If a tree falls on an Atherton road, who pays to move it?

what they did not discuss is who pays for tree clearing when that tree is on land owned by the town. many lindenwood residents are not aware that typically the town owns all of the land extending out from the edge of the asphalt approx. 16' towards the homeowner's property. if a tree located in that 16' zone falls (regardless of whether or not it falls into the street) the expense should be borne by the town not the homeowner.
The town's current strategy is to tell the homeowner they must immediately clear the tree from the road or the town will handle it and bill them for the service- even if the tree is located in that 16' strip of land.
Not fair in my book!

@Frustrated

If you look carefully at the Towns laws you will find the frontage area between the property line and the edge of street pavement is the responsibility of the adjoining property owner to maintain - to include any trees. The Town has standards to which it must be maintained.

I have found that this is similar to other communities where the property owner is technically and liability-wise responsible for the sidewalk along their frontage - much to their surprise at times.

@ ah but wait
I know two lindenwood residents who initially paid for the removal of a fallen tree which was on town land (area between asphalt and property line) and subsequently got the town to reimburse them. i have never seen the section of the code which talks about who's responsible for the easement area, but i would love to check it out.

@Frustrated

Here are two sections to read through in their entirety.

www.codepublishing.com/CA/atherton.html

Sections 8.20 and 12.06.

A question for Frustrator:
The easement from the edge of the road is 6' or 16'? Meanwhile thank you for your posting.

@ah but wait
wow! thank you for the references! i had no clue it was legal for a government agency to obligate someone to maintain city-owned land. Might they also be legally entitled to force me to maintain my neighbor's strip or perhaps maintain the park?
there is no reference to a right of way or easement in any lindenwood legal descriptions so we homeowners have no legal rights to this land but yet we are forced to maintain this land?! Cities make up their own code rules but that does not mean those codes are legal. Code sections get shot down as illegal all the time. Since i am not a real estate attorney i have no clue whether or not 12.06 would hold up under legal scrutiny. Since it is possible to twist the town's arm to reimburse for fallen trees in the easement strip, my guess is they have some idea as to the code's legality.

@csafai
many parts of lindenwood have a 16' strip of land in front of the lot. There are survey markers buried in various locations but the easiest way to tell how deep your strip is by looing at where your neighbors have erected a fence or wall. This is the lot boundary.

@Frustrated

I have not had this discussion with Atherton, but I own property in another community with the same regulatory framework. The way it was explained to me was that many of the City's streets are merely permanently dedicated easements for right-of-way. The underlying property owner remains the adjoining property owner usually to the centerline of the roadway. That property owner remains responsible for the lot frontage between the edge of their developable parcel to the edge of pavement. That requirement comes from many different sources to include the sections I mentioned above in Atherton's code. The bigger irritation comes in the case of sidewalks where the City has placed sidewalks or pathways along the frontage area of someone's property. That sidewalk is the responsibility of the adjoining property owner - even the liability. State of California Streets and Highways Code - Web Link