[Goose]

As you can read from the "tree presentation" that CalTrans made, both the density and thickness of trees planted along a road contribute to the road's visibility.  The roots of the trees can affect drainage of the road.

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/dis...3-a11y.pdf

BC

BC, what I see in the document is two graphics comparing the visibility of different configurations of trees, showing that one is better than the other, but by implication both configurations are "worse", visibility wise, than no trees at all. That alternative is not explicitly considered as far as I can find, and there really is very little to "read". This study is built around several "Overarching Goals", as stated at the beginning of the document. One of these goals is "Retain the character and health of the Grove". Given that, no trees is certainly off the table, as well as many other alternatives. This goal may come from "public input", but I suspect it is almost entirely derived from the effects of the National Historic Preservation Act and the status of "The Grove". Even Cal Trans refers to "ill effects" of said regulations.

IMO this is an example of too many "rules" interacting in ways they were never intended. The Grove was created by the work of a "Master Gardner, John McLaren" operating without many constraints in a very different time. The current regulations create a situation where a bureaucratic organization is trying to "follow the rules" to preserve the original work while at the same time changing it in ways that will render it unrecognizable to it's creator. It is in some ways the worst of both worlds, where Burlingame can't rip up the old plan and start over, but also can't continue with the old plan because of changed circumstances. Instead they will get a result with most of the bad aspects of the alternative approaches and only those good aspects that can be somehow shoehorned in.

[Goose]

As you can read from the "tree presentation" that CalTrans made, both the density and thickness of trees planted along a road contribute to the road's visibility.  The roots of the trees can affect drainage of the road.

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/dis...3-a11y.pdf

BC

BC, what I see in the document is two graphics comparing the visibility of different configurations of trees, showing that one is better than the other, but by implication both configurations are "worse", visibility wise, than no trees at all. That alternative is not explicitly considered as far as I can find, and there really is very little to "read". This study is built around several "Overarching Goals", as stated at the beginning of the document. One of these goals is "Retain the character and health of the Grove". Given that, no trees is certainly off the table, as well as many other alternatives. This goal may come from "public input", but I suspect it is almost entirely derived from the effects of the National Historic Preservation Act and the status of "The Grove". Even Cal Trans refers to "ill effects" of said regulations.

IMO this is an example of too many "rules" interacting in ways they were never intended. The Grove was created by the work of a "Master Gardner, John McLaren" operating without many constraints in a very different time. The current regulations create a situation where a bureaucratic organization is trying to "follow the rules" to preserve the original work while at the same time changing it in ways that will render it unrecognizable to it's creator. It is in some ways the worst of both worlds, where Burlingame can't rip up the old plan and start over, but also can't continue with the old plan because of changed circumstances. Instead they will get a result with most of the bad aspects of the alternative approaches and only those good aspects that can be somehow shoehorned in.