[Goose]

I am actually somewhat of a "fan" of Eucalyptus. There are many in the Stanford Arboretum, of various species. The book by Prof. Bracewell Trees of Stanford and Environs details some of them. There are also quite a few on Stanford lands, like the path to the dish from Alpine Road, that are nice trees and are in relatively "safe" locations. If they fall, it would be virtually impossible anybody would be injured thereby. I am in no hurry to see these trees removed.

It must be recognized Eucalyptus trees are indeed a fire hazard. They literally explode when they burn. As a result, the large grove of these trees that used to exist on the hill near the junction of Woodside Road and Portola Road was recently totally removed. IMO this wasn't literally "necessary", as most of these trees were healthy. However, I can see the argument to get rid of them as a severe fire risk in a wooded area. I definitely support removing all of them that are within 5 feet or so of the creek, as the banks often erode several feet in a single storm, especially when there is blockage due to other trees upstream falling into the creek. This is especially so in the cases where they can fall toward Alpine Road.

I do applaud SMC for putting in place an exemption to allow property owners to remove such trees without getting "permission". Local politics alert, I think the current situation where many "outside" agencies can prevent tree removal on private property is a "bad idea", despite the associated "good intentions". The Oak trees along the creek also desperately need "management", but as others have pointed out, the paperwork and dollars thereby required makes it very difficult. There is a new one that fell into the middle of the creek last week that is just begging to create an obstruction and force the creek closer to the road. It will be in almost the same spot as one of the 2017 "remediations". There is no exemption for this "native" species (and lots of it is in Santa Clara Country anyway).

IMO the Cal Trans authority along 82 in Burlingame regarding trees should be limited to questions of traffic obstruction. It the city wants to do something that obstructs traffic, Cal Trans could possibly veto it. If the City wants to remove trees, that doesn't obstruct traffic and Cal Trans should stay out of it. It just isn't the States business IMO. It makes everything harder when you get more agencies involved, many of which have no obvious interest in the issue at hand.

[Goose]

I am actually somewhat of a "fan" of Eucalyptus. There are many in the Stanford Arboretum, of various species. The book by Prof. Bracewell Trees of Stanford and Environs details some of them. There are also quite a few on Stanford lands, like the path to the dish from Alpine Road, that are nice trees and are in relatively "safe" locations. If they fall, it would be virtually impossible anybody would be injured thereby. I am in no hurry to see these trees removed.

It must be recognized Eucalyptus trees are indeed a fire hazard. They literally explode when they burn. As a result, the large grove of these trees that used to exist on the hill near the junction of Woodside Road and Portola Road was recently totally removed. IMO this wasn't literally "necessary", as most of these trees were healthy. However, I can see the argument to get rid of them as a severe fire risk in a wooded area. I definitely support removing all of them that are within 5 feet or so of the creek, as the banks often erode several feet in a single storm, especially when there is blockage due to other trees upstream falling into the creek. This is especially so in the cases where they can fall toward Alpine Road.

I do applaud SMC for putting in place an exemption to allow property owners to remove such trees without getting "permission". Local politics alert, I think the current situation where many "outside" agencies can prevent tree removal on private property is a "bad idea", despite the associated "good intentions". The Oak trees along the creek also desperately need "management", but as others have pointed out, the paperwork and dollars thereby required makes it very difficult. There is a new one that fell into the middle of the creek last week that is just begging to create an obstruction and force the creek closer to the road. It will be in almost the same spot as one of the 2017 "remediations". There is no exemption for this "native" species (and lots of it is in Santa Clara Country anyway).

IMO the Cal Trans authority along 82 in Burlingame regarding trees should be limited to questions of traffic obstruction. It the city wants to do something that obstructs traffic, Cal Trans could possibly veto it. If the City wants to remove trees, that doesn't obstruct traffic and Cal Trans should stay out of it. It just isn't the States business IMO. It makes everything harder when you get more agencies involved, many of which have no obvious interest in the issue at hand.