It sounds as though you want a strawberry for its flavor, maybe taste like a strawberry. If you were a commercial strawberry grower, your first priority would be how do they look after being shipped somewhere, or how many tons per acre. As a home grower you can leave the berries on the plant until they are fully ripe and are not concerned about shipping. The university of California has produced The California Master Gardener Handbook that will be found in all California libraries. The chapter on berries is written by the farm adviser for Sonoma county, Paul Vossen, a real "berry lover". He lists several both short day and day neutral varieties and their benefits, as well as their culture. Al

Just saw this in the local paper and thought you might find it useful. SF Chronicle Home & Garden Q&A column, 7/19/06: Q: I have a 'Meyer' lemon tree that produced one lemon. The white blossoms are starting to brown and the other tiny, tiny lemons don't seem to be growing. I have it in a huge wine bucket. I was using citrus fertilizer every 10 days or so but haven't for a couple of weeks. I will buy a water meter to ensure that I do not overwater. If you have any other ideas, please tell me. Also, what flowers would you recommend I plant for color at the beginning of September in San Francisco? My garden club will come to my house then. Some of the flowers will be in a southern exposure that gets warm sun and some in four hours of sun a day. What do you think? A: Citrus trees often don't mature fruit until they are 3 years old, needing the energy to grow bigger first. Fruit drop can also be caused by watering swings. Citrus wants a nice, steady water supply, never soggy and never dry. In a container, underwatering is more common than overwatering, and a water meter is a good tool to help get it right. Assuming your container drains well, water till some drips out the bottom, and then again when it is on the dry side a few inches down (but not bone dry), maybe once or twice a week, depending on weather. The most common symptom of too much fertilizer is brown edges on the leaves, which you didn't mention. For citrus in containers, fertilizing once a month is a good guide, though formulations vary, so it is best to follow package directions. As to having flowers in bloom in September, that should be easy to do. Because you are starting not far in advance, you will be planting mainly annuals. Look in the nursery for long-blooming annuals that are starting to flower now, such as violas, pansies, cosmos, paludosum daisies, callibrachoa, edging lobelia, 'Dwarf Marguerite' varieties and diascias, and choose a few kinds that you like. All of them will bloom well in sun. For shade, you can't beat impatiens, unless it is with 'New Guinea' impatiens, which is taller and often has variegated leaves. Inland, four hours of sun might harm impatiens, but not in cooler San Francisco. In either sun or part shade, consider working some small to medium tall grasses or sedges and some fancy-leaf heucheras into the planting to vary the forms of your plants.

The person who criticized my posts for being too complicated, better just stop now. I guess it helps to remember the zones are 'USDA', which is the US department of agriculture and really has nothing to do with ornamental plants. Nein. Ornamental plants ARE part of the USDA's mission. That's why the National Arboretum is under their aegis. Remember wholesale nurseries definitely are a form of agriculture. The USDA zone system gives the barest measure of whether a plant can survive in a given area. Obviously, something hardy only in zone 10 cannot survive in zone 6. Beyond that, there are many other factors. The latest revised USDA zone map seems very accurate to me. I know of gardens along the Delaware river in NJ that really do seem like zn 7b. But it took a ridiculously long time to come out...considering the overall crunching of data probably took a few hours on a high perf. workstation or server. (in case you don't know, it's based on a climate model developed at U Oregon called "Prism") This was not some advanced climate simulation going on like trying to predict hurricanes. And given that computer technology has advanced so much including the algorithm development one would have to say the current USDA map reflects a certain lack of vision, though, again, at least they finally got it correct. By this I mean something like the Sunset system could have been developed, although there were problems with that approach if you try to extend it over the country. Rather than discrete numbers that could get ridiculously long for certain plants (i.e., this grows in 21, 33,34,35,36,37,38,40,52,61,62,63,64,75,78 etc) it could have used a series of vectors that graph a space representing the plant's preferences. Zones 1 to 10 would still be the first dimension of this system so you don't "break compatibility" with what we already have. The two main additional factors I would propose would be aridity, and summer temperature. There are several reasons for this; namely, there are already 2 factors certain nurseries use when selling plants. The AHS "heat zone" map exists, and is used by a few nurseries to show warning on certain species, and aridity scales have been adopted by Desert Northwest and High Country Gardens. Mind you these scales would not necessarily be linear and could code a sub-dimension, or even be matrixed to code an additional factor. For example it might make more sense for moisture to go: part of year arid - sporadic/none of year - all year - part of year but high atmospheric moisture. Because there are non-linearities in the way plants behave with respect to that, and with summer temperature. Some cool summer seasonal plants are actually known to grow in all year rainfall climates like England, but only with cool summers. The point is the arrange things in the way that leads to the most chances of solid groupings. Such mathematical shenanigans might make it hard for people to understand how to derive their own zone, but the point is it doesn't matter. They will get their zone off a map. Also different from the Sunset zones, there no need for a comprehensive, singular map because everyone will use some kind of smart device in the future that can easily click one location between 3 or more different maps. So a zone like mine would go from 7a (I think the a/b is of more limited usefulness than most people realize, though I have and will continue to reference the subzones) to something like 7J6. 7 being 0 to 10f min annual temp, J being a climate with rain all year but some expectation of brief droughts, and 6 being heat zone 6. Let's call it the Comprehensive Plant Zone. A _PLANT_ ranges, versus a gardening location, would go from "USDA zone 7-10" for a maritime climate plant like Eucryphia, to "CPZ (comprehensive plant zoning) zone "7H2-10M4" meaning that range of minimum winter temps, and a generally moist climate though accepting somewhat dry summers, as long as 3) the summers are cool. I would instantly recognize that I can't grow the plant because I'm off on one of the codes. Of course, this will never happen and there will be howls of "it's too complicated" but you can be sure in the early 1960s some hayseeds saw the first Harvard zone map and said "oh them fancy professors and their durn maps, I know what grows here and uh don't need some map." Also let's face that other than the big midwestern cities the net migration in the country is towards the SE, S & W where the USDA zone system is least useful. USDA system is most useful for telling people in Iowa there are many, many plants that they are far too cold to grow (sorry Iowans, someone had to be an example) than answering the question for someone in Phoenix, Arizona of whether a certain species of Protea could grow there. (and I reckon a couple of the most heat tolerant ones could) That a sunset zone map was made for the whole country is something I applaud, my idea just tries to make their system easier to use when dealing with a lot of customers and plants. Instead of saying "that only grows in 31, not 42" it's more helpful to say "your moisture factor of J is too much for an A-E plant, it will rot".

I moved here from Chicago (and have also lived in LA) and you really, really should rent first. Housing prices are not going to zoom up anytime soon. The banks have a large shadow inventory and CA is one of the three worst states for foreclosures. It is very time-consuming to buy a foreclosure. Figure it will take 4x longer than to buy normally. Homes in foreclosure are often in bad shape; quality of construction in CA is often very low. Labor costs are high and skillful workers harder to find than they should be. Do not assume you can remodel a not-so-perfect house into what you want. The NIMBY-ism here is hideous and in all the major cities it is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to enlarge a home's footprint. You are legally constrained from covering more than 40% of your lot anyway, I believe, and with our small lots that's not a big footprint. Permits are expensive to obtain and if you make structural changes, it will be required that you bring everything up to current building code. Since every year brings in stricter earthquake building codes, this can add so much to the cost that remodeling projects become impossible. For example, our neighbor wanted to turn their downstairs into a legal in-law: adding a second bathroom, building a single-story, one-room addition. They had $75K in cash as their budget (we live in the Oakland foothills, nice older area, starter homes). It took them over $12K and almost two years to go through the permit process. Eventually they were told they had to apply for a waiver because they were taking 2' from the single-car garage which was already minimum size allowed, so they had to have the architect re-draw the plans and resubmit them. Permit cost, BTW, is 10% of the cost estimate in our city. The City of Oakland does the engineering study for all projects. As we live on a hill (great east-facing hillside views), they were told to stabilize their lot, it would be necessary to sink 40 piers, each 37' deep to bedrock, filled with steel rebar and concrete. 25 of the piers would be for the single-room addition (which was only going to be about 17x25') and the remaining 15 would be placed all along the north side of the existing house. The cost for the pier work alone? $65,000. Needless to say, they did something else with their remaining $63K. You might be surprised what you pay for utilities here. PG&E is one of the most expensive utilities in the country, and most older homes aren't insulated well. Our home is insulated with double-pane windows, we live in a warmer microclimate than Berkeley, I keep my home fairly cool, yet we pay on average $170/mo for gas (furnace/dryer/stove) and electricity. No one can place any dependency on PG&E absorbing all the costs for their unmapped leaking gas mains (a neighborhood in San Bruno saw its gas main blow up and 8 people died); we ratepayers will almost certainly see our rates rise yet again. Water isn't that expensive, but earthquake-proofing our EBMUD water reservoirs is. Our bi-monthly water bill for a large garden (1/6 acre) and 3 people runs $45 for water and $100 for earthquake work. We do have earthquake insurance. There is a fault that runs right through Alameda County and it's overdue for another major quake. Homeowners insurance is fairly low - less than $1K, and umbrella liability is around $200/yr. Earthquake insurance with a $100K deductible costs us almost $4000/yr. However, we have no mortgage so we are carrying all the risk on our home. It made sense for us to purchase risk mitigation. To be afraid of all of Oakland is ridiculous. There are some very good neighborhoods here, just as there are some bad neighborhoods in Berkeley. If I were buying for the first time, I'd look in El Cerrito on the east side of San Pablo Ave. Good, stable neighborhoods, nice weather, easier city traffic, great services/shops. I like Alameda, but access is limited to the bridges, and traffic is easily snarled at commute times. Traffic is the huge issue in the Bay Area. If you are still working, you need to really see how the traffic patterns work, not just when things go right but when things go wrong. Public transit is pathetic compared to Chicago, NY and Boston. Cars are a necessity in the East Bay; you can get around without one but it will take forever and making transfers between systems is a pain. Don't ignore the sales tax. The first time you pay sales tax on a new car, you will definitely feel the pain! Food is a conundrum: you can spend less and get higher quality, but on average Bay Area residents eat out more often than anyone else except New Yorkers, over 4x/week. I don't mean to sound discouraging. We love living here but there is no denying CA is an extremely expensive state. State income taxes are high and services are dwindling. You will find politics very different here than back East.