[Goose]

All these points about regulations are good ones. However, in this case my post included a link showing that San Mateo County has removed all such requirements for the trees in question. This had been true for at least two years. None of the "bureaucratic" restraints were operative. That justification is therefore totally bogus.

Regarding the argument that "trees fall in the forest", I am quite aware of it. I have a great example in my own yard from the most recent storm. However, Stanford's situation along Alpine road is markedly different. They have several years of recent experience with trees falling onto the roadway and blocking it. One example happened during fire season when there was some threat the fire would come "over the hill". Alpine Road is an evacuation route. Stanford is also aware that the 2017 flood repairs along Alpine Road required the removal of several Eucalyptus trees as fall hazards.

The average homeowner is not going to have trees falling in his yard year after year. He can't generally foresee a tree falling unless it is "obviously" weakened in a manner the "average" person should recognize. Force Majeure is a reasonable excuse only if it is not a foreseeable event. This event was eminently foreseeable, because it had happened repeatedly with increasing frequency. It is true these trees were planted quite a while ago. It is equally true that Alpine Road has been a major thoroughfare for a very long time, and the trees, when planted, were much smaller. The creek has also shifted it's banks enough to make what was reasonably safe 50 years ago no longer in that category. For these reasons, I think Stanford should have acted to remove the hazard.

EDIT:
An update from Stanford:

Good evening,

Thank you for your note.

The university has performed an initial review of the trees on Stanford land adjacent to the three trees that have already fallen. The trees are very challenging to reach for tree crews due to the saturated soil, distance from the street, and size of the trees. Stanford is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions.

In the meantime, we are in contact with our county partners to share updates and coordinate work in the area. San Mateo County is working with the California Highway Patrol to place cones and detour signs restricting access to the lane closest to the creek on Alpine Road.

Thanks,

Shweta
Shweta Bhatnagar
Senior Director, Government Affairs
Office of Government Affairs
Stanford University
650-723-4708 |shwetab@stanford.edu

This is in reply to a neighbor, not me personally. IMO, Res ipsa loquitur.
null

[Goose]

All these points about regulations are good ones. However, in this case my post included a link showing that San Mateo County has removed all such requirements for the trees in question. This had been true for at least two years. None of the "bureaucratic" restraints were operative. That justification is therefore totally bogus.

Regarding the argument that "trees fall in the forest", I am quite aware of it. I have a great example in my own yard from the most recent storm. However, Stanford's situation along Alpine road is markedly different. They have several years of recent experience with trees falling onto the roadway and blocking it. One example happened during fire season when there was some threat the fire would come "over the hill". Alpine Road is an evacuation route. Stanford is also aware that the 2017 flood repairs along Alpine Road required the removal of several Eucalyptus trees as fall hazards.

The average homeowner is not going to have trees falling in his yard year after year. He can't generally foresee a tree falling unless it is "obviously" weakened in a manner the "average" person should recognize. Force Majeure is a reasonable excuse only if it is not a foreseeable event. This event was eminently foreseeable, because it had happened repeatedly with increasing frequency. It is true these trees were planted quite a while ago. It is equally true that Alpine Road has been a major thoroughfare for a very long time, and the trees, when planted, were much smaller. The creek has also shifted it's banks enough to make what was reasonably safe 50 years ago no longer in that category. For these reasons, I think Stanford should have acted to remove the hazard.

EDIT:
An update from Stanford:

Good evening,

Thank you for your note.

The university has performed an initial review of the trees on Stanford land adjacent to the three trees that have already fallen. The trees are very challenging to reach for tree crews due to the saturated soil, distance from the street, and size of the trees. Stanford is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions.

In the meantime, we are in contact with our county partners to share updates and coordinate work in the area. San Mateo County is working with the California Highway Patrol to place cones and detour signs restricting access to the lane closest to the creek on Alpine Road.

Thanks,

Shweta
Shweta Bhatnagar
Senior Director, Government Affairs
Office of Government Affairs
Stanford University
650-723-4708 |shwetab@stanford.edu

This is in reply to a neighbor, not me personally. IMO, Res ipsa loquitur.
null