You Can't Have it All

Spare that tree? We think not - Opinion piece in San Mateo Times

EVEN in affluent Burlingame, you can't have it all. That has become obvious as some residents wrestle with a recent decision by a majority of their City Council involving the removal of a single eucalyptus tree on Easton Drive near El Camino Real. There is an outspoken faction of folks who want the tree, which dates back to the early part of the 20th century, to remain. They have been urging the council, which voted 3-2 to have the offending foliage axed, to consider other alternatives.

But the tree, which is roughly 100 feet tall, has caused serious problems on (and under) Easton. Its root system is the culprit. There are safety issues involved, and that means potential liability for a city that can ill-afford a drain on its financial resources. At the point where the big eucalyptus has created bulges in the street, access for the disabled trying to cross Easton is problematic, too. A public library branch is located near the tree. We can understand the desire to retain it. But, under the present circumstances, the city really doesn't have another option, especially one that makes monetary sense. A replacement tree (not a eucalyptus, fortunately) is scheduled to be planted at the same location. That makes sense to us. It also is important to note that more Burlingame eucalyptus trees are going to have to be taken down in the coming years as well. They are reaching the end of their useful lives. That's simply the nature of trees. We will be sorry to see them go, too.

Though we have some passionate tree lovers on the Voice, it is important to know that there are some people who think this tree should be removed - over and above the Beautification Commission, Council, staff, etc.

As in the case of all passionate arguments, the Voice welcomes those who can see the forest and the trees.

- Written by Fiona

Comments

[Joanne]

Lots between the lines on this one:
1) Money is the reason the trees are coming down. "Even in affluent Burlingame, you can't have it all...can ill-afford a drain on its financial resources...no other option, that makes monetary sense." If we are making tradeoffs on a 74 million budget shouldn't those tradeoffs be clearly explained? If we can't have it all, what can we have -- and more importantly, what are we getting?
2) This tree is just the beginning of what is planned. "It also is important to note that more Burlingame eucalyptus trees are going to have to be taken down in the coming years as well."
3) The author of this editorial -- and whomever spoonfed him/her the info to write it -- doesn't like eucalptus. One can throw all out the platitudes one likes "we can understand the desire to retain it" and "they are reaching the end of their useful lives" (note the adjective "useful") and "we will be sorry to see them go".... but one little aside gave away the author's true feelings "A replacement tree (not a eucalyptus, forunately) is scheduled." Not a euc, fortunately?! Well guess what, San Mateo County Times, a eucalyptus WAS chosen by the Easton neighbors for a replacement. The Eucalyptus, whether one likes it or not, IS the iconic tree for Burlingame. Without them our City is never going to look the same. Bye bye Easton and Cabrillo Tree, then bye-bye Easton, then bye-bye all the others.
There is no vision here folks.

Before somebody writes an Opinion piece, it's a good idea to get the facts straight and do some homework. At least that's what I'd do. This one sounds more like a propaganda piece that should be titled, No More Eucs (Here, There, or Anywhere.)

The data/FACTS are starting to come in regarding traffic safety on Easton Drive, which is interesting. Based upon the most recent traffic count, which took place on January 27, 2003 (Wednesday) and the accident history on Easton Drive between El Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue. The accident report history covered the period from January 1, 2002 to present.

If you were extrapolate the one-day sample of traffic volume, excluding Saturday and Sunday, over the time of the accident history period this figures is equal to 2,479, 400 car trips on Easton Drive. Of all of these car trips over 1,808 days there was only one accident reported at the intersection of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue.

The most dangerous intersection on Easton Drive is at El Camino Real, 20 accidents. As it turns out all of the accidents at this location were caused by the driver entering El Camino Real from Easton Drive.

The second most dangerous intersect on Easton Drive is Vancouver with 6 accidents and then comes Balboa with 4 accidents. Drake, Cortez, Benito Bernal Carlos, and Desoto all had one accident.

Accidents by vehicle code violation are, also, interesting. The major accident causing violations are shared between Failure to Yield Right of Way and Unsafe Turning with 9 each. In descending order the remaining accident causing violations are Left Turn Right of Way-6, Speeding-5, Unsafe Backing-4, Unsafe Lane Change-2, Drunk Driving-2, Failure to drive on the right half of the roadway-1, and Pedestrian in the roadway-1.

I think the FACTS rule out safety as a viable reason to remove the Eucalyptus on Easton Drive and Cabrillo.

[neighbor]

The comment about the disabled access is new spin from a spinmeister. Who spoonfed that to the paper? How does a bump in the road hurt disabled access?

Thanks for the real information on the accidents. That is more than I had heard from my neighbor.

[Angela]

Rich, Thanks for the true facts. This should have been done before the vote. Angela

[Mina]

Has anyone made the argument that even though the Eucalyptus is prevalent in Burlingame that it in fact is not native to our region and should be removed for that reason as well? I used to live in a neighborhood where native trees were being removed and we were up in arms about that, but isn't it time to think about not only what we want but what is best for the ecology of our town? Just a thought.

Also, I can understand the argument about disabled access. It might be true that this is not the *real* reason the Council is going to remove the tree, but as someone whose mother has trouble walking on her own, a "bump" in the road if she is crossing the street poses a big problem. She has fallen down on her own over a simple "crack" in a sidewalk near her home, so a bump in the road can be a big deal. It may not be a big deal to all, but could be for some.

Finally, though I have not done my research on this issue beyond reading what others have posted and keeping up on the issue in Council, my two cents on any sort of change is that it can be hard to manage and hard to deal with for those involved. And changing the look of the City can be jarring to many. But it's possible to come together as a community in some sort of process (effectively managed "conversations" where all options are weighed -- after all, part of good public policymaking is understanding there are limited resources and tradeoffs are necessary. Unfortunately we all do not get what we want 100% of the time) is a good idea. It seems this isn't actually happening and that this lack of input from all of us, as much as the perceived change to the look of the City, is causing frustration/anger.

M

Yet, another phantom editorial. What is it with people, are they ashamed to use their real name or is it they lack the inner personal strength and personal values to be willing to be held accountable for their own words, thoughts, or opinions, if so what a shame!

This sentence "At the point where the big eucalyptus has created bulges in the street, access for the disabled trying to cross Easton is problematic" is a complete misrepresentation of the facts: The two painted crosswalks that lead to the ADA approved sidwalk access are free from roots or humps. When the paint for the crosswalks becomes wet it creates a hazard to ALL pedestrians using the crosswalks.

Also, this sentence "But, under the present circumstances, the city really doesn't have another option" is, yet another distortion of the facts! There are options that would cost less than removing the tree, removing the stump, removing the roots, filling in the hole where the tree once stood, replacing the curb, and finally repaving the roadway.

Mina, you speak words of wisdom; it truely is ashame that people are unwilling to look at the facts and be forthright with the truth.

I would like to point out the "root hump" is well outside of the boundries of the crosswalk.

Would it be reasonable for me to assue that you have arrived at you conclusion, based upon the editoral? Would it, also, be reasonable for me to assume you have never used the crosswalks at Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue? This intersection is well photographed and the photo clearly show the crosswalks is free of roots or humps.

[Mina]

Rich, Actually I live close by and use the Easton library a lot. I have not actually paid attention to the tree, because usually I walk there. I actually think the argument that the Euc's are not native to California is a better argument than the root hump, though. I'll look the next time I am at the library.

Recently I was having a discussion with an acquaintance regarding the tree. I made the suggestion that signage and stripping would be a very inexpensive method to warn and regulate the flow of traffic through the intersection. The response was something to the effect of; signs will not work there, which set me back. He has a valid California Driver license, so I reminded him his driving habits are impacted by traffic signs all the time i.e. STOP, YIELD, NO RIGHT TURN, CAUTION this or that etc, etc. If signs do not help warn drivers of roadway changes, why do we see signs such as, ROAD NARROWS, REDUCE SPEED and a picture of a sharp turn OR a hump in the road. We even see ONE WAY, DO NOT ENTER, WRONG WAY signs throughout the city. So, if ALL of these signs will work elsewhere in the City, why won't they work at Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue? The non-response was deafening!

[sue]

I find it all rather curious that two op ed pieces have been written with no author and both in favor of doing away with the tree. Something is fishy in Burlingame.

[visitor]

Rich, I think people don't want to use their name when commenting is that they want to avoid being attacked solely for believing that trees can be cut down and replaced if necessary. For instance, your last comment is quite condescending to the "acquaintance", in my opinion. The arguments here seem rather shrill.

Dear Visitor,
I am one that would like to save the tree, as you may have noticed from my entries. I believe that our city council should respect our tree ordinances, unless there is compelling, real evidence to the contrary. I would never advocate keeping a dangerous, or otherwise unhealthy tree. I think this sets a horrible precedent that will set off a domino effect around town.

If you or anyone else have justification for its removal, please say so and let us know what it is. Nobody means to be condescending, so I apologize if anybody appears to be that way--many of us are simply trying to understand what has came first: Hazards justifying removal, or Removal justifying (unsubstantiated) hazards. Four or five years ago, I never heard anything about that tree being an issue, and then all of the sudden, it became one. It would be a stretch to say that those roots grew so much in only 3 years.

[Jack]

Jen,

It's not like the city are cutting tree left and right, the reasons to cut were well documented by the mayor. Four or five years ago, that tree probably didn't affect the drain/sewer or the road as it is today.

Jack

The tree is well over 100 years old, so I don't believe this just cropped up out of nowhere. The sewer line has just been replaced, as you may or may not know. The puddling appears on every single block in Burlingame, so I don't find that Easton Drive is at all unusual.

And regarding trees being cut down right and left--I'm not sure about the right and left part, but ask anyone really paying attention, (also many who make entries here,) and you will see that many trees are coming down, and maybe not for the right reasons. I see it on my own block. We've lost quite a few over the past few years, and most were not sick, but there was something somebody didn't like about them.

The Easton felling certainly isn't the first, but considering the historical background and importance of trees on that street, I believe it will further the trend of felling healthy trees in our city, as the city will no longer be able to use the health issue as a standard, as has mainly been the case.

[Joanne]

Well, actually, Jack, the City has been cutting down trees left and right recently ...and they either aren't being replaced or they are being replaced by twigs. When this one goes, there will be more. And, if the reasons for this tree's removal are "valid" then it's open season on trees. Cal Trans and private citizens and contracators who think their heritage trees are "nuisances" will, no doubt, want theirs removed as well -- especially if solutions (such as expensive trimming, working around roots, etc.) don't make "monetary sense" for them either.

If anyone is interested, THE CITY OF BURLINGAME will be removing another tree in front of "ground zero" 850 Burlingame Ave, 12/20/2006.
There are 3 more trees scheduled to be removed in Washington Park.
Probably replaced by very small trees.
Reforestation is a very detailed project, no matter where it happens.
Who is developing this project?
Who do I contact in regards to questionS?
NO ONE IN THE BURLINGAME PARK DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION..
NO LEADERSHIP.
NO DIRECTION.

The FACTS/DATA keeps rolling in. In the last 10 years there hasn't been a law suit or claim filed with the City as the result of a car hitting the "root hump." Only 1 reported vehicle accident in 2,476,400 car trip or 1,808 days. So far it is sounding pretty safe.

Visitor
I sorry if you perceived my arguments here seem rather shrill. As it turnes out I had breakfast with this individual this morning and amoung things we discusse the tree was a topic. My aquaintence indicated he did some thinking about what I said. On the way to breakfast he started to notice all of the various signs that tell, warn, or direct drivers to do or not to do something. The next time you go for a drive take a closer look. I do believe you would hear any argument if the FACTS deemed it necessary to remove. So far, the facts do not show a necessity to remove this particular tree at this time.

Jack
The other great threat I feel is the precedent this will set. I do not want junk science used as a arguement to remove a perfectly healthy. If the reasons set forth for removing this tree are upheld, it won't be grass blowers you will hear, it will be chain saws. I take exception to you statement "t's not like the city are cutting tree left and right, the reasons to cut were well documented by the mayor. Four or five years ago, that tree probably didn't affect the drain/sewer or the road as it is today."

Well documented, I disagree. Safety and liability was an issue and I feel the FACTS dispell that point. Some of the organizations mentioned were discussing something beyond their scope of responsibility or authority. There are serious conflicts with what was stated and what is reality. THERE ARE OPTIONS, and for reasons unknown to me the City isn't willing to entertain these options. Currently, there isn't a reforestation plan, which is critical and is much different than a species plan, which is current in effect.

Stay tuned, more FACTS to come.

Please tell us which three trees will be removed and why (if you know).

Ahhhhh! The facts just keep rolling in. Hot off of the press, a review of the TSPC minute's form 3-05 to 11-06 disclosed the TSPC did NOT vote to remove the tree. Secondly, Randy Schwartz DENIED the Park and Recreation Department's request to remove the Easton Library Eucalyptus Tree.

NOW, lets review what we have so far:
One accident, NOT tree related, in the last five years.
NO pedestrian accidents within the last five years.
NO liability claims in the last ten years.
Park Rec. Dept request for removal of the tree DENIED.
TSPC did NOT vote or recommend the removal of the tree.
Certification the tree is healthy and has a projected long life.
Verification the tree's current overall condition, it withstood the most recent windstorm.
NO facts or notations showing sidewalk or crosswalk damage.
Photos showing a flat undamaged sidewalk.
Photos showing the crosswalks free from any root damage.
Photos showing cars safely passing.