[81alum]

Yup, Burlingame, and I’ll believe El Camino will be fixed when I see it.  Ironically the Eucalyptus trees were put in to break the wind. In any case, seems like non-native trees would be a weird hill to die on, but here we are.

BC

Agree this would be a weird hill to die on. Much like the Stanford "legal" discipline system, a long series of regulations have been added to target specific cases. Unfortunately the net effect includes many unintended consequences, some easily foreseeable, some not. The net result is a sclerotic system that in general prevents action, creating harm that will be addressed by another regulation being added. "Greedy" algorithms usually don't work well in global optimization problems, but that is what the regulatory systems usually produce. The ultimate example is the entire Italian legal system :-). Burlingame at least has the excuse it is all tied up in regulation and it can't act. Stanford does not.

IMO this discussion keeps getting routed toward false equivalences. Of course the storm we had was well above average and some things that normally would be perfectly safe will fail and become dangerous. Of course it would be unfair to blame anybody for what were perfectly healthy trees in apparently "reasonable" locations from falling. Indeed that happened all over the place, including to my property. However, that is NOT the situation Stanford was in. In 2017 a mere 300 ft or so up Alpine Road there was a major tree removal necessitated by bank erosion. Subsequently (as I found out last night) a group was created to negotiate with Stanford "to encourage the removal of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees on their property opposite the Los Trancos Creek". Stanford was well aware of the "issue". Subsequently, in the last two years or so there have been repeated closures of the road due to trees from Stanford property falling. These did not occur in major storms, but in rather typical ones. They knew, or certainly should have known, they had a potentially dangerous problem.

IMO the recent response from Stanford is beyond pathetic. The response was from somebody who clearly was not involved in fixing the problem, but rather in "public relations". The idea that Stanford is only now "completing a preliminary review" of the problem is hard to credit, given the history and active discussions. It is also "interesting" that she got the number of fallen trees wrong. The letter also seems to present the idea that Stanford has no internal capability to manage the trees. Stanford  "is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions." Imagine that. A world-class university that boasts an "Arboretum" as a major part of it's campus has no idea at all how to understand the logistics of hazardous tree conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_U..._Arboretum. Of course, what is going on there right now may lend credibility to that idea :-)
On top of that, she then proceeded to say they were working with SMC and CHP to close the right lane of the road. This is in fact admitting that a hazardous condition exists and that Stanford caused it. Why is that true on Monday and not on last Friday? So we are expected to wait until Stanford figures out what to do? I am perfectly willing to give Stanford a pass on something they couldn't have reasonably anticipated. This is definitely not the case here.

It is unfortunate that so many eucalyptus trees were introduced to California in the first place, coming with Aussie gold miners in the 1850s.  Our climate is great for them, but they spread like weeds and are incredible fire hazards, due to their rich oil content and the tendency for their leaves and paper thin bark to fly--burning--hundreds of yards behind fire lines on thermals.  Eucalyptus were a major culprit in the Oakland Hills firestorm of 1991 that burned down my godparents' house, and since then awareness has grown that they should be replaced with native trees with higher moisture content whenever possible. 

As with most very fast-growing trees, eucalyptus are not particularly sturdy and shed limbs in even light winds.  They easily out-compete the slower growing native vegetation.  Forests of them at Chabot require massive thinning to prevent them from going up in a firestorm of all firestorms.  So they are not low maintenance.

Meanwhile, various species of California native oaks are imperiled.  Eucalyptus should go, except as solitary specimens in open areas.  They can be phased-out gradually, over a generation or two, though gradual replacement.  I hope Stanford has a plan to do so.

[81alum]

Yup, Burlingame, and I’ll believe El Camino will be fixed when I see it.  Ironically the Eucalyptus trees were put in to break the wind. In any case, seems like non-native trees would be a weird hill to die on, but here we are.

BC

Agree this would be a weird hill to die on. Much like the Stanford "legal" discipline system, a long series of regulations have been added to target specific cases. Unfortunately the net effect includes many unintended consequences, some easily foreseeable, some not. The net result is a sclerotic system that in general prevents action, creating harm that will be addressed by another regulation being added. "Greedy" algorithms usually don't work well in global optimization problems, but that is what the regulatory systems usually produce. The ultimate example is the entire Italian legal system :-). Burlingame at least has the excuse it is all tied up in regulation and it can't act. Stanford does not.

IMO this discussion keeps getting routed toward false equivalences. Of course the storm we had was well above average and some things that normally would be perfectly safe will fail and become dangerous. Of course it would be unfair to blame anybody for what were perfectly healthy trees in apparently "reasonable" locations from falling. Indeed that happened all over the place, including to my property. However, that is NOT the situation Stanford was in. In 2017 a mere 300 ft or so up Alpine Road there was a major tree removal necessitated by bank erosion. Subsequently (as I found out last night) a group was created to negotiate with Stanford "to encourage the removal of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees on their property opposite the Los Trancos Creek". Stanford was well aware of the "issue". Subsequently, in the last two years or so there have been repeated closures of the road due to trees from Stanford property falling. These did not occur in major storms, but in rather typical ones. They knew, or certainly should have known, they had a potentially dangerous problem.

IMO the recent response from Stanford is beyond pathetic. The response was from somebody who clearly was not involved in fixing the problem, but rather in "public relations". The idea that Stanford is only now "completing a preliminary review" of the problem is hard to credit, given the history and active discussions. It is also "interesting" that she got the number of fallen trees wrong. The letter also seems to present the idea that Stanford has no internal capability to manage the trees. Stanford  "is reaching out to well-equipped service providers to better understand the logistics of removing hazardous tree conditions." Imagine that. A world-class university that boasts an "Arboretum" as a major part of it's campus has no idea at all how to understand the logistics of hazardous tree conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_U..._Arboretum. Of course, what is going on there right now may lend credibility to that idea :-)
On top of that, she then proceeded to say they were working with SMC and CHP to close the right lane of the road. This is in fact admitting that a hazardous condition exists and that Stanford caused it. Why is that true on Monday and not on last Friday? So we are expected to wait until Stanford figures out what to do? I am perfectly willing to give Stanford a pass on something they couldn't have reasonably anticipated. This is definitely not the case here.

It is unfortunate that so many eucalyptus trees were introduced to California in the first place, coming with Aussie gold miners in the 1850s.  Our climate is great for them, but they spread like weeds and are incredible fire hazards, due to their rich oil content and the tendency for their leaves and paper thin bark to fly--burning--hundreds of yards behind fire lines on thermals.  Eucalyptus were a major culprit in the Oakland Hills firestorm of 1991 that burned down my godparents' house, and since then awareness has grown that they should be replaced with native trees with higher moisture content whenever possible. 

As with most very fast-growing trees, eucalyptus are not particularly sturdy and shed limbs in even light winds.  They easily out-compete the slower growing native vegetation.  Forests of them at Chabot require massive thinning to prevent them from going up in a firestorm of all firestorms.  So they are not low maintenance.

Meanwhile, various species of California native oaks are imperiled.  Eucalyptus should go, except as solitary specimens in open areas.  They can be phased-out gradually, over a generation or two, though gradual replacement.  I hope Stanford has a plan to do so.