[Goose]

Thanks for the explanation Goose. Fair points. I will say that Stanford Facilities is essentially running a full-blown municipality.  That ain't easy, but Stanford does need to meet its responsibilities as a land owner.

It is indeed a full-blown municipality, and always has been. It is not easy to run, but it is also a "private" entity. The residents of the municipality have no input (basically) on how it is run. IMO that leads to no (or at least few) checks on the system. I think in times (distant) past Stanford basically could do whatever it wanted and nobody else cared. From about 1970 onward that has become progressively less true.

Honest question: Would your neighbors be cool if Stanford cut down every tree located within an offset from the road equal to the height of each tree, as a precaution?  I've seen it cut both ways. There was a famous incident (famous among local public works types) between members of the public and Palo Alto's Public Works Director during the NYE 1995 storms.

A great question, as there are literally many "tree huggers" in the community. I am pretty sure that if the trees to be removed were all Eucalyptus it would be fine. Everybody has become convinced that these trees are dangerous from both a fire point of view and a "fall down" point of view. There are so many examples of the latter in the last few years there is no doubt it is a "clear and present danger". In fact the county has clear-cut some areas of Eucalyptus locally that arguably didn't need it. Nobody I know of complained.

San Mateo County has in fact made it easy to do.
https://www.smcgov.org/planning/news/per...uly-1-2023
Obviously the trees in question were well within 30 feet of the roadway. I do think there would be some questions raised about oaks that are near the road but far from the creek. Bank erosion can make any tree dangerous in high winds. There are a few Monterrey Pines that arguably should also go, and are covered by the above exemption. Most of the oaks are relatively short and therefore would not be threatened.

In fairness, it must be said that several large trees on the other side of Alpine road, away from the creek, have fallen in the past few years. These are on County property I believe. They are not Eucalyptus and not subject to bank erosion. The County has in fact done a bit of cutting to mitigate this risk, but arguably not enough. I fully expect that will change. The public likes the trees, but it is clear they are a hazard.

[Goose]

Thanks for the explanation Goose. Fair points. I will say that Stanford Facilities is essentially running a full-blown municipality.  That ain't easy, but Stanford does need to meet its responsibilities as a land owner.

It is indeed a full-blown municipality, and always has been. It is not easy to run, but it is also a "private" entity. The residents of the municipality have no input (basically) on how it is run. IMO that leads to no (or at least few) checks on the system. I think in times (distant) past Stanford basically could do whatever it wanted and nobody else cared. From about 1970 onward that has become progressively less true.

Honest question: Would your neighbors be cool if Stanford cut down every tree located within an offset from the road equal to the height of each tree, as a precaution?  I've seen it cut both ways. There was a famous incident (famous among local public works types) between members of the public and Palo Alto's Public Works Director during the NYE 1995 storms.

A great question, as there are literally many "tree huggers" in the community. I am pretty sure that if the trees to be removed were all Eucalyptus it would be fine. Everybody has become convinced that these trees are dangerous from both a fire point of view and a "fall down" point of view. There are so many examples of the latter in the last few years there is no doubt it is a "clear and present danger". In fact the county has clear-cut some areas of Eucalyptus locally that arguably didn't need it. Nobody I know of complained.

San Mateo County has in fact made it easy to do.
https://www.smcgov.org/planning/news/per...uly-1-2023
Obviously the trees in question were well within 30 feet of the roadway. I do think there would be some questions raised about oaks that are near the road but far from the creek. Bank erosion can make any tree dangerous in high winds. There are a few Monterrey Pines that arguably should also go, and are covered by the above exemption. Most of the oaks are relatively short and therefore would not be threatened.

In fairness, it must be said that several large trees on the other side of Alpine road, away from the creek, have fallen in the past few years. These are on County property I believe. They are not Eucalyptus and not subject to bank erosion. The County has in fact done a bit of cutting to mitigate this risk, but arguably not enough. I fully expect that will change. The public likes the trees, but it is clear they are a hazard.