I don't see the benefit of closing one lane on Alpine due to the instability of the eucalyptus trees on Stanford land near the creek on Alpine. When the first and second trees fell (out of 3) those trees blocked all lanes of Alpine. Has someone measured the trees that are remaining and calculated their closeness to the roadway? We had a tree leaning on our property last week, due to the storms, and had it taken down in 24 hours to prevent damage to our's and our neighbors property. Clearly Stanford University could take action more readily than a private citizen expecially when a life has already been taken. Those remaining trees need to come down now.

Not only are there Eucalyptus trees to the west of 280 - the other side of the junction on Alpine there are also some big trees. As a cyclist I do not want to be hit by those branches or trees falling on me. There are trees all over that look dicey, e.g. overhanging Portola Rd. So be careful everyone to drive/cycle/walk with wide eyes.

I agree with Joan - the trees need to come down now - payment for whether it is Stanford or the County can be worked out later. Many have been lucky not to get hit on Monday - it doesn't have to be windy for large trees to fall when the soil is so wet. We too had a couple of trees - one leaning, one with a cracked trunk - that threatened a neighbor's property and were cut down before this last storm. I don't know what the tree ordinances are, but in Portola Valley, a eucalyptus can be cut down without a permit because of their danger.

Stanford seems to be acknowledging the imminent danger associated with these trees by cordoning off a lane, but as Joan indicates, this small action would not protect a motorist (or bicyclist or pedestrian) from a falling tree. With its vast resources, Stanford needs to figure this out and have the trees removed immediately in order to avoid another injury or fatality.