public input into
the UFMP development. The survey was available, via a link on the City of South San Francisco’s website,
Parks and Recreation Department social media pages, and through City emails. The survey included a
series of 18 questions, including questions about views on tree benefits, education and outreach, requiring
licensing for tree care professionals, increasing penalties for unpermitted tree removals, and collaboration
activities. Seventy-five people responded to the survey during a six-week period. The Buri Buri/Alta Loma
and Avalon/Brentwood/Southwood neighborhoods had the most responses. The complete survey and
results (including comments received) are presented in Appendix D.
Over 89% of respondents identified “very true” when asked if trees are important to the quality of life
in South San Francisco.
Figure 3: Responses to “Trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco”?
89.3%
9.3%
1.3%<1%<1%
Very true True Not sure Not true Definitely, not true
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Response% of RespondentsFigure 4: Responses to “Are there enough trees in South San Francisco”?
When asked if there are enough trees in South San Francisco:
Figure 5: Responses to “Where would you like to see more trees planted”?
Survey respondents were asked to identify where they would like to see more trees planted:
52.1%50.7%
43.7%42.3%42.3%
32.4%
15.5%
7.0%4.2%
0.0%
Streets andparking strips Commercial areas Medians Parks and openspace Newdevelopments Private property Industrial areas Other (pleasespecify)Green roofs No additionaltrees
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Response % of RespondentsFigure 6: Responses to “What Canopy Goal Should South San Francisco Adopt”?
When asked which canopy goal the City of South San Francisco should adopt:
76.1%
19.7%
1.4%1.4%1.4%
22.6% (potential)15%10%No net-loss, maintain
the current level ofcanopy cover 8.7%
Other (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Response% of RespondentsThe respondent that selected “other” identified through the comment box “not sure”.
The following summarizes common comments provided in the optional comment box for additional
comments about canopy cover: 1) suggestions for increased canopy coverage along main thoroughfares and
2) concerns for removal of trees or lack of planting of trees on private property or in new development.
What do we want?
53What do we want?
Figure 9: “What level of care for public trees would you prefer”?
52.1%
35.2%
11.3%
1.4%
Proactive - cyclicalmaintenance, regular
pruning/inspection
Tree Health Care -optimal tree care to
address structure,
pests, disease, etc.
Minimal/Reactive -prune for visibility,
sidewalk/street
clearance, addressing
service requests andimmediate hazards
Other (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Response% of RespondentsA comment box was provided to allow for additional comments regarding the care of public trees. The
following summarizes the most common comments: 1) additional staff to care for trees, 2) additional
educational material, and 3) concerns for the level of care in neighborhoods and along specific streets.
Figure 10: “Should the City require professional licensing for tree care providers”?
Online survey respondents were asked to provide their level of support for the City requiring
professional licensing for tree care providers:
0.507
0.2535 0.2394
Yes Not sure No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Responses% of Respondents
What do we want?
Figure 7: “Which benefits provided by trees do you value most? Please select the top three benefits”.
Survey respondents were asked to choose the top three benefits that trees provide that they value most.
70.7%
60.0%
42.7%
32.0%
22.7%16.0%16.0%12.0%12.0%4.0%4.0%2.7%1.3%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Responses% of RespondentsRespondents that selected “other” identified the following categories: 1) all of the benefits are valued,
2) wind buffers, and 3) as play space for children.
A comment box was provided to allow for additional comments on the benefits of trees. Comments primarily
echoed the aesthetic benefits of trees but also included the category of trees wind buffering capabilities.
Figure 8: “Describe your awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forest program. Please check all that apply”.
To help gauge the public’s perception of urban forestry operations, respondents were asked to describe
their awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forestry program:
66.2%
43.7%
36.6%
29.6%25.4%21.1%
7.0%
I have seen City crews workingon trees.I was aware that the Cityresponds to tree emergencies.I did not know that the City hada program to care for trees.I have participated in ArborDay and volunteer plantingevents.
I have read about the programin City-wide newsletters.I have used the City website orcalled for tree information.Other (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Response% of RespondentsAmong respondents who selected “other” there was no commonality in opinions expressed.
54 What do we want?
Figure 11: “Would you support a higher penalty for unpermitted removals”?
Respondents were also asked about their support of higher penalties for unpermitted removals:
49.3%
28.2%
22.5%
Yes No Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Responses% of RespondentsFigure 12: “What topic about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)”?
Online survey participants were asked to identify which methods of outreach and education they prefer:
66.7%
46.4%
40.6%40.6%
33.3%30.4%27.5%
0.0%
Web or App-based(electronic)Workshops Public tree plantings(Arbor Day, etc.)Engagementthrough schools Farmers Market(urban forestry info
booth)
Pamphlets,Newsletters (hard
copy)
Self-guided tours ordemonstration
gardens
Other (pleasespecify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Response% of RespondentsFigure 13: “What education topics about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3)”.
To understand which educational topics the community is interested in, the survey requested that
respondents indicate their top three (3) preferred educational topics:
78.3%
65.2%
40.6%
33.3%31.9%
23.2%
2.9%
Speciesselection Basicpruning foryoung/smalltrees
Irrigationandwatering
Benefits oftrees How toplant a tree How towater a treeduringdrought
Other(pleasespecify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Response% of RepsondentsParticipants who selected “other” shared their comments that education for general care and
maintenance of mature trees was desired.
In addition to understanding interests in educational topics, the survey asked about interest in
volunteer/collaborative efforts:
Figure 14: “What volunteer/collaborative efforts interest you most? Please select all that apply”.
75.4%
53.6%
42.0%
4.4%
VolunteerOpportunities StewardshipProgram/CommunityForesters
CompanySponsorship's (Adopta Park/Adopt aMedian)
Other (please specify)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Response% of RepsondentsParticipants who selected “other” indicated interest in collaborating with schools.
What do we want?
55What do we want?
Figure 15: “What is your age”?
Community members that participated in the online survey were asked to provide their age range:
36.2%
20.3%17.4%15.9%
8.7%
1.5%0.0%
35-44 45-54 55-64 65+25-34 18-24 Under 18
0%
20%
40%
60%
Response% of RespondentsFigure 16: “What neighborhood do you live in”?
Community members were asked to provide which neighborhood they live in:
The online survey provided a comment box at the end of the survey to allow for additional feedback.
Comments primarily identified concerns over inappropriate past species selection, requests for
additional plantings in specific areas, concerns for lack of trees in certain developments, and questions
about appropriate placement of trees near buildings and hardscape.
What do we want?
56 What do we want?
ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS & COST EFFICIENCY
Increasingly, there is more scientific data on
the benefits that trees provide to communities.
Increased knowledge on the benefits of trees
promotes a greater appreciation for the urban
forest. Optimization of urban forestry funding
and programming allows the City to meet and
exceed community expectations and increases
cost-efficiency for managing the resource.
Goals
• Promote excellent and efficient customer
service.
• Increase uniformity between City policies,
documents, and departments.
• Advance the role of Park Staff in City
development projects.
• Increase collaboration with developers.
• Provide water to trees efficiently and
cost-effectively.
ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
Enhancing community safety related to trees
should focus on two areas: 1) tree maintenance,
and 2) worker safety. In general, the risk that
trees pose to the public is minimal. However,
tree care should always strive to make trees
even safer to reduce risk to the community.
Additionally, tree maintenance can also be
dangerous. Therefore, the City should look for
opportunities to improve the safety of staff
responsible for caring for trees.
Goals
• Promote a workplace culture of safety.
• Promote a safe urban forest.
• Reduce the risk of wildfire.
• Manage risk.
OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Trees are a valuable community asset and
an integral part of the infrastructure. The
environmental, social, economic, and public
health benefits provided by trees and canopy are
directly related to the distribution of leaf surface
and tree canopy. As trees mature, the benefits
that are provided to the community increase.
GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
The urban forest provides numerous benefits to
the community. Although it might be tempting
to plant as many trees as possible, it is prudent
to grow and enhance the urban forest in a
sustainable manner. It is important to ensure
not only that trees are planted but also that they
can be maintained throughout their lifetimes.
Goals
• Plan for trees, before planting.
• Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
• Decrease tree mortality.
• Promote good maintenance practices for
trees on private property.
• Review and update Municipal Code as
needed.
Goals
• Increase support for the enhancement of
the urban forest.
• Continue to distribute information about
the urban forest to the community.
• Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
• Continue to pursue an Integrated Pest
Management approach when responding
to pests and pathogens.
What do we want?
57
What do we want?
PLAN GOALS AND ACTIONS
Based upon a review of the current Urban Forestry program and
resources (What Do We Have?) and input from the community
and stakeholders, the Plan identifies 19 goals that are organized
under four areas of focus. These goals represent the Community’s
vision for the urban forest. The goals and actions are intended
to adequately manage the City’s urban forest in a timely, cost-
effective, and efficient manner. Through the collaborative
stakeholder and community input process, the Plan identifies four
major guiding principles (focus areas):
1. Align urban forest management policy with community
expectations and cost efficiency
2. Enhance community safety
3. Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public
health benefits of trees and canopy
4. Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable
urban forest
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
Increasingly, there is more scientific data on the benefits that
trees provide to communities. Increased knowledge on the
benefits of trees promotes a greater appreciation for the urban
forest. Optimization of urban forestry funding and programming
allows the City to meet and exceed community expectations and
increases cost-efficiency for managing the resource.
Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service.
Trees are a community asset. Parks staff are responsible for
providing quality, efficient, and cost-effective services for public
trees. It is also expected that they are responsive, courteous, and
fair to community members.
Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments.
Inconsistencies across City policies, documents, and departments
creates confusion between departments and the community. Policy
uniformity promotes strong and efficient policy that aligns with
community expectations.
Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks staff in City development projects.
Parks staff are stewards for all urban trees that currently exist
or have the potential to be planted in the City. Staff should be
engaged in conversations about development projects that could
affect or add trees.
Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers.
New development provides an opportunity to expand the urban
forest through the addition of trees at project sites. Increasing
collaboration between Parks staff and developers creates the
opportunity for Staff to educate developers on 1) the value of
trees to projects and the community and 2) the importance of
selecting appropriate species and providing the necessary care to
maintain those trees over their lifetime.
Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively.
All trees, especially newly planted ones, need some level of
water to thrive. Identifying efficient and cost-effective means for
watering trees is critical for their health. Additionally, achieving this
goal is imperative for meeting community expectations regarding
efficiently managing this community asset.
58 What do we want?
FOCUS AREA: ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
Enhancing community safety related to trees should focus on two
areas: 1) tree maintenance, and 2) worker safety. In general, the
risk that trees pose to the public is minimal. However, tree care
should always strive to make trees even safer to reduce risk to the
community. Additionally, tree maintenance can also be dangerous.
Therefore, the City should look for opportunities to improve the
safety of staff responsible for caring for trees.
Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety.
When all City Staff share core values and behaviors that promote
safety, everyone, including the community, is safer.
Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest.
Tree-related incidences that result in damage to property or
injury to persons occur infrequently but can happen. With regular
inspection and maintenance, the risks that trees pose to the public
are reduced, along with people’s anxieties about trees. When
community members feel safe around trees, they are more likely to
respect and desire their inclusion in the urban landscape.
Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire.
In the last decade, California has experienced catastrophic losses as a
result of wildfire. With prolonged periods of drought and a changing
climate, wildfire is likely to continue to be a threat to communities that
neighbor the wildland urban interface. The risk of living in these areas
can be reduced through numerous wildfire mitigation strategies.
Goal 9: Manage risk.
When trees are well-maintained throughout their lifetimes, the
risks trees pose to the public are reduced.
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Trees are a valuable community asset and an integral part of the
infrastructure. The environmental, social, economic, and public
health benefits provided by trees and canopy are directly related
to the distribution of leaf surface and tree canopy. As trees mature,
the benefits that are provided to the community increase.
Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting.
When proper consideration is given to planting trees, future
removals can potentially be avoided. Selecting the right tree for
the right place increases the ability for a tree to reach maturity and
ensure that it has ample space for canopy and root growth.
Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Trees take a long time to grow and the benefits that they provide
increase as the mature. Therefore, tree removals should be avoided
whenever possible to ensure all trees provide the maximum
potential benefits. Trees that pose an unacceptable risk to public
safety or the overall urban forest should be removed and replaced
with a suitable species.
Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040.
South San Francisco has the potential to support a canopy cover
of nearly 23%. Through a community survey and at community
meetings, community members indicated support for a canopy
goal of 23%.
Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality.
Like all living things, trees have a finite lifespan, though some are
longer lived than others. Managers play an important role in reducing
mortality rates through proactive tree maintenance practices,
education, and discouraging the removal of existing trees.
Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property.
Although the City is not directly responsible for the care of trees on
private property, all trees are an important component of the urban
forest. Education and outreach to encourage best management
practices for trees on private property should be done to support
the wellness and benefits of the overall urban forest.
Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur.
As a community grows, its needs can change. The Municipal Code
should be periodically reviewed and revised to refine and identify
requirements to support the urban forest and canopy cover goal.
What do we want?
59What do we want?
What do we want?
FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
The urban forest provides numerous benefits to the community.
Although it might be tempting to plant as many trees as possible,
it is prudent to grow and enhance the urban forest in a sustainable
manner. It is important to ensure not only that trees are planted
but also that they can be maintained throughout their lifetimes.
Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
The urban forest is more likely to be preserved and maintained
by a community that understands the benefits that the urban
forest provides. Educating the community on urban forest benefits
creates an environment for the community members to advocate
for the urban forest.
Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community.
The Parks Division should continue to distribute educational
material and educate the public on the urban forest and tree care.
Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
Growing, maintaining, and educating the community about the
benefits of the urban forest can be greatly enhanced when
volunteers are engaged. Volunteers can serve as advocates for the
urban forest.
Goal 19: Continue to pursue an Integrated Pest Management approach when responding to pests and pathogens.
Pests and disease will always be a threat to the urban forest.
Having a pest management strategy will make the urban forest
more resilient and able to withstand diseases and pest infestations.
The strategy should incorporate the use of multiple tools for
preventing pests and managing current pest problems.
60 What do we want?
The goals and actions proposed by the Urban Forest Master Plan
are organized by guiding principles:
1. Align urban forest management policy with community
expectations and cost efficiency
2. Enhance community safety
3. Optimize the environmental, social, economic, and public
health benefits of trees and canopy
4. Grow, maintain, preserve, and enhance a sustainable
urban forest
Each guiding principle is supported by measurable goals, existing
policies, and specific actions that are intended to guide South
San Francisco’s urban forest programming over the next 25
years, providing the foundation for annual work plans and budget
forecasts. Many goals and actions support more than one focus area.
For each action, the UFMP identifies a priority, a suggested
timeframe for accomplishing the action, an estimated cost range,
and potential partners. Priority is identified as:
• High− An action that is critical to protecting existing
community assets, reducing/managing risk, or requires
minimal resources to accomplish
• Medium− An action that further aligns programming
and resource improvements that have been identified as
desirable by the community, partners, and/or urban forest
managers, but that may require additional investment and
financial resources over and above existing levels
• Low− An action that is visionary, represents an increase in
current service levels, or requires significant investment
The estimated cost is categorized in the following ranges:
• $ = less than $25,000
• $$ = $25,000-$100,000
• $$$ = more than $100,000
The UFMP is intended to be a dynamic tool that can and should
be adjusted in response to accomplishments, new information,
changes in community expectations, and available resources. In
addition to serving as a day-to-day guide for planning and policy
making, the UFMP should be reviewed regularly for progress to
ensure that the actions and sub actions are integrated into the
annual work plan.
How do we get there?
61How do we get there?
Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service.
Performance Measure: Known duration between maintenance
activities for every tree in inventory.
Rationale: Trees are an asset valued by the community. Holding
Parks staff to a high standard elevates the level of care for trees on
both public and private property.
Risk: If the community is not satisfied with the level of service
provided for public trees, then support for forestry programming is
diminished.
Benefit: When trees receive the highest standard of care in an
efficient time frame, trees in the urban forest and the community are
better served.
Objective: Increase efficiency to respond in a timely manner to
community concerns for trees.
Actions:
1. Explore creating a position for a dedicated City arborist.
2. Continue to use interns to update inventory of City trees.
3. Explore water trucks that do not require CDL Class B
Driver’s License to reduce the need for full-time staff to
water newly planted trees.
4. Set pruning cycle based on maintenance and risk
management needs.
5. Launch GIS Grid Pruning System.
6. Create a user-friendly interface to determine tree ownership
(City tree/private tree).
a. Use MyTreekeeper® or similar mobile application that
identifies City trees.
7. Update tree inventory as maintenance occurs.
a. Update inventory to include all trees that are the
responsibility of the City.
b. Conduct a Resource Analysis to quantify the benefits
that City-owned trees are providing to the community.
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
Ongoing
How do we get there?
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
62 How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-5 Years
Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments.
Performance Measure: Number of policies, documents, and
departments that cross-reference the UFMP.
Rationale: Having a uniform policy reduces confusion between
departments and community members and transcends departmental
changes.
Risk: When policies have inconsistencies, setting a high standard of
care is difficult.
Benefit: Uniformity promotes a strong and efficient policy that aligns
with community expectations.
Objective: Unify guiding documents to transcend departmental
changes and address inefficiencies and reduce confusion.
Actions:
1. Ensure that UFMP goals are considered in all overarching
planning and visionary documents as revisions and updates occur.
a. General Plan as it is revised.
b. Climate Action Plan as it is revised.
Objective: Improve communication and coordination with other
City departments.
Actions:
1. Share the Urban Forest Master Plan among City
departments following completion.
2. Communicate internally to develop standards for all
departments.
3. Participate in cross-training activities to create
understanding of other departmental roles.
4. Increase communication with code enforcement to increase
enforcement of tree preservation ordinance.
a. Continue to follow current code enforcement model
and facilitate discussions with Public Works to determine
mitigation measures for tree complaints.
b. Explore new code enforcement policies.
5. Coordinate with other departments to establish procedures
for sharing equipment interdepartmentally.
How do we get there?
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
63How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-3 Years
How do we get there?
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
Objective: Increase the role of Parks staff in design review.
Actions:
1. Provide recommended species list with corresponding
climate zone map to the Design Review Board.
2. Develop conditions of approval for design plans.
3. Inspect tree installations at final inspections.
4. When permits are filed, check to see if 40% of the gross
land is pervious and if not apply a condition of approval to
amend this violation.
5. Use Track-it! to comment and create check-ins during the
review of building permits.
6. Participate in design plan commenting periods, TAG
meetings, and Track-it.
7. Provide final review of building permits to check compliance
with design specifications for tree plantings.
Goal 2 (continued): Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments.
Performance Measure: Number of policies, documents, and
departments that cross-reference the UFMP.
Rationale: Having a uniform policy reduces confusion between
departments and community members and transcends departmental
changes.
Risk: When policies have inconsistencies, setting a high standard of
care is difficult.
Benefit: Uniformity promotes a strong and efficient policy that aligns
with community expectations.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
64 How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
Ongoing
How do we get there?
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks staff in City development projects.
Performance Measure: Number of trees planted through City
projects and increased survivability of trees planted in City projects.
Rationale: City development projects offer another opportunity to
improve public places through tree plantings.
Risk: Potential planting sites could be lost without Parks staff input.
Benefit: Adding trees to City projects increase the benefits provided
to the community through public spaces.
Objective: Encourage the inclusion of trees in development projects
to expand the tree canopy on public property.
Actions:
1. Participate in Technical Advisory Group meetings
to advocate for the inclusion of trees in City
development projects.
2. Participate in joint coordination meetings between
Engineering and Parks and Recreation.
3. Determine if there is potential to include trees in all
City and development projects.
4. Create a formal review process for project planning that
includes consultation with forestry. Require sign-off at
all steps during the review process, including when trees
are installed.
5. Review Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to ensure the
inclusion of trees.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
65How do we get there?
Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers.
Performance Measure: Increased canopy cover in new
developments.
Rationale: Development projects provide an opportunity to expand
tree canopy.
Risk: Parks staff may not collaborate with developers to create
opportunities to incorporate trees into new developments.
Benefit: Trees planted in new developments not only increase
property values, but also increase the benefits provided by the urban
forest to the overall community.
Objective: Expand tree canopy through new development projects.
Actions:
1. Explore the expansion of existing park impact fees to support
tree plantings when new development projects occur.
2. Consider the creation of a tree impact fee, similar to the
existing park impact fee, that would provide funding for
trees based on number of constructed units.
3. Explore Adopt-a-Park or Adopt-a-Median program to
partner with developers.
4. Identify processes for transfer of responsibility for the care
of trees and requirements for that transfer to the City within
developer agreements.
5. Expand developer agreements to include tree plantings
that contribute positively to community benefits.
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-5 Years
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
66 How do we get there?
Goal 5: Encourage the establishment of trees through efficient and sustainable irrigation solutions and programs.
Performance Measure: Reduced staff hours in watering trees.
Rationale: While water is becoming more scarce and costly, trees
need water to survive. Continuing to look for more efficient cost-
effective watering solutions which will help to ensure that young
trees get established. Additionally, cost-effective watering solutions
will ensure that the cost of caring for these young trees is not cost
prohibitive, thus discouraging future plantings.
Risk: Increased mortality rates in young trees.
Benefit: Reduced mortality rates in young trees and reduced labor
and water costs.
Objective: Provide water to trees to encourage establishment.
Actions:
1. Collaborate with the department responsible for flushing water
lines, in order to utilize that water that otherwise goes down
the storm drain.
2. Require separate valves for irrigated landscapes and trees.
3. Continue to use TreeGator® bags and other water efficient
systems to water trees.
4. Continue to explore the potential for a water cistern in Orange
Memorial Park.
5. Look for additional funding sources.
6. Partner with residents/property owners to assist with watering
street trees.
How do we get there?
Cost
$-$$
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-5 Years
FOCUS AREA: ALIGN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS AND COST EFFICIENCY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
67How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Cost
$
Priority
High
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-3 Years
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety.
Performance Measure: Reduction in accidents and time for workers
recovery from work related accidents.
Rationale: Tree work is dangerous. Promoting a culture of safety
results in reduced workplace accidents, less down-time, and greater
productivity. With every staff member engaging in safe behaviors,
everyone (even the community) is safer.
Risk: Unsafe practices and lack of understanding of safety policies make
even those who are complying with safety procedures vulnerable.
Benefit: Fewer accidents and claims against the safety, as a result of
improved public safety.
Objective: Implement policies and procedures that make that tree
work as safe as possible.
Actions:
1. Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Manual for
tree care operations.
a. Include sections on safety training, tree removal
policies, and tree maintenance.
b. When crews go to a site, have a standard assessment or
“tailgate” to identify hazards that exist for each job.
c. As personnel are trained, require signoffs from
supervisor to ensure understanding.
d. Require that tree maintenance be performed according
to best management practices and American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) 300 standards.
2. Continue to support forestry worker safety.
a. Seek out safety trainings provided by consultants that
are familiar with Arboriculture.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
68 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-5 Years
FOCUS AREA: ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest.
Performance Measure: The number of claims against the City
involving trees. To decrease the number of claims against the city.
Rationale: Many different circumstances can result in tree failure.
While not all tree failures can be prevented, many can be mitigated
through proactive management and regular inspections.
Risk: Injury to persons or damage to property is costly. When
residents perceive trees as a risk to public safety, those residents are
less likely to be supportive of including trees in the urban landscape.
Therefore, fewer trees will be widely accepted by the community or
many may be unnecessarily removed.
Benefit: Community members feel safer around trees and want
more included in the urban landscape.
Objective: Develop a risk management policy/procedure.
Actions:
1. Include inspection cycles, inspection protocols,
and thresholds.
2. Set risk thresholds and prioritize removals or other
maintenance based on safety.
3. Develop a protocol for regular inspection of equipment,
including signoffs from supervisor.
4. Review all equipment to ensure they meet minimum
safety standards.
5. Coordinate with fleet services to develop life cycles for
arboriculture equipment.
6. Explore alternative equipment repair and replacement program.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
69How do we get there?
Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire.
Performance Measure: Improved defensible spaces around
structures and reduction in ladder fuels.
Rationale: California has had historic fires over the last decade. Many
of these fires were in urban areas. South San Francisco has identified
areas that are vulnerable to fire. To reduce the risk of living in the
wildland urban interface, the City is working to mitigate potential fire
hazards.
Risk: Given the right conditions and lack of premediated response
to fire, fire is a risk to the community. Fire can result in devastating
losses to property and life.
Benefit: Reduced vulnerability to fire.
Objective: Focus fire mitigation efforts on Sign Hill and other areas
of vulnerability.
Actions:
1. Adopt the City of South San Francisco California Cooperative
Forest Management Plan.
2. Reduce ladder fuels and create defensible space in proximity
to structures.
3. Plant trees to not interfere with emergency response,
such as, planting too close to fire hydrants and too close
to fire escapes.
How do we get there?
Cost
$-$$
Priority
High
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
70 How do we get there?
Goal 9: Improve public safety.
Performance Measure: Reduction in claims related to damage and
injury caused by City trees.
Rationale: Trees rarely cause injuries and damage property; however,
the City has a responsibility to maintain trees to reduce the minimal
risk that trees pose to the public.
Risk: If trees fail, people can get hurt and property can be damaged.
Benefit: Trees that are maintained on a regular cycle are often
healthier and are less likely to fail and cause injury or damage
to property.
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Moderate
Timeframe
Ongoing
Objective: Maintain trees throughout their lifetimes to improve
structure in maturity and reduce the likelihood of structural failures
in the future.
Actions:
1. Create a pruning cycle schedule and communicate this
schedule to the community.
2. Identify and repair or remove trees that pose a threat to life
and property on an ongoing basis.
3. Communicate planting designs with Engineering to ensure
safety and avoid line-of-sight problems.
FOCUS AREA: ENHANCE COMMUNITY SAFETY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
71How do we get there?
Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting.
Performance Measure: Greater health and longevity of individual
trees and reduced mortality/tree removals.
Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow and are a long-term
investment. If a tree is planted in a space that is too small or too
large for a space or is not well suited for the local climate and soil
conditions, the potential benefits that that tree could have provided
to the community are lost.
Risk: Premature death of trees.
Benefit: Fewer removal of trees and maximized community benefit.
Objective: Invest in trees for the long-term environmental benefits
provided to the community.
Actions:
1. Set emphasis on right tree in the right place.
a. Matching tree species to local microclimate.
b. Reducing hardscape and utility conflicts.
c. Matching tree species to soil and water conditions.
d. Matching tree species to planter size and intended use.
2. As design standards are updated, include minimum tree well sizes.
a. Require that planting sites are designed and
constructed to provide the soil space requirement
that will reasonably support the mature size of the
tree species intended for the site. See Appendix F
for soil volume and planter designs.
b. Explore the use of strata-vaults, structural soils and
other soil volume designs to increase space and healthy
soils for trees.
c. Formalize planting distances from water meters,
fire hydrants, or other public utilities.
3. Explore expanding existing tree wells.
a. Review impervious surface coverage at the parcel level.
Reclaim pervious surface as appropriate.
4. Require that all plans include irrigation plans and planting
specifications.
5. Revise Municipal Code 20.300.
a. Include tree planting requirements for single-family
homes and remodels.
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low-Moderate
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
72 How do we get there?
Goal 10 (continued): Plan for trees, before planting.
Performance Measure: Greater health and longevity of individual
trees and reduced mortality/tree removals.
Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow and are a long-term
investment. If a tree is planted in a space that is too small or too
large for a space or is not well suited for the local climate and soil
conditions, the potential benefits that that tree could have provided
to the community are lost.
Risk: Premature death of trees.
Benefit: Fewer removal of trees and maximized community benefit.
Objective: Improve the diversity of the urban forest on public and
private property, to create a more resilient urban forest.
Actions:
1. Use “tree tags” to increase awareness of the value and benefits
of trees.
a. Consider including:
1. Species
2. Annual
3. Replacement value
2. Create a program to provide free or reduced cost trees for
private property for single-family homes or duplexes.
3. Incentivize tree planting on private property, particularly in
high and very high priority planting areas.
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
73How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Moderate
Timeframe
1-5 Years
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Objective: Explore alternative designs instead of removals.
Actions:
1. Explore alternative sidewalk designs to allow space for trees
and compliance with ADA and avoid tree removal.
a. Detour walkways around trees, ramping over roots,
and grinding down displaced sidewalk panels to reduce
tripping hazards without causing undue harm to
critical roots.
b. Use alternative sidewalk materials such as:
1. Crushed granite
2. Gravel sub-base and other structural soils
3. Other structural cells (Strata Cells or Silva Cells
4. Interlocking concrete paver products
5. Flexipave, a system similar to rubber sidewalks
6. Alternative tree grate structures
7. Polygrate, a recycled plastic form of tree grate
2. Revisit Municipal Code to include provisions for tree planting in
development of single-family and duplex homes with additions.
3. Revisit zoning ordinance to include minimum standards of
maintenance of landscaping and replanting requirements or allow
for tree mitigation fees to provide a tree elsewhere in the City.
4. Standardize the use of Tree Protection Zones in all city
development projects.
a. See Appendix G
5. Protect valuable trees during construction.
6. Require a ratio of impervious surface to tree canopy cover in
new developments.
Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Performance Measure: Reduced number of removals.
Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow. While the needs for land
use change and sometimes trees are prohibitive of a desired use,
considerations should be given to preserving trees for all projects.
Risk: Removals that could have been avoided through alternative
design solutions and repairs.
Benefit: The potential for all trees to reach maturity and provide the
optimal amount of benefits to a community.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
74 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
High
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Goal 11 (continued): Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Performance Measure: Reduced number of removals.
Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow. While the needs for land
use change and sometimes trees are prohibitive of a desired use,
considerations should be given to preserving trees for all projects.
Risk: Removals that could have been avoided through alternative
design solutions and repairs.
Benefit: The potential for all trees to reach maturity and provide the
optimal amount of benefits to a community.
Objective: Discourage the removal of protected trees.
Actions:
1. Revise Municipal Code Title 13.
a. Provide specific protections for publicly owned trees
along streets and in parks.
b. Clarify when tree permits are required.
c. Redefine “pruning” consistent with ANSI 300 standards.
d. Redefine “trimming” to define specific tasks that
adjacent property owners are allowed to perform on
protected trees.
e. Review fee structure for violations to account for the
replacement costs for mature trees.
2. Collaborate with the South San Francisco Unified School
District to encourage the protection of existing trees and
the replacement of trees that have been removed.
a. While the South San Francisco Unified School District
is exempt from the Tree Protection Ordinance, according
to University of Illinois study of more than 400 children,
visible access to trees and nature reduced student
anxiety and symptoms of ADD/ADHD and improve
test scores (2011).
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
75How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$-$$
Priority
Low
Timeframe
10-15 years
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Objective: Improve everyday care of trees, to prevent future
removals.
Actions:
1. Revise Municipal Code Title 13.
a. Clarify the responsibility of tree maintenance.
1. Set minimum irrigation standards for residents
2. Revise definition of trimming to avoid excessive
pruning and to prohibit residents from using
ladders to prune anything that cannot be
reached from the ground
b. Define a minimum standard of care for regular tree
maintenance and replanting requirements.
Goal 11 (continued): Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Performance Measure: Reduced number of removals.
Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow. While the needs for land
use change and sometimes trees are prohibitive of a desired use,
considerations should be given to preserving trees for all projects.
Risk: Removals that could have been avoided through alternative
design solutions and repairs.
Benefit: The potential for all trees to reach maturity and provide the
optimal amount of benefits to a community.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
76 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040.
Performance Measure: Increased canopy cover.
Rationale: The benefits that an urban forest provides to the
community are directly related to the expanse of tree canopy cover
and leaf surface area. The greater the tree canopy cover, the greater
distribution of benefits to the community.
Risk: No expansion or even loss of canopy cover may result in a
reduction or stagnation in the benefits provided to the community
by the urban forest.
Benefit: Expansion of tree canopy increases the benefits provided by
trees and can be realized by more areas of the community.
Objective: Expand canopy cover to increase environmental
benefits.
Actions:
1. Create a planting plan, which identifies specific planting
priorities for different areas of the City.
a. Consider planting priority areas in planting plans.
b. Consider planting priorities identified by the community.
2. Utilize best management practices for planting and
maintaining trees.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
77How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low-Moderate
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Objective: Educate the community about property owner
responsibilities for the care of City trees.
Actions:
1. Complete the tree inventory to include all City-owned trees.
a. Regularly update the inventory to include condition
and address symptoms of stress whenever possible to
reduce rapid decline and potential death of trees.
b. Use an inventory management software to prioritize
maintenance needs and prevent loss of trees that which
are exhibiting symptoms of decline.
2. Increase education around watering trees (even during
periods of drought).
3. Utilize the quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide to educate
the public about forestry events and educational items.
4. Revisit mitigation fees for replacement of trees that have
been illegally removed.
a. Consider the use of the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 10th Edition to
design fee structure.
Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality.
Performance Measure: Reduced mortality rates.
Rationale: Trees are a valuable component of the urban
infrastructure, and when trees die prematurely, the investment in
that infrastructure is lost.
Risk: If efforts are not made to reduce tree mortality, the investment
in the time and labor to plant and care for a tree is lost.
Benefit: Reductions in tree mortality provide the opportunity for all
trees to reach maturity and offer the most community benefits.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
78 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property.
Performance Measure: Expansion of tree canopy on private
property.
Rationale: Trees on private property are an important part of the
urban forest. While the City does not care for these trees, Parks
staff have an opportunity to educate private property owners about
the benefits that trees provide directly to the property and to the
community. Improvements in the care of trees on private land makes
public trees less vulnerable to pests and pathogens.
Risk: Loss in benefits provided to the community from privately
owned and maintained trees.
Benefit: Improved care of private trees and reductions in removals
on private property make the urban forest more resilient to pests
and better able to provide benefits to the whole community.
Objective: Reduce unethical and/or poor pruning practices and
unnecessary removals on private property.
Actions:
1. Collaborate with the School District to improve forestry
practices on school property.
2. Explore requiring tree care companies operating within City
limits to have professional licensing.
3. Explore providing a list of tree care professionals to the
community.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
79How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low-Moderate
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: OPTIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS OF TREES AND CANOPY
Objective: Meet the changing needs of the urban forest and the
community through clear and concise and current policy.
Actions:
1. Explore the creation of an ordinance that defines responsibility
when tree roots impact sewage pipes.
2. Unless tree roots are determined by the City Arborist to have
crushed sewage pipes or lifted sewage pipes, the City is not
responsible for sewage pipe repairs.
3. Revisit ordinance that identifies that sidewalk repairs are the
responsibility of the City if the damage is caused by trees
within the right-of-way.
Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the public as changes occur.
Performance Measure: Number of reviews and revisions.
Rationale: Communities evolve and the rules and laws that govern
the City should change to better meet community expectations.
Risk: If the Municipal Code is not revised, outdated rules that to not
protect the urban forest will leave the urban forest vulnerable.
Benefit: Municipal Code changes can better protect, preserve, and
enhance the urban forest.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
80 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming.
Rationale: An educated and engaged community is more likely to
support and advocate on the behalf of the urban forest.
Risk: Apathy towards the urban forest may result in loss in benefits
provided by the urban forest to the community.
Benefit: A community that supports the urban forest protects the
urban forest and the benefits that it provides to the City.
Objective: Engage the community in urban forestry activities and
educational events.
Actions:
1. Facilitate tree plantings with community groups on private
property and in parks.
2. Develop a presence at local farmers markets.
3. Coordinate engagement activities with local schools.
4. Offer workshops on a variety of tree care topics.
5. Develop a relationship with local biotech companies
to encourage biotech employee participation in tree
planting events.
6. Maintain the City webpage to include tree educational
materials.
a. Provide downloadable fact sheets.
b. Provide responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).
c. Provide a summary of tree ordinances.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
81How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$-$$
Priority
High
Timeframe
1-5 Years
FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
Objective: Provide sustainable and adequate resources to
sustain the urban forest for future generations.
Actions:
1. Explore the use of a Park Bond to supplement existing General
Fund appropriations available for tree maintenance activities.
2. Explore community support for Park District overlay that
would provide dedicated funding to parks and urban forestry.
3. Consider the creation of a tree impact fee, similar to the
existing park impact fee, that would provide funding for trees
based on number of constructed units.
Goal 16 (continued): Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming.
Rationale: An educated and engaged community is more likely to
support and advocate on the behalf of the urban forest.
Risk: Apathy towards the urban forest may result in loss in benefits
provided by the urban forest to the community.
Benefit: A community that supports the urban forest protects the
urban forest and the benefits that it provides to the City.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
82 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Cost
$
Priority
Moderate
Priority
Low
Timeframe
Ongoing
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community.
Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming.
Rationale: Reaching out to the community through a variety of
avenues increases participation in forestry programming and
advocacy for the urban forest.
Risk: When people are unaware of forestry programming, they
cannot participate in educational outreach activities.
Benefit: A better-educated community will likely be more engaged in
caring for the urban forest.
Objective: An educated community increases support and
understanding of urban forestry policies and procedures.
Actions:
1. Continue to distribute information to the community through
the quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide.
2. Continue to use social media to engage the community.
Objective: Market urban forestry through a variety means to
promote participation from all community members.
Actions:
1. Continue to distribute information to the community
through the quarterly Parks and Recreation Guide.
a. Market the accomplishments of the program, i.e.
Arbor Day events and other tree plantings.
b. Continue to coordinate with Improving Public Places
Group for volunteer recruitment.
2. Continue to use social media to engage the community.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
83How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Low-Moderate
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
Objective: Work with volunteer tree advocates to promote
urban forestry events and distribute urban forestry educational materials.
Actions:
1. Collaborate with Improving Public Places (IPP) committee or
other existing volunteer groups to create a community urban
forest volunteer group.
2. Explore partnering with Friends of the Urban Forest.
3. Explore offering high school credits to incentivize
participation from youth.
Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
Performance Measure: Participation in forestry programming.
Rationale: A tree advocacy group allows for Parks staff to have a
larger pool of volunteers to depend on for tree planting events and
other educational and volunteer activities.
Risk: Without a dedicated group of volunteer tree advocates, Parks
staff may have difficulty managing the urban forest.
Benefit: A dedicated group of volunteer tree advocates ensures that
the urban forest has support from the community, increasing the
protection and preservation of the benefits that the urban forest
provides to the community.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
84 How do we get there?
How do we get there?
Cost
$
Priority
Moderate
Timeframe
Ongoing
FOCUS AREA: GROW, MAINTAIN, PRESERVE, AND ENHANCE A SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST
Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach when responding to pests and disease pathogens.
Performance Measure: Reduction in the loss of trees associated with
pests and pathogens.
Rationale: When managing pests there is not a “one size fits all”
approach to management and prevention. The urban forest is more
resilient to pests and disease, when multiple tools are used.
Benefit: Using comprehensive information about pests in
combination with pest control methods promotes economical
management of pests and disease.
Objective: Employ multiple tools and strategies to prevent and/
or manage pests and pathogens.
Actions:
1. Continue to diversify the urban forest.
a. Continue to choose species that are better suited to the
local climate.
b. Continue to avoid planting species of trees that are
susceptible hosts to pest problems.
c. Continue to incorporate native species into planting
palettes.
d. Continue to use drought tolerant species.
e. At a minimum, pursue species diversity goals that meet
the 10-20-30 rule, but strive for even greater diversity
among genera.
2. Continue the use of natural enemies (i.e. owls).
3. Continue monitoring and identifying pest issues.
4. Continue to respond to pests based on economic threats.
$= less than $25,000 $$=$25,000-$100,000 $$$=more than $100,000
85How do we get there?
How are we doing?
With appropriate care and planning, the urban forest is an asset
that has the potential to increase in value over time. As young trees
mature and their leaf surface and canopy grow, so too will the
overall benefits and value from the community’s urban forest. The
objectives and strategies of the UFMP are intended to support this
process in an appropriate manner that encourages the sustainable
stewardship of community trees with consideration for safety, cost
efficiency, and community values. The UFMP includes strategies
for measuring the success of the Plan over time.
MONITORING
Through talking with community partners and those within the
urban forestry program, a set of goals were created to meet the
strong demand for protecting and enhancing the urban forest,
as stated in the community vision. The success of these goals is
largely dependent on creating objectives and strategies to meet
the targets outlined in the UFMP as well as monitor the progress
of these action steps.
ANNUAL PLAN REVIEW
The UFMP is an active tool that will guide management and planning
decisions over the next 20 years. Its goals and actions will be reviewed
annually for progress and integration into an internal work plan. The
UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates are intended to
be flexible in response to emerging opportunities, available resources,
and changes in community expectations. Therefore, each year, specific
areas of focus should be identified, which can inform budget and time
requirements for Urban Forest Managers.
RESOURCE ANALYSIS
With a Resource Analysis, South San Francisco can identify
quantitatively the value of the composition of public trees, the
annual benefit provided to the community, replacement value,
and benefit versus investment ratios. With this information, South
San Francisco can improve health (condition), species diversity,
annual benefits, and overall resource value of its tree resource.
When a resource analysis is conducted every five years, the City
can illustrate progress and success towards Plan goals. A five-year
Resource Analysis review is a possible way to monitor progress
on efforts to increase diversity through a list of tree species
appropriate for a variety of different spaces and landscapes.
CANOPY ANALYSIS
With the recent Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment, South San
Francisco has a baseline tree canopy for the entire urban forest,
which allows for continued monitoring of trends in the canopy
cover on private property.
COMMUNITY SATISFACTION
Plan results will be measurable through increased benefits and
value in the community tree resource and the preservation and
eventual increase in canopy cover over time. Attainment of the
objectives and strategies will support better tree health, greater
longevity, and a reduction in tree failures. However, one of the
greatest measurements of success for the UFMP will be its level
of success in meeting community expectations for the care
and preservation of the community tree resource. Community
satisfaction can be measured through surveys and will be
evidenced by public support for realizing the objectives of the
Plan. Community satisfaction can also be gauged by the level of
engagement and support for forestry programs.
REPORTING
Completion of this Plan is the first step towards achieving the vision for South San Francisco’s urban forest. Continual monitoring, analysis, and revisions will help forest managers
keep stakeholders informed and engaged. By organizing data into specific components (for example; Urban Forest Reports,
Community Satisfaction Surveys), it will be possible to revise specific areas of weakness and buttress areas of strength. Revisions to the Plan should occur with major events, such
as newly discovered pests or diseases, or significant policy and regulation changes. A complete formal revision should
occur in unison with major municipal projects, such as the comprehensive Master Plan. It is important to remember that the South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan is a living
document that should adapt to new conditions.
STATE OF THE COMMUNITY FOREST REPORT
The purpose of the report is to provide structural and functional
information about the urban forest (including the municipal
forest) and recommend strategies for its proactive management,
protection, and growth.
86 How do we get there?
Appendices
APPENDIX A: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)
A Federation of United States industry sectors (e.g. businesses,
professional societies and trade associations, standards developers,
government agencies, institutes, and consumer / labor interest
groups) that coordinates the development of the voluntary
consensus standards system.
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION (APWA)
An organization that supports professionals who operate, improve,
or maintain public works infrastructure by advocating to increase
awareness, and providing education, credentialing, as well as other
professional development opportunities.
ARBORICULTURE
The science, art, technology, and business of tree care.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
Management practices and processes used when conducting forestry
operations, implemented to promote environmental integrity.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP)
Infrastructure projects and equipment purchases identified by
a government in order to maintain or improve public resources.
Projects such as (1) constructing a facility, (2) expanding,
renovating, replacing, or rehabilitating an existing facility, or (3)
purchasing major equipment are identified, and then purchasing
plans and development schedules are developed.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
Government lead initiatives to decrease greenhouse gas emissions
and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
COMMUNITY URBAN FOREST
The collection of publicly owned trees within an urban area,
including street trees and trees in parks and other public facilities.
DUTCH ELM DISEASE (DED)
A wilt disease of elm trees caused by plant pathogenic fungi. The
disease is either spread by bark beetles or tree root grafts.
EMERALD ASH BORER (EAB)
The common name for Agrilus planipennis, an emerald green wood
boring beetle native to northeastern Asia and invasive to North
America. It feeds on all species of ash.
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG)
A gas that traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere.
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
Computer-based tools designed to increase the organization
and understanding of spatial or geographic data. Many different
kinds of data can be displayed on one map for visualization and
interpretation.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)
Using pest and environmental information to determine if pest
control actions are warranted. Pest control methods (e.g. biological
control, habitat manipulation, cultural control, plant resistance,
and chemical control) are chosen based on economic and safety
considerations.
I-TREE
A computer program with tools used to determine the costs and
benefits of urban trees based on inventory data, operations costs,
and other factors.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE (ISA)
An international nonprofit organization that supports professionals
in the field of arboriculture by providing professional development
opportunities, disseminating applicable research findings, and
promoting the profession.
INVENTORIED TREES
Includes all public trees collected in the inventory as well as trees
that have since been collected by city staff.
MAJOR MAINTENANCE
Includes major trimming or pruning or cabling, and any other similar
act, which promotes the life, growth, health or beauty of trees,
excepting watering and minor pruning.
MAJOR TRIMMING AND PRUNING
The removal of branches of three inches in diameter or greater.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (MBTA)
A United States federal law adopted to protect migratory birds.
NATURAL AREA
A defined area where native trees and vegetation are allowed to
grow and reproduce naturally with little or no management except
for control of undesirable and invasive species.
OAK WILT
A tree disease caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum. It is
spread by sap feeding beetles and tree root grafts.
OPEN SPACE
A defined area of undeveloped land that is open to the public. The
land can include native or naturalized trees and vegetation.
PLANT HEALTH CARE (PHC)
A program that consists of (1) routinely monitoring landscape plant
health and (2) individualized plant management recommendations
in order to maintain or improve the vitality, appearance, and safety
of trees and other plants.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)
Equipment worn to enhance workplace safety and minimize the
risk to physical hazards (e.g. gloves, hard harts, bodysuits, and foot,
eye, or ear protection).
PRIVATE TREE
Any tree located on private property, including residential and
commercial parcels.
PROTECTED TREE
Landmark, heritage, quality, or secondary trees.
PUBLIC TREE
Any tree located in the public ROW, city park, and/or city facility.
87Appendices
RIGHT TREE RIGHT PLACE
The practice of installing the optimal species for a particular planting
site. Considerations include existing and planned utilities and other
infrastructure, planter size, soil characteristics, water needs as well
as the intended role and characteristics of the species.
SPECIMEN TREE
Any tree of interest because of size or unusual species, other than
a heritage tree, which is of good quality in terms of health, vigor
or growth and conformity to generally, accepted horticultural
standards of shape for its species, as designated by the city council
upon the recommendation of the tree commission.
STREET TREE
Any tree growing within the tree maintenance strip whether or not
planted by the city.
STRUCTURAL AND TRAINING PRUNING
Pruning to develop a sound and desirable scaffold branch structure
in a tree and to reduce the likelihood of branch failure.
TREE
Any live woody plant having one or more well-defined perennial
stems with a diameter at maturity of six inches or more measured
at fifty-four inches above ground level (breast height).
TREE CANOPY
The layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the
ground when viewed from above.
TREE CITY USA
A program through the Arbor Day Foundation that advocates for
green urban areas through enhanced tree planting and care
TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ)
An International Society of Arboriculture qualification. Upon
completion of this training, tree care professionals demonstrate
proficiency in assessing tree risk.
URBAN FOREST
The collection of privately owned and publicly owned trees and
woody shrubs that grow within an urban area.
URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN (PLAN)
A document that provides a comprehensive information,
recommendations, and timelines to guide for the efficient and
safe management of a city’s tree canopy. The Plan uses adaptive
management model to provide reasoned and transparent calls to
action from an inventory of existing resources.
URBAN FORESTRY
The cultivation and management of native or introduced trees and
related vegetation in urban areas for their present and potential
contribution to the economic, physiological, sociological, and
ecological well-being of urban society.
URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT (UTC)
A document based off of GIS mapping data that provides a
birds-eye view of the entire urban forest and establishes a tree
canopy baseline of known accuracy. The UTC helps managers
understand the quantity and distribution of existing tree canopy,
potential impacts of tree planting and removal, quantified annual
benefits trees provide to the community, and benchmark canopy
percent values.
WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE (WUI)
A transition zone where homes are located on the edge of fire
prone areas, and are at an increased risk of personal injury or
property damage resulting from a wildfire.
Appendices
88 Appendices
APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
Ackerly, David, Andrew Jones, Mark Stacey, Bruce Riordan. (University of California, Berkeley). 2018.
San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication
number: CCCA4-SUM-2018-005.
Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Energy and
Buildings 25:139–148.
Average Weather in South San Francisco. Weather spark. Retrieved on May 15, 2019. Retrieved from:
https://weatherspark.com/y/568/Average-Weather-in-South-San-Francisco-California-United-States-
Year-Round
Bethke, J.A. and L. Bates. 2013. Myoporum Thrips. How to Manage Pests: Pests in Gardens and
Landscapes. UC IPM. Retrieved from: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74165.html
Biotech in South San Francisco. 2018. Retrieved from: http://www.ssf.net/our-city/biotech/biotech-in-ssf
Cayan, D.R. & Peterson, D.H. 1993. Spring climate and salinity in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Water
Resource. Res., 29, 293–303.
City of South San Francisco. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from http://www.ssf.net/our-city/biotech/
biotech-in-ssf
Clark JR, Matheny NP, Cross G, Wake V. 1997. A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability. J Arbor 23(1):17-30.
Climate South San Francisco–California. 2018. U.S. climate data. Retrieved from:
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/south-san-francisco/california/united-states/usca1987
Compliance Offset Protocol Urban Forest Projects. 2011. California Environmental Protection
Agency: Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/
copurbanforestfin.pdf
Dwyer, et al. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):
September 1992.
Ellison, D. et al. 2017. Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental
Change. Volume 43. Pages 51-61. ISSN 0959-3780.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.
Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378017300134
Appendices
Fernández-Juricic, Esteban. 2001. Avifaunal use of Wooded Streets in an Urban Landscape.
Conservation Biology. Volume 14, Issue 2, pages 513-521. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98600.x
Genentech. (2018). Choosing South City. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from https://www.gene.com/stories/
choosing-south-city
Gilman, E. F., & Sadowski, L. 2007. choosing suitable trees for urban and suburban sites: site evaluation and
species selection. University of Florida, IFAS Extension. https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/documents/
EP310.pdf
Gilstad-Hayden et al. 2015. Greater tree canopy cover is associated with lower rates of both violent and
property crime in New Haven, CT. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 143. Pages 248-253. ISSN
0169-2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.005. Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204615001607
Grafton-Cardwel, Dr., Daugherty, Dr., Jetter, Dr., & Johnson, R. 2019. ACP/HLB Distribution and
Management. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved from
https://ucanr.edu/sites/ACP/
Greenhouse Gases’ Effect on the Climate. 2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved
from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=environment_how_ghg_affect_climate
Haddad, et al. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth ecosystems. Science
Advances. 1. e1500052. 10.1126/sciadv.1500052.
Heisler GM. 1986. Energy Savings with Trees. J Arbor 12(5):113–125.
Heisler GM., and DeWalle, O.R. 1968. "Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow: Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environments, 22123, pp. 41-69.
Heisler, G. M. 1990. Mean wind speed below building height in residential neighborhoods with different
tree densities. ASHRAE Transactions. 96 (1): 1389-1396., 96(1), 1389-1396.
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/1990/nrs_1990_heisler_001.pdf
History of South San Francisco. 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=128
Jennings, V.; Gaither, C.J. Approaching Environmental Health Disparities and Green Spaces: An
Ecosystem Services Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 1952-1968.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B. & Rubel, F. 2006. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate
classification updated. Meteorol. Zeitschrift, 15, 259–263.
89Appendices
Radeloff et al. 2005. The Wildland-Urban Interface in the United States. Ecological applications. 15(3).
Pp. 799−805. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2005_radeloff001.pdf
Salim, M. H., Schlünzen, K. H., & Grawe, D. 2015. Including trees in the numerical simulations
of the wind flow in urban areas: should we care?. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 144,84-95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610515001178
Salmon, T. P. 2009. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7433.html
San Bruno Mountain Park Natural Features. County of San Mateo Parks Department. Retrieved on 18
February 2019. Retrieved from: https://parks.smcgov.org/san-bruno-mountain-park-natural-features
Sherer, P.M., 2006. The Benefits of Parks. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.
Spangler, R. 1968. Scheduled to Close: Swift & Co. Plant Was a Boon to SSF. Reproduced for Historical
Society Newsletter: Industrial City Echos, September 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.ssf.net/home/
showdocument?id=156
Swain, Steven. 2015. Pines, Drought and Beetles. Pests in The Urban Landscape. Retrieved:
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=18800
Threlfall, Caragh & Williams, Nicholas & Hahs, Amy & J. Livesley, Stephen. 2016. Approaches to urban
vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 153. 28-39. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.011.
Troy, Austin; Grove, J. Morgan; O'Neil-Dunne, Jarlath. 2012. The relationship between tree canopy
and crime rates across an urban-rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 106: 262-270.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2011, September 19). For kids with ADHD, regular 'green
time' is linked to milder symptoms. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 9, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2011/09/110915113749.htm
Wolfe, Kamala Silva. 2012. “Peninsula Progress: Time to Preserve All of Sign Hill”. San Bruno Mountain
Watch. Retrieved from: http://www.mountainwatch.org/news-clippings/2016/1/18/peninsula-progress-
time-to-preserve-all-of-sign-hill
Xiao, Q., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Ustin, S.L. 1998. Rainfall Interception by South San Francisco's Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(4): 235-244.
Appendices
Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce
crime? Environment and behavior, 33(3), pp.343-367.
Lyle, J.T., 1996. Regenerative design for sustainable development. John Wiley & Sons.
Matsuoka, Rodney. 2010. Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links.
Landscape and Urban Planning. 97. 273-282.
McDonald et al. 2016. Planting Healthy Air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing
particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved from:
https://thought-leadership-production.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/10/28/17/17/50/0615788b-8eaf-4b4f-
a02a-8819c68278ef/20160825_PHA_Report_FINAL.pdf
McPherson, E. 1994. Cooling urban heat islands with sustainable landscapes. In R. Platt, r. Rowntree, &
P. Muick (Eds.), The ecological city (pp. 151–171). Amherst; University of Massachusetts Press.
McPherson, E. and J. R. Simpson. 2010. The tree BVOC index. Elsevier. Environmental Pollution.
159. 2088–2093. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2011_
mcpherson006.pdf
Menning and Stephens. 2007. Fire Climbing in the Forest: A Semiqualitative, Semiquantitative Approach
to Assessing Ladder Fuel Hazards. Society of American Foresters. West. J. Appl. For 22(2). Retrieved from:
https://nature.berkeley.edu/stephenslab/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Menning-Stephens-Ladder-
fuels-WJAF-07.pdf
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mitchell, Jessika. 2019. Shothole Borer. Davey Resource Group’s Treesources. Retrieved from:
http://www.davey.com/environmental-consulting-services/resources-news/shothole-borer/
Parke, J. L., and S. Lucas. 2008. Sudden oak death and ramorum blight. The Plant Health Instructor.
DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2008-0227-01
Pena JCdC, Martello F, Ribeiro MC, Armitage RA, Young RJ, et al. 2017 Street trees reduce the negative
effects of urbanization on birds. PLOS ONE 12(3): e0174484.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174484
Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. 2009. American Planning
Association. Edited by Schwab, James. Retrieved from:
https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/legacy_resources/research/forestry/pdf/555.pdf
90 Appendices
APPENDIX C: INDUSTRY STANDARDS
ANSI Z133 SAFETY STANDARD, 2017
Reviews general safety, electrical hazards, use of vehicles and
mobile equipment, portable power hand tools, hand tools and
ladders, climbing, and work procedures.
ANSI A300
ANSI A300 standards represent the industry consensus on
performing tree care operations. The standards can be used to
prepare tree care contract specifications.
ANSI A300 Pruning Standard-Part 1, 2017
ANSI A300 Soil Management-Part 2, 2011
ANSI A300 Support Systems Standard-Part 3, 2013
ANSI A300 Construction Management Standard-Part 5, 2012
ANSI A300 Transplanting Standard-Part 6, 2012
ANSI A300 Integrated Vegetation Management Standard-Part 7,
2012
ANSI A300 Root Management Standard-Part 8, 2013
ANSI A300 Tree Risk Assessment Standard. Tree Failure-Part 9,
2017
ANSI A300 Integrated Pest Management-Part 10, 2016
Includes guidelines for implementing IPM programs, including
standards for Integrated Pest Management, IPM Practices, tools
and equipment, and definition.
Appendices
ROOT MANAGEMENT, LARRY COSTELLO, GARY WATSON, AND TOM SMILEY, 2017
Recommended practices for inspecting, pruning, and directing the
roots of trees in urban environments to promote their longevity,
while minimizing infrastructure conflicts.
Special companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 8: Tree,
Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management–Standard Practices
(Root Management)
TREE PLANTING, SECOND EDITION, GARY WATSON, 2014
Provides processes for tree planting, including site and species
selection, planting practices, post-planting pruning, and early
tree care. Other topics included are time of planting, nursery
stock (types, selection, and handling), preparing the planting hole,
planting practices, root loss and new root growth, redevelopment
of root structure, pruning, palms, after planting, final inspection,
and a glossary of terms.
TREE INVENTORIES, SECOND EDITION, JERRY BOND, 2013
Provides considerations for managing large numbers of trees
considered as individuals rather than groups and serves as guide
for making informed decisions that align with inventory goals with
needs and resources, including inventory goals and objectives,
benefits and costs, types, work specifications, and maintaining
inventory quality.
TREE RISK ASSESSMENT, SECOND EDITION, E. THOMAS SMILEY, NELDA MATHENY, AND SHARON LILLY, 2017
A guide for assessing tree risk as accurately and consistently
as possible, to evaluate that risk, and to recommend measures
that achieve an acceptable level of risk, including topics such as:
risk assessment basics, levels and scope of tree risk assessment,
assessing targets, sites, and trees, tree risk categorization, risk
mitigation (preventive and remedial actions), risk reporting, tree
related conflicts that can be a source of risk, loads on trees,
structural defects and conditions that affect likelihood of failure,
response growth, and description of selected types of advanced
tree risk assessments.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, SECOND EDITION, 2016
Provides a comprehensive overview of the basic definitions,
concepts, and practices that pertain to landscape Integrated Pest
Management (IPM). The publication provides specific information
for designing, planning, and implementing an IPM program as part
of a comprehensive Plant Health Care (PHC) management system,
including topics such as:
• IPM Concepts and Definitions
• Action Thresholds
• Monitoring Tools and Techniques
• Preventive Tactics
• Control Tactics
• Documentation and Recordkeeping
INTEGRATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, SECOND EDITION, RANDALL H. MILLER, 2014
A guide to the selection and application of methods and techniques
for vegetation control for electric rights-of-way projects and gas
pipeline rights-of-way. Topics included: safety, site evaluations,
action thresholds, evaluation and selection of control methods,
implementing control methods, monitoring treatment and quality
assurance, environmental protection, tree pruning and removal,
and a glossary of terms.
MANAGING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, SECOND EDITION, KELBY FITE & E. THOMAS SMILEY, 2016
Describes tree conservation and preservation practices that help
to protect selected trees throughout the construction planning and
development process so that they will continue to provide benefits
for decades after site disturbance, including planning phase, design
phase, pre-construction phase, construction phase, and post-
construction phase.
91Appendices
Appendices
TREE SHRUB FERTILIZATION, THIRD EDITION, E. THOMAS SMILEY, SHARON LILLY, AND PATRICK KELSEY, 2013
Aids in the selection and application of fertilizers for trees and shrubs, including essential elements,
determining goals and objectives of fertilization, soil testing and plan analysis, fertilizer selection, timing,
application, application area, rates, storage and handling of fertilizer, sample fertilizer contract for
commercial/municipal clients.
SOIL MANAGEMENT, BRYANT SCHARENBROCH, E. THOMAS SMILEY, AND WES KOCHER, 2014
Focuses on the protection and restoration of soil quality that support trees and shrubs in the urban
environment, including goals of soil management, assessment, sampling, and analysis, modifications and
amendments, tillage, conservation, and a glossary of terms.
UTILITY PRUNING OF TREES
Describes the current best practices in utility tree pruning based on scientific research and proven
methodology for the safe and reliable delivery of utility services, while preventing unnecessary injury
to trees. An overview of safety, tools and equipment, pruning methods and practices, and emergency
restoration are included.
APPENDIX D: ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO–COMMUNITY SURVEY
Introduction–South San Francisco Urban Forest
The trees planted throughout the City of South San Francisco, on both public and private property,
are its “urban forest.” Scientists have found that urban forests provide many environmental and health
benefits. The City of South San Francisco has contracted with Davey Resource Group, Inc. to develop
an Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) to support the urban forest and the benefits that it provides to
the community.
The Plan will provide a vision for the future of the city's urban forest and goals for maintenance,
planting, and management to be implemented over the next 20 years.
Your response to the following questions will help us more clearly understand community values and
will help guide the development of the UFMP.
This survey should take you 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Thank you for your participation.
1. Trees are important to the quality of life in South San Francisco.
Response %Response Count
Very True 89.33%67
True 9.33%7
Not Sure 1.33%1
Not True 0.00%0
Definitely, not true 0.00%0
Total 75
Trees provide numerous benefits to the community and the environment. Understanding which
benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies.
92 Appendices
Appendices
2. Which benefits provided by trees do you value most? Please select the top three (3) benefits.
Response %Response Count
Improved air quality 70.67%53
Bird, butterfly, other wildlife habitat 60.00%45
Privacy/Screening 42.67%32
Energy savings 32.00%24
Increased property values 22.67%17
Reduced Greenhouse Gases 16.00%12
Improved human health 16.00%12
Reductions in stormwater 12.00%9
Improved water quality 12.00%9
Shade 4.00%3
Noise buffering 4.00%3
Aesthetics 2.67%2
Other (please specify)1.33%1
• All of the above
• Good for kids to see, play hide & seek, & climb
• Wind buffer
Total 75
3. Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of South San Francisco’s trees.
• Who is going to fix the sidewalks when the roots crack the concrete?
• Trees create a haven for relaxation and reflection. It is vital for our physical and emotional to
be closer to nature. I would love to see a door to door tree program in the Brentwood park
neighborhood so we can truly make a literal neighborhood full of “woods” ( ie: rosewood,
wildwood, Northwood). It would be so nice to come home from the hustle and bustle and feel
a sense of calm in a nicely wooded neighborhood.
• Taking the time now to plan for planting trees to off-set the air quality and pollution due to
extensive new development and increased populations is an investment in our city for current
and future generations.
• They improve the aesthetics
• I like to win the city would let you plant one at your home and they would do the
maintenance on the tree
• Stop building
• When I was 10 and 11 years old Mr. E. De Monty was our teacher, we planted the trees on
the hills to reprove the environment.
• Sense of wellbeing, beauty
• Get rid of the eucalyptus trees!
• Look at google earth from a certain height and you notice our City looks grey and most other
affluent City's look green. Tree lined streets can provide shade, and wind buffers.
• Trees add a nice touch to the city. No eucalyptus trees please
• The Sunshine Gardens neighborhood could especially use more trees, however long time
residents who care little for aesthetics will unlikely be motivated to plant a tree in their front
yard, especially if they think their water bill will increase. Will these "city trees" be watered by
the city? Promoting the program requires careful targeting to these uninformed folks.
• Trees add beauty
• It will improve the beauty of the city. SSF. Is bleak compared to the test of the peninsula.
Increase self worth of population, help block the wind in some cases. Increase property
values. Might encourage residents to take care of outdoor space rather than parking on the
lawns, might pick up garbage rather than toss in front of house
• Will give residents more pride in their community
93Appendices
Appendices
Canopy Goals and Tree Planting
Nearby communities have the following canopy cover:
• City of Mountain View has 17.7%
• City of San Jose has 15.4%
• City of San Francisco has 13.7%
• Daly City has 5%
South San Francisco trees are providing 8.7% canopy cover. Considering impervious surface and open
water, the potential for canopy in South San Francisco is 22.6%.
Existing canopy cover in South San Francisco varies by zoning and land use:
• Parks have an average 22.7%
• Parks and Recreation zone has 19.9%
• Open Space with 17.2%
• Low-density residential areas have an average of 10.7%
• Commercial designations have an average 5.4%
4. Are there enough trees in South San Francisco?
Response %Response Count
Yes, there are enough trees 4.23%3
No, there are not enough trees 85.92%61
There are too many trees 0.00%0
Not sure 9.86%7
Total 71 (4 skipped)
• Large trees help diffuse the high winds we have. Should've been thought out better at
Orange Park for example where the wind just whips through the playground.
• We collect rainwater. We channel the water to storm drains, We pay the state to dump the
water into the bay. If we cannot keep the rainwater where it falls by providing local reservoirs,
why can't we at least use the water to keep our parks green?
• Trees are therapeutic on many levels.
• Trees along streets, property lines and open space must be maintained, trimmed, inspected
annually
• Trees not only add to well being of the city and its population they also increase the
aesthetics of the city. Palo Alto, Redwood City and Burlingame are beautiful cities and their
trees are 100% responsible for that beauty.
• Increased trees in general can help improve our health, quality of life, slow traffic and
increase overall well being of the community. Choosing native species and cultivars increases
ecological benefits and bio diversity.
• Improved quality of life to be able to walk tree lined streets.
• N/A
• It makes the city look friendlier and softer, not just buildings
• Have always wanted my neighborhood to have tree’s planted on sidewalks. Live in Mayfair
village area. Would make our city look much more beautiful and give our wildlife a place to
rest/live.
• So many neighborhoods seem to lack trees so I appreciate the city designing more trees into
new and existing places
• I'm sad that so many trees have fallen/have been cut down recently but I understand that
people are nervous about big trees near their homes. I have one up the hill behind me that
makes me nervous every time we have moderate winds and I don't know what to do about it
since it's not my tree.
• Beautify the surroundings
• Help provide buffer from wind
• Happy to see a future improved So. San Francisco.
• I am saddened that it seems the city, in response to extended drought chose to the people
that "brown is the new green" instead of encouraging drought resistant plants.
94 Appendices
Appendices
5. Where would you like to see more trees planted? Select your top three (3).
Response %Response Count
Parks and open space 42.25 30
Medians 43.66 31
Industrial areas 15.49 11
Commercial areas 50.70 36
Private property 32.39 23
Green roofs 4.23 3
Streets and parking strips 52.11 37
New developments 42.25 30
No additional trees 0.00 0
Other (please specify) 7.04 5
• Brentwood shopping center
• Schools (2 responses)
• I would like to see those ugly pine trees on
Junipero Serra cut down and that whole
highway be redone.
• On the hill and mountain
Total 71 (4 skipped)
6. What canopy goal should South San Francisco adopt?
Response %Response Count
22.6% (potential)76.06 54
15%19.72 14
10%1.41 1
No net-loss, maintain the current level of canopy
cover 8.7%
1.41 1
Other (please specify)1.41 1
• Not sure
Total 71 (4 skipped)
7. Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about canopy cover in South San Francisco.
• If you plant trees near the side walk the city should be responsible for the repairs.
• 22.6% does not seem realistic, but increasing canopy coverage along main thoroughfares,
such as along 101, South Airport, Westborough, Gellert, Hickey, Orange, El Camino etc would
help with air pollution, aesthetics and overall health for residents.
• No comment
• Stop building
• Empty lots owned by the city without development plans should be forested.
• I wish there was a center where we can monitor and show the public about the improvements
and benefits of air quality due to the addition and care of plants in our community.
• Visit other communities in the Bay Area. Ask yourself why South San Francisco must always
take a backseat to these other places. We are told that our residents are not the correct
"demographics" for improvements. What does that mean?
• Trees with blossoms
• An area of concern is the current removal requirements for trees on private property, as well
as annual maintenance of existing trees on city property, in residential areas. I cannot be
responsible for costs associated with city trees that cause problems to sidewalks, injury to
others and be coninuting responsible to notify you when there is a potential problem!
• There is definitely not enough canopy cover in SSF.
• I appreciate canopy cover but I hope the planners take into account the reality of earthquakes
and the resulting potential damage if the "right" canopy is not selected.
• N/A
• The cities mentioned in the previous questions are south of SSF and get more sun and heat
so I can see why people wouldn't require quite as many trees here--we never see the sun.
• Junipero Serra pine trees got to go. What about dogwood trees or maples. That whole strip
needs to be redone and refreshed. Look at how nice the trees are in Burlingame or Stanford.
• For the protection of people especially when raining
• Incentives for residents to plant trees would be great! Sunshine gardens has very few trees
and could benefit from more!
• Residents used to have to maintain some portion of "green space" in front of individual homes
but it seems too many areas are being paved over or covered in rocks.
95Appendices
Appendices
10. Describe your awareness and/or interactions with South San Francisco’s urban forest program. Please check all that apply.
Response %Response Count
I was aware that the City responds to tree
emergencies.
43.66 31
I have seen City crews working on trees.66.23 47
I have used the City website or called for tree
information.
21.13 15
I did not know that the City had a program to
care for trees.
36.62 26
I have read about the program in City-wide
newsletters.
25.35 18
I have participated in Arbor Day and volunteer
planting events.
29.58 21
Other (please specify)7.04 5
• I just found out through recently about South
city’s urban forest program, and would like to
participate.
• I called the tree department about a tree in my
front yard that is threatening the street light
electrical cord, and the woman I spoke with
basically said that it was my responsibility to
maintain the tree. I am confused about why she
would decide for the city that damage to the
wire isn’t a priority. I am disappointed that she
refused to send someone to my house to prune
the tree. I will be calling about this issue again
• Never once has my request been responded to
appropriately within two weeks!
• On my street on Fairfax way the trees are
overly pruned. It’s damaging to the trees, and
the trees never get the opportunity to develop
a canopy. Therefore, it’s not only visually
unappealing, the trees provide no shade and
can’t be used as homes for birds/wildlife.
• I saw the adopt a tree info in newsletter
Total 71 (4 skipped)
Tree Protection
Maintenance practices can impact tree health. Topping and other improper practices can harm trees,
introduce pests, create safety issues, and prematurely kill trees. Proper tree care preserves tree health
and structure and promotes greater benefits over time.
City Ordinance No. 1271-2000 requires a permit for the removal of City trees and trees designated as
"protected" on private property. Currently, the maximum penalty for an unpermitted removal is $1,000.
However, this amount rarely covers the value of the tree and the cost for replacement.
8. Would you support a higher penalty for unpermitted removals?
Response %Response Count
Yes 49.30 35
No 28.17 20
Not sure 22.54 16
Total 71 (4 skipped)
9. Should the City require professional licensing for tree care providers?
Response %Response Count
Yes 50.70 36
No 23.94 17
Not sure 25.35 18
Total 71 (4 skipped)
96 Appendices
Appendices
11. What level of care for public trees would you prefer?
Response %Response Count
Minimal/Reactive–prune for visibility, sidewalk/
street clearance, addressing service requests and
immediate hazards
Proactive–cyclical maintenance, regular pruning/
inspection
11.27 8
Tree Health Care–optimal tree care to address
structure, pests, diseases, etc.
52.11 27
Other (please specify)35.21 25
• Get rid of the pine trees. They are a nuisance 1.41 1
Total 71 (4 skipped)
12. Optional. Please use this additional space for any comments about the care of trees.
• I have seen other cities have interactive websites with information on trees that will grow
well in the area, have information on tree maintenance resources, and even downloadable
booklets. That may be worthwhile for South San Francisco.
• No comment
• Guidance on how homeowners and renters can maintain trees, including a rental program for
tools.
• Stop building
• Hire more staff for the tree care!
• I would appreciate more education on this subject.
• As I said before I think the city has an obligation to maintain trees around electrical wires that
are owned by the city, on residential/commercial/city property, it behooves the city to prune
trees to avoid further electrical damage costs.
• If we impose too many restrictions on private protection and removal of trees it will deter
residents from planting
• Tree selection is the key.
• I hope that you are caring for the trees in the Westborough area. Lived there since 1971.
Saw a tree grow up. Unfortunately, it covers the beautiful view I once had but appreciate its
majesty. Concern - hope the City is caring for all trees' good health. If the tree in the green
area behind my house dies, my house is in the line of its drop.
• Please address the overly, unnecessary pruing of all the trees on Fairfax Way.
• N/A
• Why did all the trees along Juniper Serra median get cut down? They didn't hurt visibility. If
anything, the new plantings are going to be a visibility problem.
• Take a drive down Stanford or parts of Burlingame, Hillsborough and get some ideas about
making south San Francisco aesthetically pleasing. Btw, the plants and trees on Junipero Serra
and King across the street from that apartment complex are very nice.
• Everyone should participate
• I think the city should hire more employees to maintain our Urban Forest.
97Appendices
Appendices
15. What volunteer/collaborative efforts interest you most? Please, select all that apply.
Response %Response Count
Volunteer Opportunities 75.36 52
Stewardship Program/Community Foresters 53.62 37
Company Sponsorship’s (Adopt a Park/Adopt a
Median)
42.03 29
Other (please specify)4.35 3
• Collaborate more with the schools because
they have large amounts of property to plant
more trees on, and have a large community
of parents, teachers, staff, and our next
generations (the students).
• A number if parents and I volunteer at
Monte Verde Elementary. With proper
training, we would be happy to share our
knowledge through our gardening program.
• not sure at this time
Total 69 (6 skipped)
About You
16. What is your age?
Response %Response Count
35-44 36.23 25
45-54 20.29 14
55-64 17.39 12
65+15.94 11
25-34 8.70 6
18-24 1.45 1
Under 18 0 0
Total 69 (6 skipped)
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
The City organizes annual Arbor Day events and other tree planting events.
13. What education topics about trees interest you? Please select your top three (3).
Response %Response Count
Species selection 78.26 54
Basic pruning for young/small trees 65.22 45
Irrigation and watering 40.58 28
Benefits of trees 33.33 23
How to plant a tree 31.88 22
How to water a tree during drought 23.19 16
• How to maintain mature trees, root growth
that breaks pipes and sidewalks, how to move
trees.
2.90 2
• How to care for trees
Total 69 (6 skipped)
14. What methods for education/outreach do you prefer? Please select your top three (3).
Response %Response Count
Web or App-based (electronic)66.67 46
Workshops 46.38 32
Public tree plantings (Arbor Day, etc.)40.58 28
Engagement through schools 40.58 28
Farmers Market (urban forestry info booth)33.33 23
Pamphlets, Newsletters (hard copy)30.43 21
Self-guided tours or demonstration gardens 27.54 19
Other (please specify)0.00 0
Total 69 (6 skipped)
98 Appendices
Appendices
17. What neighborhood do you live in?
Buri Buri/Alta Loma Response %Response Count
Avalon/Brentwood/Southwood 17.39%12
Westborough 17.39%12
Sign Hill/Stonegate 11.59%8
Other (please specify)8.70%6
• Lower Parkway Heights 8.70%6
• Old Town 7.25%5
• Magnolia avenue and tamarack, this is the stop
place for all buses taking pictures of Sign Hill
5.80%4
• Chestnut and Miller 5.80%4
• B street 4.35%3
• Pecks lot 4.35%3
Serra Highlands 4.35%3
Paradise Valley/Hillside 1.45%1
Sunshine Gardens 1.45%1
Winston Manor/West Winston Manor 1.45%1
Downtown/Lindenville/Village Way/South
Airport
0.00%0
Orange Park/Francisco Terrace 0.00%0
Terrabay 0.00%0
Baden/Commercial/Mayfair Village 0.00%0
Tanforan/Mayfair Village 0.00%0
East of 101 0.00%0
Parkway 0.00%0
Parkway Heights 0.00%0
El Camino/Treasure Island 0.00%0
Terrabay 0.00%0
Brentwood 0.00%0
Treasure Island 0.00%0
Alta Loma 0.00%0
Paradise Valley/Hillside 0.00%0
Old Town 0.00%0
South Airport 0.00%0
Stonegate 0.00%0
Village Way 0.00%0
Mater Delorosa 0.00%0
Mission Road 0.00%0
Brentwood 0.00%0
County Club 0.00%0
Southwood 0.00%0
Francisco Terrance 0.00%0
Los Cerritos
South Linden
South Maple
San Francisco High School
Oyster Point Marina
Total 69 (6 skipped)
99Appendices
Appendices
Optional. Please provide any additional comments or feedback.
• No comment
• I have major allergies and know many cities want only Male trees planting to avoid the mess
of flowering, fruiting and trees that drop onto cars, sidewalks and cars. I also would like
help in dealing with mature trees that cross over property lines and drop sap and leaves
onto neighbor property because of wind. Many property owners who rent homes refuse to
maintain mature trees or repair fences that mature trees lean against to ruin. I want the City
to provide clear rules and guidance that homeowners and tenants can abide by.
• Stop building
• Can the Eucalyptus trees in Orange park be replaced with other large species? San Bruno Park
off of Crystal Springs has some beautiful trees but not sure their species.
• Please add a park to Sunshine Gardens.
• Are there free workshops currently offered for volunteers and the community?
• Would like to see more deciduous trees planted in street medians and public spaces. Also a
more overall professional landscaping job done in our public spaces and streets!
• "Please let me know about any plans to promote residential trees in Sunshine Gardens. I will
help if I can. Kathryn Van de Kamp 1041 Sunnyside drive 415-235-1777"
• I used to be on the Beautification Committee and became more aware of urban beauty
through the committee.
• "An onsite workshop. Get a volunteer homeowner. Go to a treeless site, there are many to
choose from, select location, show how to check for underground interference (pipes, sewer),
select tree with particular emphasis on maximum size and height, maybe use chalk to mark,
discuss wind issues,discuss debris issues so people know before selecting. Make one of those
speeded up YouTube videos.
• Return to site for hands on planting, staking. Monitor and show photo on website once per year
through maturity. People can visualize what tree will be like in 5 to 10 years and select accordingly.
• Another way would be to develop an experimental garden in Orange Park. Stake out a row for a
species of tree or shrub. Plant one in the row each year or two for 5 or 10 years. Until the plant
reaches maturity or decline. People can visualize what that cute little one gallon plant will look
like in years (and maybe avoid planting it 12 inches from house or 6 inches from sidewalk!)"
• Thank you for the opportunity to provide input
• Mayfair could benefit with street trees as the original cherry blossoms planted in the 60's
have all but died out.
• N/A
• Would love more trees in our neighborhood, feel neglected.
• Please cut down the ugly pine trees on Junipero Serra between Hickey and Westborough and
redo that whole median. Add a lane, new trees like maples or dogwoods, and even a walkway.
Also a lot of the homes in south San Francisco don’t have trees because the city planners
decades ago picked the wrong trees—obviously they were clueless. Hopefully, you guys can
do a better job and plant trees in our neighborhood.
• More privilege for those who volunteer
• With all the new developments the city should require developers to plant a certain amount
of trees with each development.
• Old, existing and removed tree roots seem to be causing problems in our area because of the close
proximity of our buildings. I would like to know some guidelines about planting near buildings.
• Please give Randolph some much needed attention, the city is hiring outside companies for
the care ,and it’s not good.
100 Appendices
Appendices
APPENDIX E: SOIL VOLUME AND TREE STATURE
Tree growth is limited by soil volume. Larger stature trees require larger volumes of uncompacted soil to
reach mature size and canopy spread (Casey Trees, 2008).
APPENDIX F: ALTERNATIVE PLANTER DESIGNS
Stormwater tree pits are designed to collect runoff from streets, parking lots, and other impervious
areas. Stormwater is directed into scuppers that flow into below-grade planters that then allow
stormwater to infiltrate soils to supplement irrigation.
101Appendices
Appendices
Structural soil is a highly porous, engineered aggregate mix, designed for use under asphalt and
concrete as a load-bearing and leveling layer. Poor spaces allow for water infiltration and storage and
also root growth.
Bioswales are landscaped drainage areas with gently sloped sides designed to provide temporary
storage while runoff infiltrates the soil. They reduce off-site runoff and trap pollutants and silt.
102 Appendices
Appendices
Sidewalks use pillars or structured cell systems to support reinforced concrete, increasing the volume of
uncompacted soil in subsurface planting areas and enhancing both root growth and stormwater storage.
Pervious pavements allow stormwater and oxygen to infiltrate the surface, promoting tree health and
groundwater recharge
103Appendices
Appendices
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XRegional Collaboration
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Condition of Public Trees - Natural Areas
Urban Tree Canopy
Trees on Private Property
Equitable Distribution
Species Diversity
Size/Age Distribution
Suitability
Condition of Public Trees - Streets, Parks
Soil Volume
Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest
The TreesThe PlayersThe Management ApproachTree Inventory
Utility Engagement
Planting Program
Canopy Assessment
Developer Engagement
Tree Protection Policy
Management Plan
Public Awareness
City Staffing and Equipment
Risk Management Program
Funding
Disaster Preparedness & Response
Maintenance of Publicly-Owned Trees (ROWs)
Maintenance of Publicly-Owned Trees Natural Areas
Neighborhood Action
Large Private & Institutional Landholder Involvement
Green Industry Involvement
City Department/Agency Cooperation
Funder Engagement
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Communications X
Totals 8157
HighMediumLow
Assessed Performance Level
104
Urban Tree Canopy Achieve the desired tree canopy cover according to goals set for the entire city and neighborhoods. Alternatively, achieve 75% of the total canopy possible for the entire city and in each neighborhood.”
Canopy is decreasing. - and/or - No canopy goals have been set.
Canopy is not dropping, but not on a trajectory to achieve the established goal. Canopy goal is achieved, or well on the way to achievement.
Space and Soil Volume Establish minimum street tree soil volume requirements to ensure there is adequate space and soil for street trees to thrive. Minimum soil volumes by mature size: 1000 cubic feet
for large trees; 600 cubic feet for medium trees; 300 cubic feet for small trees.
Minimum street tree soil volumes have not been established.Minimum street tree soil volume has been established based on mature size of tree.Minimum street tree soil volumes have been established and are required to be adhered to for all new street tree planting projects.
HighMediumLow
Indicators of a Sustainable
Urban Forest
Overall Objective or Industry
Standard
Performance Levels
Age of Trees (Size and Age Distribution)
Establish a diverse-aged population of public trees across the entire city and for each neighborhood. Ideal standard: 0-8”” DBH: 40% 9-17”” DBH: 30% 18-24”” DBH: 20% Over 24”” DBH: 10%
No current information is available on size. - OR - Age distribution is not proportionally distributed across size classes at the city level.
Size classes are evenly distributed at the city level, though unevenly distributed at the neighborhood level.
Age distribution is generally aligned with the ideal standard diameter classes at the neighborhood level.
Condition of Publicly-Owned Natural Areas (trees managed extensively)
Possess a detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas (such as woodlands, ravines, stream corridors, etc.), as well as usage patterns.
No current information is available on tree condition or risk.Publicly-owned natural areas are identified in a sample-based “natural areas survey” or similar data.
Information from a current, GIS-based, 100% complete natural areas survey is utilized to document ecological structure and function, as well as usage patterns.
Diversity Establish a genetically diverse population of publicly-owned trees across the entire city and for each neighborhood. Tree populations should be comprised of no more than 30% of any family, 20% of any genus, or 10% of any species.
No current information is available on species. - OR - Fewer than five species dominate the entire tree population citywide.
No species represents more than 20% of the entire tree population citywide.No species represents more than 10% of the entire tree population citywide.
Location of Canopy (Equitable Distribution)
Achieve low variation between tree canopy and equity factors citywide by neighborhood. Ensure that the benefits of tree canopy are available to all, especially for those most affected by these benefits.
Tree planting and public outreach and education is not determined by tree canopy cover or benefits.
Tree planting and public outreach and education is focused on neighborhoods with low tree canopy.
Tree planting and public outreach and education is focused in neighborhoods with low tree canopy and a high need for tree benefits.
Condition of
Publicly Owned Trees (trees managed intensively)
Possess a detailed understanding of tree condition and potential risk of all intensively-managed, publicly-owned trees. This information is used to direct maintenance actions.
No current information is available on tree condition or risk. Information from a partial or sample or inventory is used to assess tree condition and risk.
Information from a current, GIS-based, 100% complete public tree inventory is used to indicate tree condition and risk.
Trees on Private Property Possess a solid understanding of the extent, location and general condition of trees on private lands.No data is available on private trees.Current tree canopy assessment reflects basic information (location) of both public and private canopy combined.
Detailed information available on private trees. Ex. bottom-up sample-based assessment of trees.
Climate Resilience/
Suitability
Establish a tree population suited to the urban environment and adapted to the overall region. Suitable species are gauged
by exposure to imminent threats, considering the “Right Tree for the Right Place” concept and invasive species.
No current information is available on species suitability.
- OR - Less than 50% of trees are considered suitable for the site.
50% to 75% of trees are considered suitable for the site.More than 75% of trees are considered suitable for the site.
A Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators: The Trees
105Appendices
Neighborhood Action Citizens understand, cooperate, and participate in urban forest management at the neighborhood level. Urban forestry is a neighborhood-scale issue.
Little or no citizen involvement or neighborhood action.Some active groups are engaged in advancing urban forestry activity, but with no unified set of goals or priorities.
The majority of all neighborhoods are organized, connected, and working towards a unified set of goals and priorities.
Regional Collaboration Neighboring communities and regional groups are actively cooperating and interacting to advance the region’s stake in the city’s urban forest.
Little or no interaction between neighboring communities and regional groups.
Neighboring communities and regional groups share similar goals and policy vehicles related to trees and the urban forest.
Regional urban forestry planning, coordination, and management is widespread.
HighMediumLow
Indicators of a Sustainable
Urban Forest
Overall Objective or Industry
Standard
Performance Levels
Green Industry Involvement
The green industry works together to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives. The city and its partners
capitalize on local green industry expertise and innovation.
Little or no involvement from green industry leaders to advance local urban
forestry goals.
Some partnerships are in place to advance local urban forestry goals, but more often for
the short-term.
Long-term committed partnerships are working to advance local urban forestry goals.
Funder Engagement Local funders are engaged and invested in urban forestry initiatives. Funding is adequate to implement citywide urban forest management plan.
Little or no funders are engaged in urban forestry initiatives.Funders are engaged in urban forestry initiatives at minimal levels for short-term projects.
Multiple funders are fully engaged and active in urban forestry initiatives for short-term projects and long-term goals.
State Engagement State departments/agencies are aware of and vested in the
urban forest and cooperates to advance citywide urban forest
goals and objectives.
State departments/agencies and City
agencies act independently of urban
forestry efforts. No coordination exists.
State department/agencies and City agencies
have engaged in dialogues about urban
forestry efforts with respect to capital improvement and infrastructure projects.
State departments/agencies, City agencies,
and other stakeholders integrate and
collaborate on all urban forestry efforts, including planning, site work, and outreach/education.
Large Private & Institutional Landholder Involvement
Large, private, and institutional landholders embrace citywide
goals and objectives through targeted resource management plans.
Large private land holders are unaware of
issues and potential influence in the urban forest. No large private land management plans are currently in place.
Education materials and advice is available to
large private landholders. Few large private landholders or institutions have management plans in place.
Clear and concise goals are established for
large private land holders through direct education and assistance programs. Key landholders and institutions have management plans in place.
City Department and
Agency Cooperation
All city departments and agencies cooperate to advance citywide urban forestry goals and objectives.Conflicting goals and/or actions among city departments and agencies.Informal teams among departments and agencies are communicating and implementing common goals on a project-
specific basis.
Common goals and collaboration occur across all departments and agencies. City policy and actions are implemented by formal
interdepartmental and interagency working teams on all city projects.
Utility Engagement All utilities are aware of and vested in the urban forest and cooperates to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives.
Utilities and city agencies act independently of urban forestry efforts. No coordination exists.
Utilities and city agencies have engaged in dialogues about urban forestry efforts with respect to capital improvement and infrastructure projects.
Utilities, city agencies, and other stakeholders integrate and collaborate on all urban forestry efforts, including planning, site work, and outreach/education.
Public Awareness The general public understands the benefits of trees and advocates for the role and importance of the urban forest.Trees are generally seen as a nuisance, and thus, a drain on city budgets and personal
paychecks.
Trees are generally recognized as important and beneficial. Trees are seen as valuable infrastructure and vital to the community’s well-being. The
urban forest is recognized for the unique
environmental, economic, and social services its provides to the community.
A Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators: The Players
106 Appendices
Tree Inventory Comprehensive, GIS-based, current inventory of all intensively-managed public trees to guide management, with mechanisms in place to keep data current and available for use. Data allows for analysis of age distribution, condition, risk, diversity, and suitability.
No inventory or out-of-date inventory of publicly-owned trees.Partial or sample-based inventory of publicly-owned trees, inconsistently updated. Complete, GIS-based inventory of publicly-owned trees, updated on a regular, systematic basis.
Management Plan Existence and buy-in of a comprehensive urban forest management plan to achieve city-wide goals. Re-evaluation is conducted every 5 to 10 years.
No urban forest management plan exists.A plan for the publicly-owned forest resource exists but is limited in scope, acceptance, and implementation.
A comprehensive plan for the publicly owned forest resource exists and is accepted and implemented.
Maintenance Program of
Publicly-Owned Trees
(trees managed intensively)
All intensively-managed, publicly-owned trees are well maintained for optimal health & condition in order to extend longevity & maximize benefits. A
reasonable cyclical pruning program is in place, generally targeting 5–7 year cycles. Maintenance program is outlined in the management plan.
Request-based, reactive system. No systematic pruning program is in place
for publicly-owned trees.
All publicly-owned trees are systematically maintained, but pruning cycle is
inadequate.
All publicly-owned trees are proactively and systematically maintained and adequately
pruned on a cyclical basis.
Planting Program Comprehensive and effective tree planting and establishment
program is driven by canopy cover goals, equity considerations, and other priorities according to the plan. Tree planting and establishment is outlined in the management plan.
Tree establishment is ad hoc.Tree establishment is consistently funded and
occurs on an annual basis.
Tree establishment is directed by needs derived
from a tree inventory and other community plans and is sufficient in meeting canopy cover objectives.
City Staffing and Equipment
Adequate staff and access to the equipment and vehicles to implement the management plan. A high level urban forester or planning professional, strong operations staff, and solid certified arborist technicians.
Insufficient staffing levels, insufficiently-trained staff, and/or inadequate equipment and vehicle availability.
Certified arborists and professional urban foresters on staff have some professional development, but are lacking adequate staff levels or adequate equipment.
Multi-disciplinary team within the urban forestry unit, including an urban forestry professional, operations manager, and arborist technicians. Vehicles and equipment are sufficient to complete required work.
Canopy Assessment Accurate, high-resolution, and recent assessment of existing
and potential city-wide tree canopy cover that is regularly updated and
available for use across various departments, agencies, and/or disciplines.
No tree canopy assessement.Sample-based canopy cover assessment, or
dated (over 10 years old) high resolution
canopy assessment.
High-resolution tree canopy assessment using
aerial photographs or satellite imagery.
Risk Management Program All publicly-owned trees are managed for maximum public safety by way of maintaining a city-wide inventory, conducting proactive annual inspections, and eliminating hazards within a set timeframe based on risk level. Risk management program is outlined in the management plan.
Request-based, reactive system. The condition of publicly-owned trees is unknown.
There is some degree of risk abatement thanks to knowledge of condition of publicly-owned trees, though generally still managed as a request-based reactive system.
There is a complete tree inventory with risk assessment data and a risk abatement program in effect. Hazards are eliminated within a set time period depending on the level of risk.
Maintenance Program of
Publicly-Owned Natural Areas (trees managed extensively)
The ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas are protected and enhanced while accommodating public use where appropriate.
No natural areas management plans are in effect.Only reactive management efforts to facilitate public use (risk abatement).Management plans are in place for each publicly-owned natural area focused on managing ecological structure and function and facilitating public use.
Tree Protection Policy Comprehensive and regularly updated tree protection ordinance with enforcement ability is based on community goals. The benefits
derived from trees on public and private property are ensured by the
enforcement of existing policies.
No tree protection policy.Policies are in place to protect trees, but the policies are not well-enforced or
ineffective.
Protections policies ensure the safety of trees on public and private land. The policies
are enforced and supported by significant
deterrents and shared ownership of city goals.
Funding Appropriate funding in place to fully implement both proactive
and reactive needs based on a comprehensive urban forest management plan.
Funding comes from the public sector
only, and covers only reactive work.
Funding levels (public and private) generally
cover mostly reactive work. Low levels of risk management and planting in place.
Dynamic, active funding from engaged private
partners and adequate public funding are used to proactively manage and expand the urban forest.
Communication Effective avenues of two-way communication exist between the city departments and between city and its citizens. No avenues are in place. City departments and public determine on an ad-hoc basis the best messages and avenues to communicate.
Avenues are in place, but used sporadically and without coordination or only on a one-way basis.
Avenues are in place for two way communication, are well-used with targeted, coordinated messages.
Disaster Preparedness
& Response
A disaster management plan is in place related to the city’s urban forest. The plan includes staff roles, contracts, response priorities, debris management and a crisis communication plan. Staff are
regularly trained and/or updated.
No disaster response plan is in place.A disaster plan is in place, but pieces are missing and/or staff are not regularly trained or updated.
A robust disaster management plan is in place, regularly updated and staff is fully trained on roles and processes.
HighMediumLow
Indicators of a Sustainable
Urban Forest
Overall Objective or Industry
Standard
Performance Levels
A Sustainable Urban Forest Indicators: The Management Approach
107Appendices
$Ongoing High
$Ongoing Low-Moderate
Goal 10: Plan for trees, before planting.
Objective 10.1: Invest in trees for the long-term environmental benefits provided to
the community.
Objective 10.2: Improve the diversity of the urban forest on public and private property
to create a more resilient urban forest.
$ = less than $25,000 $$ = $25,000-$100,000 $$$ = more than $100,000
Objective 1.1: Increase efficiency to respond in a timely manner to community concerns for trees.$Ongoing High
Goal 1: Promote excellent and efficient customer service.
Objective 4.1: Expand tree canopy through new development projects.$Ongoing High
Goal 4: Increase collaboration with developers.
Objective 7.1: Develop a risk management policy/procedure.$1–5 Years High
Goal 7: Promote a safe urban forest.
Objective 8.1: Focus fire mitigation efforts on Sign Hill and other areas of vulnerability. $Ongoing High
Goal 8: Reduce the risk of fire and mitigate damage caused by fire.
Objective 3.1: Encourage the inclusion of trees in development projects to expand the tree
canopy on public property.
$Ongoing High
Goal 3: Advance the role of Parks Staff in City development projects.
Objective 5.1: Encourage the establishment of trees through efficient and sustainable irrigation
solutions and programs.
$-$$Ongoing High
Goal 5: Provide water to trees efficiently and cost-effectively.
Objective 9.1: Maintain trees throughout their lifetimes to improve structure in maturity and
reduce the likelihood of structural failures in the future.
$Ongoing Moderate
Goal 9: Improve public safety.
$Ongoing High
$Ongoing High
$Ongoing High
Goal 2: Increase uniformity between City policies, documents, and departments.
Objective 2.1: Unify guiding documents to transcend departmental changes and address
inefficiencies and reduce confusion.
Objective 2.2: Improve communication and coordination with other City departments.
Objective 2.3: Increase the role of Parks Staff in design review.
2030 – 203520222025 – 203020212020Cost 2035 – 20402023 PriorityTimeframe2024Goals & Objectives
City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan
$Ongoing High
$1-3 Years HighObjective 6.1: Implement policies and procedures that make tree work as safe as possible.
Objective 6.2: Continue to support forestry worker safety.
Goal 6: Promote a workplace culture of safety.
108 Appendices
$
$
10-15 Years Low
$
Ongoing High
1-5 Years Moderate
Goal 11: Avoid removing trees whenever possible.
Objective 11.1: Explore alternative designs instead of removals.
Objective 11.2: Discourage the removal of protected trees.
Objective 11.3: Improve everyday care of trees, to prevent future removals.
Objective 12.1: Expand canopy cover to increase environmental benefits.$Ongoing Low
Goal 12: Reach 22.6% canopy cover by 2040.
Objective 13.1: Educate the community about property owner responsibilities for the care
of City trees.
$Ongoing Low-Moderate
Goal 13: Decrease tree mortality.
Objective 14.1: Reduce unethical and/or poor pruning practices and unnecessary removals on
private property.
$Ongoing Low
Goal 14: Promote good maintenance practices for trees on private property.
Objective 18. 1: Work with volunteer tree advocates to promote urban forestry events and
distribute urban forestry educational materials.
$Ongoing Low-Moderate
Goal 18: Create a volunteer tree advocacy group.
Objective 19.1: Employ multiple tools and strategies to prevent and/or manage pests and disease. $Ongoing Moderate
Goal 19: Continue to practice an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to responding to pests and disease pathogens.
Objective 15.1: Meet the changing needs of the urban forest and the community through clear
and concise and current policy.
$Ongoing Low-Moderate
Goal 15: Review and update Municipal Code as needed and educate the community as changes occur.
$-$$1-5 Years Moderate-High
$Ongoing
Goal 16: Increase support for the enhancement of the urban forest.
Objective 16.1: Engage the community in urban forestry activities and educational events.
Objective 16.2: Provide sustainable and adequate resources to sustain the urban forest
for future generations.
$ = less than $25,000 $$ = $25,000-$100,000 $$$ = more than $100,000
$Ongoing Low
$Ongoing Moderate
Goal 17: Continue to distribute information about the urban forest to the community.
Objective 17.1: Educate the community to increase support and understanding of urban
forestry policies and procedures.
Objective 17.2: Market urban forestry through a variety means to promote participation
from all community members.
2030 – 203520222025 – 203020212020Cost 2035 – 20402023 PriorityTimeframe2024Goals & Objectives
City of South San Francisco Urban Forest Master Plan
109Appendices
URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN2019
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 PERSISTENT FOGFOG THROUGH AFTERNOONFOG IN MORNINGURBAN LANDSCAPESBAY MOISTURE HOT TEMPSAcer rubrum 'Armstrong'Red Maple X X X 60' x 40' NAcer tataricum subsp. ginnalaAmur Maple X X X X 25' x 25' NAcacia baileyanaBailey's acacia XXXXX25' x 30' NYAesculus californicaCalifornia Buckeye X X 15' x 30' Y YAgonis flexuosaPeppermint Tree XXXX30' x 25'NYAgonis flexuosa 'Burgandy'Purple Peppermint TreeX X X 30' x 25' N YAraucaria heterophyllaNorfolk Island Pine X 100' x 60' NArbutus x 'Marina'Strawberry Tree XXXXX30' x 25'NYArctostaphylos 'Dr. Hurd'Dr. Hurd Manzanita X X X 10' x 10' Y YBanksia integrifoliaCoast banksia X X 30' x 20' NCallistemon citrinusLemon bottlebrushXXXXX25' x 25'NYCarpinus betulus 'Frans Fontaine'European Columnar HornbeamX X X X 35' x 15' NCassia leptophyllaGold Medallion Tree X X X 20' x 30' NCeanothus x 'Frosty Blue'Frosty Blue Wild Lilac X X X X 8' x 9' Y YCeanothus x 'Ray Hartmann'Ray Hartmann Wild LilacXXXXX15' x 18'YYCedrus deodaraDeodar Cedar X X 80' x 40' N YBOTANIC NAME COMMON NAMEAVG MATURE SIZE (H X W)CA NATIVEDROUGHT TOLERANT
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 PERSISTENT FOGFOG THROUGH AFTERNOONFOG IN MORNINGURBAN LANDSCAPESBAY MOISTURE HOT TEMPSBOTANIC NAME COMMON NAMEAVG MATURE SIZE (H X W)CA NATIVEDROUGHT TOLERANTCotinus obovatusAmerican Smoke TreeXXXXX25' x 20'NCupressus macrocarpaMonterey Cypress X X 45' x 40' Y YEriobotrya deflexa 'Coppertone'Coppertone Loquat XXXX20' x 20'NFraxinus americana 'Autumn Applause'White Ash X X X X 80' x 50' NGeijera parvifloraAustralian willowXXXXX30' x 20'NYGingko biloba 'Autumn Gold'Gingko XXXX40' x 30'NHoney locust Gleditsia triacanthos X 50' x 40' N YHeteromeles arbutifoliaToyon X X X 25' x 20' Y YJacaranda mimosifoliaJacaranda X X 45' x 25' NLagerstroemia indicaCrape myrtle XXXXX15' x 10NYLagunaria pattersoniiCow‐itch Tree X X X 30' x 30' NLeptospermum laevigatumAustralian Tea TreeXXXX 20' x 20'NYLiriodendron tulipiferaTulip tree X X X 70' x 40' NLophostemon confertusBrisbane Box X X X 35' x 25' N YLyonothamnus floribundus var. asplenifoliusCatalina ironwood X X X 30' x 15' Y YMelaleuca linariifoliaFlaxleaf Paperbark X X 25' x 25' N Y
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 PERSISTENT FOGFOG THROUGH AFTERNOONFOG IN MORNINGURBAN LANDSCAPESBAY MOISTURE HOT TEMPSBOTANIC NAME COMMON NAMEAVG MATURE SIZE (H X W)CA NATIVEDROUGHT TOLERANTMelaleuca quinquenerviaPaperbark Tree X X 30' 20' N YMetrosideros excelsaNew Zealand Christmas TreeX X 30' x 30' N YMyrica californicaPacific Wax Myrtle X X X 20' x 20' Y YNyssa sylvaticaBlack Gum X X X X 40' x 20' NNyssa sylvatica 'Wildfire'Black Gum X X X X 40' x 20' NOlea europaea 'Swan Hill'Fruitless European OliveX X 30' x 25' N YPinus eldericaAfghan Pine X X 60' x 25' NPinus sabinianaGray Pine X X 65' x 20' Y YPistachia chinensisChinese pistache X X 30' x 30' N YPlatanus x acerifolia 'Columbia'London Plane Tree X X 60' x35' NPlatanus racemosaCalifornia Sycamore X 60' x 40' Y YPodocarpus graciliorFern Pine X X X 40' x15' NPodocarpus macrophyllusShrubby Yew PineXXXXX35' x 15'NPrunus ilicifolia subsp. LyoniiCatalina cherry XXXXX30' x 25'YYQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak X X 45' x 45' Y YQuercus douglasiiBlue Oak X X 60' x 55' Y
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 PERSISTENT FOGFOG THROUGH AFTERNOONFOG IN MORNINGURBAN LANDSCAPESBAY MOISTURE HOT TEMPSBOTANIC NAME COMMON NAMEAVG MATURE SIZE (H X W)CA NATIVEDROUGHT TOLERANTQuercus ilexHolly Oak X X 45' x 45' N YQuercus kelloggiiCalifornia Black Oak X X 50' x 40' Y YQuercus lobataValley Oak X X 60' x 50' YQuercus suberCork Oak X X 70' x 70' N YQuillaja saponaria Chilean soapbark X X 35' x 20' N YRaphiolepis 'Majestic Beauty'Majestic Beauty Indian HawthornXXXXX25' x 10'NYSambucus mexicanaBlue Elderberry X X 20' x 15' Y YThuja plicataWestern Red Cedar X 50' x 25' Y YTristaniopsis laurina Swamp Myrtle X X 45' x 30' N YZONE 1 PERSISTENT FOG MOST OF THE YEARZONE 2 CONSISTENT FOG THROUGH EARLY AFTERNOONZONE 3 FOGGY IN MORNINGZONE 4 DRY, WINDY URBAN LANDSCAPE, LITTLE FOG OR BAY INFLUENCEZONE 5 BAY MOISTURE INFLUENCED WITH WARM TO HOT TEMPS
Staff Report
DATE: February 18, 2020
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Preschool Study Session and Waiting List Survey RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission be apprised of a presentation on the
topic of preschool in South San Francisco that was shared at a Special City Council Meeting that took place on January 18, 2020, and review a survey to be issued to families on the Parks and Recreation Department’s preschool waiting list. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On January 18, 2020, the City Council held an annual retreat to review topics such as 2020 Committee Assignments and the proposed 2020 Strategic Plan that would guide the work of City leaders and City staff in the coming year. The retreat was noticed to the public as a Special City
Council meeting. One of the discussion items added to the retreat agenda at the request of
Councilmember Mark Nagales was a discussion of preschool program expansion. Staff prepared the presentation available in Attachment 1 to support this discussion and will review the presentation at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.
Also at the City Council retreat, staff introduced the option of surveying preschool families who
are on the waiting list to understand how families are evaluating their preschool options. Over 700 families are currently enrolled on the waiting list for spaces in the City’s preschool program, which includes Siebecker, Westborough, and Little Steps Preschool. All three schools combined serve 134 preschoolers. A draft of the survey is available in Attachment 2. Staff is seeking
feedback from the Commission as to the purpose and questions on the survey. Staff has also
shared this survey with City Council for their feedback.
By:
Angela Duldulao Recreation Manager
2/12/2020
1
Preschool in
South San Francisco
City Council Retreat
Saturday, January 18, 2020
City-Operated Childcare
Programs
~1400+ children and young adults served
3 licensed preschools
4 licensed before and after school programs
Two grant-funded R.E.A.L. (Recreation,
Enrichment, and Learning) Programs
Seasonal Camps (Winter, Spring, Summer)
Full of Fun
Attachment 1
2/12/2020
2
Preschool Programs
Licensed Preschool Capacity Full Day Fee
(Resident/Non-Resident)
Siebecker Preschool(510 Elm Court)55
$652 / $729Westborough Preschool(2380 Galway Drive)59
Little Steps Preschool
(520 Tamarack Lane)20
Sliding scale based on family size and income. Grant-
funded by the Big Lift.
•3,387 children under age 5 in SSF as of 2018 (US Census);
•134 preschoolers served in P & R licensed preschool;
•Operate Monday – Friday, 7:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
•Waiting list as of January 9, 2020: 700+ families
Concentration of Children
on the Waiting List
Attachment 1
2/12/2020
3
Preschool Classes
Preschool Classes Capacity Typical Schedule
Tiny Tot Ultimate
STEAM
10 •Th @ 1:15pm-2:00pm
Kinder Class 16 •M & W @ 9am-10:30am
•M & W @11am-12:30pm
Kinder Tots 16 •T & Th @ 9am-10:30am
Pre-Kinder Learners 15 •M,W & F @ 9am-12pm
•T & Th @ 9am-12pm
Class registration occurs on a quarterly basis and
classes typically fill to capacity. Schedules may vary.
SSF Profile: Child Care Supply and
Demand Summary – 2015
(Supply and demand analysis by Brion Economics, Inc. (June 2016)
Attachment 1
2/12/2020
4
SSF Profile: Projected Child Care
Supply and Demand – 2025
(Supply and demand analysis by Brion Economics, Inc. (June 2016)
City and County Opportunities
-The Big Lift (thebiglift.org)
-Build Up San Mateo County
- Future developer-funded preschools, (i.e. L37 project)
- SSF Childcare Impact Fees, $5.5M
- Future vacant Main Library site
Attachment 1
Community Needs Survey
Childcare Waiting List
You have been selected from the City of South San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation's Preschool Waiting List to take part
in a short survey to better understand the community needs for quality preschools programs. Siebecker Preschool, Westborough
Preschool, and Little Steps Preschool are included in our program. Your answers will help us better understand the actual needs of our
community. Thank you for your participation.
1. How old is the child currently on our waiting list?
0 to 2 years old
2 to 5 years old
2. Think about all of the preschool options you have considered for your child. Are the City of South San
Francisco's Preschool Programs your first choice?
Yes
No
3. If your answer was yes, why? Select all that apply.
Cost
Quality
Word of Mouth
Repeat Customer (you have other children already in our program)
Other (please specify)
Attachment 2
4. Mark each item that describes the type of care you are currently using.
Preschool Center
Home Day Care
Care in your home by a relative/friend
Care in a relative/friends home
Combination of above as needed
Currently searching for care
Other (please specify)
5. What percentage of your annual income goes towards childcare tuition for your child(ren)?
0-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
over 50%
6. How serious of a problem is finding quality, affordable child care in your community?
Very Serious problem
Somewhat serious problem
Not too serious a problem
Not an issue in my community
Don't know enough to answer
SSF Neighborhood Map - Please refer to this map when answering the following questions.
Attachment 2
7. If you live in South San Francisco, please indicate which neighborhood you live in.
N/A - I do not live in San Francisco
Avalon
Downtown
East of Hwy 101
Orange Park
Paradise Valley
Serra Highlands
Sign Hill
Sunshine Gardens
Westborough
Winston Manor
I'm not sure
Other (please specify)
8. If you could pick any location for a new preschool in South San Francisco, which neighborhood(s) would
work best for you.
Avalon
Downtown
East of Hwy 101
Orange Park
Paradise Valley
Serra Highlands
Sign Hill
Sunshine Gardens
Westborough
Winston Manor
I'm not sure
Any location could work - I do not have a preference
Other (please specify)
9. Please feel free to add any other comments you would like us to consider.
Attachment 2
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT EVENT CALENDAR
Month: March 2020
Day Date Event Time Location
Sunday 01
Monday 02 Improving Public Places Committee Meeting 5:30 p.m.
Corp. Yard
conference room
Tuesday 03
Wednesday 04
Thursday 05
Friday 06
Saturday 07
Sunday 08
Monday 09
Tuesday 10 CPRS Annual Conference & EXPO (3/10-3/13) Long Beach
Wednesday 11 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers
Thursday 12 CAPRCBM Award Dinner 6:00 p.m. Long Beach
Friday 13 Senior Health Fair 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. MSB
Saturday 14 Summer Camp Registration Begins MSB
Sunday 15
Monday 16
Tuesday 17 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers
Wednesday 18
Thursday 19 Cultural Arts Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. MSB Betty Weber
Friday 20
Saturday 21 Downtown Cleanup Event 9:00 a.m. City Hall
Sunday 22
Monday 23 Spring Session Classes Begin Spring Camp
Tuesday 24 Spring Camp
Wednesday 25 Spring Camp City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council Chambers
Thursday 26 Spring Camp
Friday 27 Spring Camp
Saturday 28
Sunday 29
Monday 30
Tuesday 31
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT EVENT CALENDAR
Month: April 2020
Day Date Event Time Location
Wednesday 01 After School Program Lottery Registration/Priority
Registration (01-10)
Thursday 02
Friday 03 Author Talk
CAC Youth Art Show
4 p.m.-
7:30 p.m.
Magnolia Center
MSB
Saturday 04 CAC Youth Art Show
Easter Egg Hunt
10 a.m. -
4 p.m.
9:00 a.m.
MSB
Orange Park
Sunday 05
Monday 06 Improving Public Places Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Corp. Yard
conference room
Tuesday 07
Wednesday 08 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council
Chambers
Thursday 09
Friday 10
Saturday 11
Sunday 12
Monday 13 Adult Softball League Begins
Tuesday 14
Wednesday 15
Thursday 16 Author Talk
Cultural Arts Commission meeting
6:30 p.m. Magnolia Center
MSB Betty Weber
Friday 17 Senior Volunteer Luncheon
Saturday 18 Junior Giants Registration Begins
Sunday 19
Monday 20
Tuesday 21 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council
Chambers
Wednesday 22 City Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. MSB Council
Chambers
Thursday 23
Friday 24 Arbor Day
Saturday 25
Sunday 26 Youth Karate Tournament Terrabay
Monday 27
Tuesday 28
Wednesday 29
Thursday 30
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 23, 2020
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update
Winter Class Registration Information The following table represents Winter 2020 registration statistics from the Classes and Aquatics Programs. December 2 was the first day of registration for residents, and classes take place between January 6, 2020 through March 8, 2020. As of January 14, 2020, Winter registration for
the Classes and Aquatics Programs earned the Department $155,337 in revenue.
Program No. of Sessions Offered
No. of Sessions at Capacity
% of Sessions at Capacity No. of Sessions w/ Waitlists
% of Sessions w/ Waitlists No. of Participants on Waitlists
Classes 335 171 51% 133 40% 481
Aquatics 156 107 69% 94 60% 210
Cultural Arts Update
General Art Show Exhibit and Karaoke Night The first 2020 art gallery exhibit, featuring General Art, will take place on Friday and Saturday, February 14 and 15, at the Municipal Services Building. Exhibit hours are Friday, from 5:30
p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Saturday, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The juried exhibit highlights two-dimensional painting in various media, including watercolors, oils, acrylic and others. Photography, which is not included for this exhibit, is scheduled for a July 2020 showing. Selected art will be available for purchase. An extended exhibit of award-winning art in the Municipal Services Building atrium window follows the show. Artists interested in submitting
entries may download the complete guidelines from the Current Opportunities for Artists link at www.ssf.net/culturalarts. Guidelines may also be obtained by visiting the Recreation Division office at 33 Arroyo Drive during business hours. In conjunction with the art show is “All You Need is Love” Karaoke Night on Friday, February
14. This will commence at 6:30 p.m. Admission to both the exhibit and karaoke event is free.
Bi-Weekly Update January 23, 2020
Page 2 of 5
Cultural Arts Commission – SSFUSD Visual Arts Committee meeting for 2020 Youth Art Show The annual Youth Art Show Art Gallery Exhibit is sponsored by the Cultural Arts Commission in partnership with the South San Francisco Unified School District. In preparation, the
SSFUSD Visual Arts Committee comprised of a small group of district teachers and
administrators, schedule three meetings prior to the event. The second meeting was held on Monday, January 13. Parks and Recreation Department Cultural Arts Specialist, Ercie Santos, attended and submitted the draft of the Youth Art Show poster. Other details were also addressed.
The first meeting took place November 18, 2019. It was attended by Cultural Arts Commissioner PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard who volunteered to represent the Commission and Specialist Santos. The 2020 Youth Art Show will take place on April 3 and 4, at the Municipal Services Building.
Atrium Display Window – SSF High School Public Art Mural The Municipal Services Building atrium window features a mural created by South San Francisco High School students and titled, “Cookie.” It is the culmination of a San Mateo County pilot art class program. The program allowed students to create a public work of art and
then exhibit it for the community. The students and teachers made a presentation of their project
to the Cultural Arts Commission at their January meeting. Artist Joseph Demaree with the assistance of Dylan Roberts, Suzanne Gayle, and Sheila Cepero of the Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation (rwcpaf.org) facilitated the project.
Cultural Arts Commissioners pose with partners from the Redwood City Parks and Arts Foundation project.
Bi-Weekly Update January 23, 2020
Page 3 of 5
Introduction of New Staff Members The Recreation Division is pleased to welcome the following staff members into full-time
positions as Recreation and Community Services Coordinators:
Veronica Ortiz has been with the City of South San Francisco for 10
years, serving in both Library and the Parks and Recreation Departments. Her responsibilities as a Recreation Classes Coordinator include assisting in day-to-day administrative work, coordinating special events, overseeing the department’s social media platforms, and working closely
with instructors and her supervisor in coordinating recreation classes.
Her personal interests include taking small spontaneous weekend trips, spending time with family and friends, going to concerts and visiting Disneyland as much as she can. Veronica looks forward to pursuing ongoing professional development, continue building professional relationships with instructors in order to support
their interests, and working closely with the community.
Aleni Capaz has worked for the City of South San Francisco for the past
18 years as a Preschool Teacher at Siebecker Preschool, has sub-coordinated during summer camp, and has worked as a summer camp specialist. She has a BA in Child and Adolescent Development from San Francisco State as well as a Program Director Permit from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. She is a native Californian who
enjoys being outdoors, reading, and going to car races. She brings her positive energy and love of children to everything she does and is excited about this next chapter in her career with the City. Alondra Gomez is a South San Francisco native who has been working for the City’s Childcare Program for the past five years. During this time, she has been a leader at the after school programs, a lead teacher for the ASES grant-
funded program, taught a kindergarten readiness class, worked at the
Westborough Preschool, and was an acting coordinator for the Monte Verde After School Program. Alondra graduated from San Francisco State University in 2018 with a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Child and Adolescent Development with an emphasis in School Age Children. During her
undergraduate studies she also completed an internship at Ponderosa
Elementary School where she assisted with teaching a kindergarten class. Alondra is passionate and experienced in working with youth, and she hopes to continue working with children and families for a very long time!
Bi-Weekly Update
January 23, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Kerry West has worked for the City of South San Francisco’s Childcare
Program for eight years. During this time, she has been an acting
coordinator for the Ponderosa After School Program, a preschool teacher at
Westborough Preschool, an art specialist for summer camp, taught a
kindergarten readiness class, and has been a leader at the after school
programs. Kerry graduated from Chico State University with a Bachelors of
Arts in Criminal Justice with a minor in Psychology in 2015. During her
time at Chico, she worked in the political science department office as a
student assistant. Kerry loves working with children and families of South
San Francisco and hopes to be with them well into the future.
Sports Program Highlight
The Parks and Recreation Department’s Middle School Sports Program serves students from
Alta Loma, Parkway Heights, and Westborough Middle Schools. Sports include badminton,
basketball, volleyball, tennis, flag football, and track and field. This basketball season, the
National Association of Sports Officials (NASO) informed Sports Coordinator Bill Stridbeck
that there would not be any basketball referees for an upcoming 8th grade basketball game and
would need to reschedule the games. As a testament to the Recreation supervisory team’s can-do
attitude and willingness to jump into program, Supervisor Mike Mulkerrins volunteered to
officiate the game with Bill so they would not have to cancel and reschedule the games.
California Parks and Recreation Society District IV Awards
Each year, staff submit several award applications for the California Parks and Recreation
Society (CPRS) District IV Awards. CPRS District IV is a local chapter of the statewide
California Parks and Recreation Society, a non-profit organization that supports industry
professionals through education, networking, resources and advocacy. District IV serves the
counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. This year, staff is submitting applications
for the following individuals and programs.
Woody Rael and Jim Elder, South San Francisco Youth Baseball League volunteers and past
presidents are being recognized for the Volunteer Citation Award for their many years of
dedicated service to the city and its youth athletes.
Recreation Supervisor Mike Mulkerrins
(left) and Sports Coordinator Bill
Stridbeck (right) prepare to referee the 8th
grade basketball game between South San
Francisco and Hillsborough.
Bi-Weekly Update January 23, 2020
Page 5 of 5
Rena Donati, former Cultural Arts Commissioner, is also nominated for the Volunteer Citation Award for her years of advocacy and volunteerism for local fiber arts programs and art shows. Rena served as a Cultural Arts Commissioner from 2004 – 2016, and is a leading member of the
Green House Quilters, a local quilting organization.
Richard Holt, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, has been nominated for the Distinguished Professional Award for his many years of service to the Department and its constituents, and for his support of the Friends of Parks and Recreation, Police Activities
League, Improving Public Places Committee, and programs for all ages and abilities, among
countless others. The Department’s Circle 3.0 Arbor Day Planting Event was nominated for the Award of Excellence. As part of this event, staff and volunteers planted 400 trees in South San Francisco,
in partnership with the California High Speed Rail Authority, West Coast Arborists, and the
California Urban Forests Council. This tremendous program is part of a larger effort to enhance the city’s urban forest. The award banquet will be held on Thursday, February 27 at 6:00 p.m. at the Mountain View
Community Center. Please contact Greg Mediati if you’d like to attend at Greg.Mediati@ssf.net
as soon as possible. Transportation may be arranged by staff.
The City of South San FranciscoCultural arts Commission
33 Arroyo Drive
MUNICIPALSERVICESBUILDING
For information and guidelines:
South San FranciSco
ParkS and recreation dePartment
PH: (650) 829-3800
WEB: www.ssf.net/culturalarts
KaraokeNight
ShowGeneral Art
2020
Friday, February 14 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.First come, first served Last song at 7:50 p.m.
Admission Free &Art G Allery Hours
5:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.February 14Friday
10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.Saturday February 15
$- other mediumsPaintingWatercolorsSIZE:Check if a set or seriesARTWORK IS:Not for Sale For Sale - PriceItem #FOR OFFICE USE1st ENTRYCirCle oneother 2D MediaGraphics- drawing- OilsPaintingSignature: Date:DO NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU READ IT AS IT CONTAINS A WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY TO WHICH YOU WILL BE BOUND. I agree that my participation in the City of South San Francisco Cultural Art Commission’s art gallery program is voluntary and that I assume all risk of injury, illness, damage or loss to me or to my property that might result from my participation. I further agree (on behalf of myself and my family members, personal representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, agents and assigns) to release and discharge the City of South San Francisco and its officers, employees, and agents, from any and all claims, liability, loss, penalties, expenses and costs (including attorney’s fees), or causes of action (known or unknown) (collectively, “Liability”) arising out of my participation, except to the extent that such Liability is caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BY SIGNING BELOW, I AM WAIVING ANY RIGHT THAT I MAY HAVE TO BRING A LEGAL ACTION OR TO ASSERT A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR NEGLIGENCE. Participation constitutes permission for City of South San Francisco to use artist’s name, likeness or art entries for publicity and promotional purposes without additional compensation unless prohibited by law. Your signature indicates that you have read and agreed to abide by the rules and guidelines of the 2020 General Art Show art gallery and extended exhibit program.invites entries for a
The South San Francisco Cultural Arts Commission is a citizen’s advisory board appointed by the City Council. The Commission exists to promote the creation and enjoyment of arts in South San Francisco.
Cultural Arts Commission
THE CiTy of
SouTH SAn frAnCiSCo Hand deliver entries
With completed application and fees on
art GallerY OPen
EnTry inforMATionPartiCiPation in MSB extenDeD exhiBit - Please Check OneTOTAL ENTRIES: TOTAL FEE $ FEE PAID BY: (circle one) Cash Check #If selected, I do want to participate in the MSB Atrium Art Window extended exhibit and I agree to the terms.I am not able to participate in the extended exhibit.- - -- - - Complete this appliCation form, Cut to DetaCh, anD Bring in with your fee anD entry- - -- - - 2020 General art show application Form33 Arroyo DriveSouth San francisco
Municipal ServiceS Building
Wednesday, February 12 Between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m.
Deliver to Betty Weber Gallery
Please be aware that we do not have storage facilities and Will nOt be responsible to store items that are not picked up during the release of entries.
all entrieS MuSt Be PiCkeD uP at the releaSe tiMe liSteD aBove!
Betty Weber or Marie Peterson Exhibit RoomsMuniciPal SERvicES BuilDinG33 arroyo Drive, South San Francisco
DELiVEry & PiCK uP LoCATion
for inforMATion
Opening & Receptionfor exhibitors and the public
Friday, February 14
5:30 to 8:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Saturday, February 15
From 4:10 to 5:30 p.m.
release OF entries*
Saturday, February 15
Entries may not be
removed prior to release time.
*TITLE: $- other mediumsPaintingWatercolorsSIZE:Check if a set or seriesARTWORK IS:Not for Sale For Sale - PriceItem #FOR OFFICE USE2nd ENTRYother 2D MediaGraphics- drawing- OilsPaintingTITLE: $- other mediumsPaintingWatercolorsSIZE:Check if a set or seriesARTWORK IS:Not for Sale For Sale - PriceItem #FOR OFFICE USE3rd ENTRYCirCle oneother 2D MediaGraphics- drawing- OilsPaintingTITLE:Calendar
CirCle oneCIRCLE ONE (if applicable) SSF Employee SSF CommissionerCity/State/Zip:1) Last Name:First Name:4) Email: Web Site Address:5) I am a Previous SSF Exhibitor: NO, This is my first experience YES (Name show)how DiD you first hear aBout this event?Flyer/Mailer SSF Website TV/Channel 26 FriendClass/Club (name) Other (name)2) Mailing Address:(Please circle one)3) Home Phone:Work Phone:Cell Phone:2020
General
February
14 & 15
Art Show
SSF Parks and recreation DepartmentWEB: www.ssf.net/culturalarts
PH: (650) 829-3800
Entries must be finished and dry with any
moveable parts securely adhered or fastened. artworks will be rejected if incom-plete, wet, excessively fragile or hazardous.
Entries may be entered and/or exhibited
in one competitive media category only. The commission reserves the right to assign entries unclearly or incorrectly designated to
the most suitable media category.
all art must include tWo white, unruled 3” x 4” cards for each entry with the following information centered and legibly
typed or printed.
One card should be securely adhered to the
back of the artwork for 2-D entries. The
second card should be stapled or clipped to
the Application Form.
artwork will be shown in a public gallery
space, and should be suitable for viewing by
all ages. The commisson shall reserve the
right not to exhibit pieces deemed unsuitable for a general audience.
Entries must be prepared for exhibit as described:
Open to artists, 18 years and older, who reside in the Bay area. all entries
must be original and created by the
exhibiting artist within the last two years.
eliGiBlilitY
Entries may not exceed 9 square feet. (i.e. 3’x3’, 2’x4’, etc.)
2-D art should not be excessively heavy.
sales
Please indicate sale price or not for sale (nFS) on the application form. The city of South San Francisco will retain a 20% commission from event and extended exhibit sales. Sales will be handled through the Recreation Office. Exhibitors will paid by check approximately four (4) weeks following the show.
Entries will be judged on originality,
craftsmanship, impact and merit. There
must be a minimum of three exhibitors in
each of the juried categories for prizes to be
awarded.
aWardsE n t r y r u l e s & r e q u i r e m e n t s
aPPliCatiOn Fee
a non-refundable $5.00 fee per work of art must be submitted with the application form.
cash or check/money order may be made
payable to the:City of South San Francisco
liaBilitYThe city will not be responsible for loss or
damage that may occur from any cause.
ExTEnDED ExHibiT
Please indicate your interest in participating by checking the appropriate box on the application Form.
entrY liMitThree works per exhibitor maximum. a set
or series is considered one entry. entries
may be limited depending on space
available.
reMOval OF WOrK
accepted works shall not be removed from the
exhibit prior to release date and time.
See CalenDar for release dates/times
aPPliCatiOn FOrMs
completed and legible Application Forms
must accompany art entry and fees.
application forms may be photocopied or
downloaded from the website.
The commission will not be responsible
for finding or correcting errors in entries due
to omission or illegiblity in application forms or
other paperwork submitted.
Criteria
Entries must be display-ready for wall hanging. This includes appropriate framing with screw eyes and with BRaiDED WiRE. (See following example)
INappROpRIaTE dISplaY mEThOd
maY dISqUalIFY a pIECE FOR ExhIbIT.aCKnOWledGeMentAll exhibitors will receive a certificate of
participation.
Photographs and any photography-based
media are not included.
MediaTwo Dimensional Art
- categories -
* Watercolors * Graphics - drawing
* Painting - other mediums * Painting - Oils
* Other 2D Media
TITLE of piece (or “Untitled”)NAME of artistTYPE of mediaSALE PRICE (or “NFS”)
Finalists may be invited to participate in an
extended exhibit of their work. Selected
entries will be on display in the Municipal Services
Building atrium window following the show for
approximately 30 days. The MSB atrium window
is a secure and well lighted area. Works will be
selected display space permitting.
The commission reserves the right to shorten the
duration of or cancel the extended exhibit. upon
the end of the exhibit period, artists will be
contacted and must arrange to pick up their art
by ten business days after the date of notification.
The commission reserves the right to discard art
that is not picked up by the deadline.
artists may be required to submit a completed a W-9 Taxpayer Indentification form to receive cash awards and art sales checks.
This will be a juried event. Ribbons will be awarded to first, second and third place winners. cash awards may be given to Best of Show of all the categories combined. awardees may also be invited to participate in an extended art exhibit in the Municipal Services Building atrium Display Window.
in addition, due to space and facility limitations, some artworks may not be suitable for entry. Please contact the Recreation office if there is a concern regarding the eligibility of a piece.
Clip frames and sawtooth hangers are NOT acceptable!
exaMPle BraiDeD Wire PreParation For the BaCk oF all 2-D entrieS
example ofscrew eye
Frame
Canvas
screw eye screw eye
Braided Wire Judging will be performed by an
independent artist or art teacher.
The decision of the judge is final. City employees
and commissioners are eligible to exhibit, but may
not win prizes.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 30, 2020
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update Parks Division Update
Ballfield Update Park staff are nearing completion of offseason ballfield improvements and plan to have all fields open on February 3. During this time, staff rehabilitated turf, installed new sod, rebuilt pitcher’s mounds, installed an irrigation pump at Callero Field, added infield fines, and performed general
field improvements for the upcoming season. Staff have also added and replaced amenities such as storage boxes, bat racks, and foul line fences. These improvements will help facilitate the safe use of ballfields and improve the quality of play throughout the season. Irish Town Green Update
Parks staff have resumed work at Irish Town Green in preparation for the field opening to the public. Header boards are being installed along the Linden Avenue fence to retain soil and bring the site up to grade and abate tripping hazards. Staff are also trenching along the sides of the pathways to connect irrigation lateral lines for future planting areas. The Department has also applied for Community Development Block Grant funding to help complete further renovation of
the park and make the Armour Avenue side of the park safely accessible to residents.
Weed Abatement Update Parks staff have been focusing on continued right-of-way maintenance throughout the city. When weather allows, staff have been performing weed abatement and litter pick up on major
thoroughfares. Work will continue in the coming weeks. Building Maintenance Division Update Downtown Wi-Fi Installation
As part of the downtown Wi-Fi installation project, Building Maintenance staff worked with the IT Department and their contractor to provide a penetration in the City Hall roof. The penetration was performed next to an air vent to maintain the integrity of the newly installed roof. Once the wire was fed through the roof, Building Maintenance staff resealed the air vent to prevent water intrusion.
Bi-Weekly Update January 30, 2020
Page 2 of 2
Council Chamber Dais Handrail Fabrication Update At a December City Council Meeting, Councilmember Matsumoto noted a potential fall hazard on the edge of the dais near the steps. Building Maintenance staff immediately began building two
custom steel handrails in-house. The first handrail was completed at the end of December. The
second handrail was just completed. Staff will finish priming and painting the handrails this month, and plan to install them the first week of February.
Grand Library Elevated Paver Repair Building Maintenance staff performed repairs to the elevated paver system walkway at the Grand Avenue Library. One of the pavers was damaged, warranting replacement. A replacement paver
engineered for this application was installed, and all other pavers were inspected for defects.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 6. 2020
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update
Council Feedback Requested: Preschool Waiting List Survey
At the City Council retreat on Saturday, January 18, Assistant City Manager/Parks and Recreation Director Sharon Ranals introduced the option of surveying preschool waiting list families to understand how families are evaluating their preschool options. Over 700 families are currently enrolled on the waiting list for spaces in the City’s preschool program, which includes Siebecker,
Westborough, and Little Steps Preschool. All three schools combined serve 134 preschoolers. A draft of the survey is available in Attachment 1. Staff is seeking City Council’s feedback as to the purpose and questions on the survey. Please send your feedback to Angela Duldulao, Recreation Manager, at angela.duldulao@ssf.net or (650) 829-3827 by Friday, February 21, 2020.
Cultural Arts Update
Cultural Arts Commission Adopts New Mission Statement The Cultural Arts Commission recently established a new subcommittee led by Commissioner Michael DeNatale that is focused on developing a public art plan. The first recommendation of
the subcommittee was to create a mission statement to guide the Commission’s work moving forward. At the January 16 Cultural Arts Commission meeting, the Commission voted to adopt the following mission below. This has been posted on the Cultural Arts website at www.ssf.net/culturalarts.
Concise Mission Statement The South San Francisco Cultural Arts Commission supports, promotes and protects community interest and diversity in art, culture and creative expression.
Expanded Mission Statement The South San Francisco Cultural Arts Commission is organized to support, promote and protect community interest and diversity in art, culture and creative expression; Connect and build community among local artists of all ages to
encourage and support artist education and development; Improve infrastructure,
economic development and cultural diversity through acquisition and exhibition of public art; Celebrate and preserve diverse and significant heritage through culturally sensitive exhibition of art in all its forms.
Bi-Weekly Update February 6, 2020
Page 2 of 5
Visit to SSF Sculptor Richard Zawitz’s Studio On Saturday, January 25 several members of the Cultural Arts Commission visited Tangle
Creations located at 310 Littlefield Avenue in South San Francisco. These offices include gallery
space showcasing sculptures by Richard X. Zawitz, who is also the founder of Tangle Products, branded as “unique playthings for children and adults of all ages.” This visit was organized after the Commission expressed interest in seeing more of Zawitz’s work after he gave a presentation to the Commission at their November 21, 2020 meeting.
Commissioner PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard Shares her 2020 Performance Schedule
Cultural Arts Commissioner PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard performs with the Lovestruck Band and shared her 2020 performance schedule with the Commission. She also invites other City colleagues to attend. The Lovestruck Band’s 2020 schedule is available in Attachment 2. 2020 Parks & Rec Event Calendar Available Online
The 2020 Parks and Recreation event calendar is now available online. To find the calendar, visit www.ssf.net/rec and click on the “Events” button. A copy of the calendar is
available in Attachment 3. Childcare Update SSFUSD Confirms City Use of Ponderosa for Summer Camp
Each year, Childcare Program staff coordinate with the
School District for the use of Ponderosa Elementary School as one of three locations for Summer Camp. The other two locations are hosted in City facilities at the Joseph A. Fernekes Building and Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center. Use of Ponderosa School for Summer Camp is outlined in the Childcare MOU between the City and School District for City-operated Childcare Programs. In January 2020, District staff confirmed that Ponderosa School is available for Summer
Camp and planning is underway. Summer Camp has exclusive use of seven classrooms and portables, the multi-use room, restrooms, and outdoor spaces. One-hundred children are served at this location in addition to the Childcare Program’s Teen Camp. Summer Camp and After School Program Lottery Schedule
Last year, the Department piloted a lottery registration system for Summer Camp and the Before
Bi-Weekly Update February 6, 2020
Page 3 of 5
and After School Program in order to eliminate the practice of parents lining up as early as two days prior to registration day in an attempt to get their child a spot in the program. Based on last year’s success, staff is implementing the lottery registration process again this year. Note that
current Childcare Program participants receive priority enrollment. Lottery registration only
applies to families who are not currently enrolled in the program. More information is available at www.ssf.net/childcare. Registration dates are as follows: Summer Camp
February 21 – 28, 2020 Lottery registration forms accepted. The lottery will determine the order in which prospective participants can
register for available spaces. Residents who live within
the South San Francisco Unified School District boundaries will receive priority in the lottery pull.
Week of March 9, 2020 Lottery registrants are notified of their registration number.
Saturday, March 14, 2020
7:00 a.m. Municipal Services Building, Social Hall
Summer Camp registration day. Lottery participants
must be present when their number is called on Registration Day in order to complete their enrollment.
Before and After School Program, REAL Program
April 1 - 20, 2020 Lottery registration forms accepted.
Week of April 20, 2020 Registrants notified if they have been registered or
waitlisted.
Middle School Dance Terrabay Gymnasium and Recreation Center recently hosted the final Middle School Dance of the school year organized by the Parks and Recreation Department. The dance is only for students
attending one of the school district’s three middle schools: Parkway, Alta Loma, and Westborough.
There were 15 staff members and one uniformed police officer to help supervise the 200 students who attended. Two lines were formed outside, one for pre-paid students and one for walk-ups. There were 87 pre-paid and 113 walk-up students waiting to get in when the doors opened at 6:15 p.m. Staff encourages students to pre-pay so they are guaranteed into the dance, plus the cost is
only $8.00 for prepaid students opposed to $10.00 at the door on the day of the dance. The dance
started around 6:35 p.m. once a majority of the students were inside the gymnasium. Staff is mindful of student safety from the beginning to the end of the event. When the dance concluded at 9:00 p.m., all students had to wait inside the gym until their parents picked them up.
Once the parents located their child, they were required to pass through two checkpoints by staff
before exiting the gym. Staff also directed traffic in the parking lot area to make sure everyone was getting home safely. Overall, these dances have been well received by parents, staff, and students. Spintronix
Entertainment has been the DJ for the past eight years and does an excellent job of playing music
for the dances. The next dance will be scheduled in October.
Bi-Weekly Update February 6, 2020
Page 4 of 5
Operation Valentines for the Troops - Magnolia Center
On Friday, January 24, the Senior Services Program held the
annual Valentines for the Troops event at the Magnolia Center. Over 60 people volunteered to make more than 2,200 Valentines that will be sent to military men and women in the U.S. and abroad. State Senator Jerry Hill and his staff are always a big part
of this event and this year was no exception. Senator Hill attended
the event and spent time talking to volunteers and over a dozen military members who also came out to help. Attendees enjoyed a delicious breakfast and worked hard to make beautiful and meaningful cards. It was a wonderful morning for all that joined
in the fun. Master Sergeant Rebecca Wolkenhauer is the military
representative who makes sure the cards are given to soldiers and military members at home and abroad.
Bi-Weekly Update February 6, 2020
Page 5 of 5
City Hall Wedding
On January 11, City Hall was rented for a wedding ceremony officiated by Liza Normandy. The wedding was for Jeanine Acosta and Jason Boyle who both grew up in South San Francisco and
went to Parkway Middle School. Jeanine’s dad was Ronald Acosta, former Mayor and
Councilmember of the City of South San Francisco. The event hosted no more than 20 guests and required no special set-up. City Hall is not a typical rental venue offered for private events, nor does the Department receive
many inquiries to host such events at City Hall. In order to accommodate this rental, the event
hosts were charged a permit fee and insurance totaling $642 for the wedding. One Recreation staff member worked the event to make sure everything went smoothly for this special day.
Community Needs Survey
Childcare Waiting List
You have been selected from the City of South San Francisco Department of Parks and Recreation's Preschool Waiting List to take part
in a short survey to better understand the community needs for quality preschools programs. Siebecker Preschool, Westborough
Preschool, and Little Steps Preschool are included in our program. Your answers will help us better understand the actual needs of our
community. Thank you for your participation.
1. How old is the child currently on our waiting list?
0 to 2 years old
2 to 5 years old
2. Think about all of the preschool options you have considered for your child. Are the City of South San
Francisco's Preschool Programs your first choice?
Yes
No
3. If your answer was yes, why? Select all that apply.
Cost
Quality
Word of Mouth
Repeat Customer (you have other children already in our program)
Other (please specify)
Attachment 1
4. Mark each item that describes the type of care you are currently using.
Preschool Center
Home Day Care
Care in your home by a relative/friend
Care in a relative/friends home
Combination of above as needed
Currently searching for care
Other (please specify)
5. What percentage of your annual income goes towards childcare tuition for your child(ren)?
0-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
over 50%
6. How serious of a problem is finding quality, affordable child care in your community?
Very Serious problem
Somewhat serious problem
Not too serious a problem
Not an issue in my community
Don't know enough to answer
SSF Neighborhood Map - Please refer to this map when answering the following questions.
Attachment 1
7. If you live in South San Francisco, please indicate which neighborhood you live in.
N/A - I do not live in San Francisco
Avalon
Downtown
East of Hwy 101
Orange Park
Paradise Valley
Serra Highlands
Sign Hill
Sunshine Gardens
Westborough
Winston Manor
I'm not sure
Other (please specify)
8. If you could pick any location for a new preschool in South San Francisco, which neighborhood(s) would
work best for you.
Avalon
Downtown
East of Hwy 101
Orange Park
Paradise Valley
Serra Highlands
Sign Hill
Sunshine Gardens
Westborough
Winston Manor
I'm not sure
Any location could work - I do not have a preference
Other (please specify)
9. Please feel free to add any other comments you would like us to consider.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
The Parks and Recreation
Department's mission is to provide
opportunities for physical, cultural
and social well being; protect and
enhance the physical environment;
and ensure the effective and efficient
use of public facilities and open
space.
2020 Events
City of South San Francisco
Contact Us
Municipal Services Building
33 Arroyo Drive
South San Francisco, CA
(650) 829-3800
www.ssf.net/rec
ABOUT US
OUR SPECIAL
EVENTS
Each year, we host many public
special events in various interest areas
with the hope that they will serve our
residents.
If you would like to provide feedback
on any of our events and activities,
please email web-rec@ssf.net.
Parks and Recreation Department
Attachment 3
New Year’s Day/Programs Closed
Winter Session Classes Begin
Tax Assistance Appointments Begin
Martin Luther King Day- Holiday/Closed
Middle School Dance
Seniors Valentine's Day Cards for the Troops
January
February
Senior Dance Chinese New Year Party
Seniors Valentine's Special Dance
CAC General Art Show & Karaoke
CAC General Art Show
Presidents Day/Programs Closed
Summer Camp Lottery Applications
Accepted/Priority Registration
IPP Planting - Sign Hill
Spring Session Registration Begins
Every Saturday (Feb. 1,8,15,22 & 29)
Tech Assistance at Magnolia Center
March
Senior Health Fair
Summer Camp Registration Begins
Spring Camp
Spring Session Classes Begin
April
After School Program Lottery
Registration/Priority Registration
Author Talk - Magnolia Center
CAC Youth Art Show
Easter Egg Hunt
Adult Softball League Begins
Author Talk - Magnolia Center
Senior Volunteer Luncheon
Junior Giants Registration Begins
Arbor Day
Youth Karate Tournament
May
Farmers Market Opening Downtown
Summer Session Registration Begins
Preschool Graduation
Senior Pancake Breakfast
Memorial Day Holiday/Programs Closed
Memorial Day Flag Ceremony
Last Day of School @SSFUSD
Junior Giants First Pitch Meeting
June
First Day of Summer Camp
Summer Session Classes Begin
Junior Giants Coaches Meeting
Junior Giants Begins
IPP Planting - Location TBD
Outdoor Movie Night in the Park
Adult Summer Basketball Begins
July
Programs Closed
Independence Day/Programs Closed
Oyster Point Fireworks Show & Concert
CAC Photography Show
CAC Photography Show
Adult Softball Summer League
August
Final Day of Summer Camp
Fall Session Registration Begins
SSFUSD School Begins
SSF Senior Picnic
Outdoor Movie Night in the Park
Middle School Fall Sports Evaluation
Cultural Arts BBQ
September
Labor Day/Programs Closed
Fall Session Classes Begin
Middle School Fall Sports Begin
IPP Planting - Location TBD
Coastal Clean Up Day
October
City Hall 100th Anniversary Celebration
CAC Show: Day of the Dead
CAC Show: Day of the Dead
Columbus Day/Programs Closed
Halloween Extravaganza
Middle School Dance
November
Holiday Boutique
Veterans Day/Programs Closed
Thanksgiving Fun Run
Class Registration for Winter Begins
Thanksgiving/Programs Closed
Thanksgiving/Programs Closed
IPP Planting - Location TBD
December
Santa Comes to Town
IPP Wreath Workshop
Winter Camp
Recreation Administrative Offices Closed
Christmas Eve/City Offices Closed at Noon
Christmas Day/Programs Closed
Winter Camp
New Year’s Eve Holiday
Nutcracker
1
6
8
20
24
24
7
14
14
15
17
21-28
22
24
******
13
14
23-27
23
1-10
3
3-4
4
13
16
17
18
24
26
2
4
15
17
25
25
28
28
1
1
2
8
13
19
TBD
3
4
4
10
11
13
July is Parks and Recreation Month!
7
10
12
21
21
25-26
30
7
8
8
12
19
3
9
10
12
24
TBD
7
11
14
16
26
27
TBD
5
6
21-23
21-25
24
25
28-30
31
TBD
*TBD= To be determined.
Dates may be subject to change [Updated 01.31.2020]
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 13, 2020
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT: Bi-Weekly Update CAPRCBM Award
Staff is glad to report that former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Richard Holt, was posthumously awarded the prestigious President’s Award from the California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members
(CAPRCBM). As members of the City Council are aware, Rich, a longtime resident and active volunteer, passed away in December. This highly honored award has seldom been given, and not in many, many years. Staff is appreciative of current Parks and Recreation Commissioner and current CAPRCBM board member,
Bill Lock, for supporting this award nomination. A copy of the award nomination is attached to this memo. The award will be presented at the CAPRCBM award dinner, which takes place in Long Beach on Thursday, March 12, 2020, coinciding with the California Parks and Recreation Society Conference. We understand that the banquet’s location is
quite challenging for many to attend, but should any members of the City Council like to attend, please email greg.mediati@ssf.net. Parks Division Update
Wind Storm Tree Damage On Sunday, February 9, a stand of city owned trees in the Common Greens area of the Westborough neighborhood blew over during intense wind gusts, and fell onto a house and garage at 3625 Carter Drive. Thankfully there were no injuries. The Public Works stand-by crew responded, and secured the area with caution tape. Building Inspectors were also called out, and
temporarily red-tagged the property until the tree was removed, and a full inspection of the property was conducted. Staff were in contact with the resident, Mr. Anonuevo and his wife, who were staying with his brother nearby. Parks staff quickly removed the large trees from the home by yesterday afternoon. The red tags
were removed after the building inspection was completed, and the home was made cleared to occupy.
Bi-Weekly Update February 13, 2020
Page 2 of 4
It should be noted that the trees were properly maintained, and showed no signs of disease or structural defects prior to this incident. In addition to this tree, a number of branches and several smaller trees also came down elsewhere in the city during the wind storm, however, no other
personal or property damage was reported.
Ballfield Update Staff have worked throughout the winter months to prepare ballfields for the upcoming sports
seasons. Over the past three months, staff installed new sod, rebuilt pitchers mounds and batters
boxes, improved turf conditions, and re-graded infields. The time these fields are closed lets staff work on these improvements, increases user safety, and allows the field to rest prior to league play. Due to the relatively dry winter and dedicated effort by staff, the Department had all fields opened for use by February 3.
Additionally, the Callero ballfield irrigation booster pump will have new electrical connections installed this week. This is the final step to prepare the system to be turned on for improved irrigation coverage. When this work is completed, the field should stay a uniform green color as the sprinkler heads will be working at a proper operating pressure.
Irish Town Green Staff are continuing work at Irish Town Green. Staff have raised the soil level in some of the planter beds, installed header boards, installed mulch, and poured a concrete pad for a new
Bi-Weekly Update February 13, 2020
Page 3 of 4
irrigation clock and pedestal. Additional work similar to this scope will occur around the field throughout the next few months, and larger improvements to site safety and accessibility will be made if the Department is awarded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding
requests.
Sign Hill Update Staff have been focusing heavily on invasive weed eradication specifically focused on Italian thistle, an annual noxious weed that has notoriously had a strong foot hold on Sign Hill. Thistle
can form stands that crowd out native and beneficial plants that would typically inhabit the hill.
Additionally, this is the second month of volunteer activities on the hill and registered attendants have jumped from a total of 15 in January, to almost 40 volunteers for February. Improving Public Places volunteers will also assist with these efforts on February 22, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Staff have been working hard on public outreach and the attendance at the events is a strong
indicator that our efforts have been successful.
Urban Forest Master Plan As the City Council is aware, staff has been working with consulting arborists from Davey Resource group to formulate an Urban Forest Master Plan. The plan will serve as a guiding
document for tree maintenance and urban forestry practices for the next 10-15 years. A copy of
the draft plan is attached here for the City Council’s information and review. Given this is a lengthy document, staff wanted to provide the draft plan to City Council in advance of the February 26 City Council meeting, where it will be presented for adoption. Please do note that there may be some very minor format changes to this document before it is submitted with the
City Council staff report, but content will remain the same. Building Maintenance Division Update City Hall Clock Tower Painting
As part of the ongoing building improvements, Building Maintenance staff recently touched up the gold paint on and around the City Hall clock tower. The medallions were not painted when the entire building was painted nearly 10 years ago. These types of improvements are subtle but make a large impact to the overall look and design of our cherished City
Hall building.
Westborough Recreation Building Rain Gutters Building Maintenance staff have been working with a general contractor to replace the rain gutters on the Westborough
Recreation Building. The existing rain gutters were rotted through and were no longer channeling water away from the building foundation. The contractor recently finished replacing all the rain gutters and have painted them to match the existing building color. Staff will also continue to clear debris from the new rain
gutters, extending the life of the gutters significantly.
Bi-Weekly Update February 13, 2020
Page 4 of 4
Westborough Recreation Building HVAC System
Building Maintenance staff completed quarterly preventative
maintenance of the Westborough Recreation Building HVAC system, noting that the system is original to the building and many of the parts have reached the end of the lifecycle and are no longer serviceable. Building occupants have also noted inconsistent heat in this building
recently. There are two furnaces in the building that provide heat for the
multi-use and preschool areas. Building Maintenance staff has sourced and purchased two new units and staged them in the attic in anticipation of a scheduled replacement. Staff will be working with an HVAC mechanical contractor to switch out the units and schedule a time around the classes, rentals, and childcare programs to minimize
community impact. Once the units are replaced, the new units will be able to provide more efficient
and consistent heating to the building.
CAPRCBM President’s Award
Richard Holt, South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Commission
The South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department has nominated Richard Holt for the
prestigious California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members
President’s Award to memorialize and celebrate his contributions to the Parks and Recreation
community. For more than fifty years, Rich has touched many elements of our South San
Francisco community.
Appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission in 2009, Rich served for 10 years, including
terms as Vice Chair and Chair, demonstrating near perfect attendance. He was always optimistic,
positive, enthusiastic, and kind. He exhibited quiet strength, mentorship, and leadership in his
role as Commissioner, which endeared him to staff, his fellow Commissioners, and the public.
Truly passionate about Parks and Recreation, Rich, along with Jeannette, was a tireless
volunteer, and a dedicated advocate for park improvements and recreation programs. He studied
parks and recreation issues, attended conferences to deepen his knowledge, and consistently
provided thoughtful direction to staff. He championed causes, raised funds and most
importantly, he cared about people.
Rich supported programs for all ages, from tots to seniors, and equally appreciated sports,
childcare, enrichment classes, aquatics, ballet, dancing, and fitness activities. He was particularly
sensitive to those with disabilities and underserved groups, and devoted countless hours through
the Friends of Parks and Recreation to generate scholarships and funds for program
enhancements. Rich was instrumental in advocating that the city’s planned Community Center
include not just a parking lot, but that it also should feature a park. For these reasons, and the
broad community involvement described below, Rich was selected by his peers as the state-wide
Outstanding Commissioner of the Year by the California Association of Parks and Recreation
Commissioners and Board Members in 2017.
In addition to serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission, Rich was an active community
member and volunteer with many parks and recreation and civic non-profit organizations for
over five decades. His affiliations include Friends of Parks and Recreation, Friends of the
Library, Kiwanis, Police Athletic League, Elks Club, Improving Public Places, Pee Wee
Baseball and Junior Giants, Kaiser Hospital Patient Advisor, Bethany Presbyterian Church,
Senior Center Docent and Volunteer, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT),
California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS), California Association of Parks and Recreation
Commissioners and Board Members (CAPRCBM), Italian American Citizens Club/Bocce Ball
Club, Measure J School Bond Oversight Committee, Sons of Norway, and he also volunteered
with the South San Francisco Police Department. Rich spent countless hours in meetings and
interacting with all the people to improve our community
Richard passed away this past December. A resident since 1967, Rich and Jeannette, his devoted
wife of 55 years, raised their family in South San Francisco. He leaves his wife Jeannette, sons
Rich and Bill, and grandchildren Chase and Kaia.
By way of applying for the CAPRCBM President’s Award, we would like to acknowledge
Richard Holt for his friendship and many years of dedicated service to Parks and Recreation, and
the broader community. He will truly be missed.