Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 9:35 AM

Residents fight to save sycamores at Paly
School board cool to bleacher expansion that would take 13 trees

by Chris Kenrick
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Treeguy, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 9:47 am

Struggling over the question of removing these trees was completely unnecessary. You don't touch the trees. They could have saved themselves a lot of time by realizing that the trees trump anything they are trying to do. A line of sycamores like this is not something you would ever get back, and they create the ambiance that sets Paly apart from barren schools in the outer burbs.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04 am

What it really comes down to is that the Paly campus was not designed to be a mega sized high school. It has character which will be lost if the school is increased in size above 2,000 students. In fact, many of us who moved here for the schools when our kids were toddlers came because the high schools were not mega, had character, and was the type of place which we wanted our kids to go to high school in such a wonderful setting.

Rather than destroying the parklike setting of a medium sized high school, the present idea of creating mega sized characterless schools is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Use Cubberley to create a spin-off Gunn/Paly magnet school, call it Gunn/Paly overflow campus, but please, please, please, keep our high schools the medium sized gems they are at present.

This is not being afraid of progress, it is attempting to turn our town into the "Big Yellow Taxi" where we plant our trees in a museum and charge people a buck and a half to see 'em. We don't want it.

Posted by Neighbor, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:21 am

Agree with both Treeguy and Resident. It's important to protect our

valuable natural assets, and to keep school size personal. Students

who shadow at Paly are already complaining about the large impersonal

atmosphere.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of another community, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:32 am

Has Palo Alto gone insane?

Will there be any old trees left in 10years?

Hansen said we need to 'update' the trees. What's wrong with this picture? Trees aren't something you 'update', like a hair style.

It's time for these tree cutting folks to get a grip, and work around the trees. Move the bleachers, not the trees.

Posted by Nothing special in PA, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:34 am

"Residents argued passionately for saving the trees, comparing Paly's sycamore-lined entrance to the Cours de la Reine in Paris or to the northern Virginia estate of 18th century statesman George Mason."

this is a typical comment of the people who think that their is anything historic or special about Palo Alto--news flash--there is nothing special about Palo Alto and nothing of real historic significance here. You can make all the comparisons you want and dream all you want Palo Alto to be, but in the end it is a small college town/suburb.

Posted by Near Mitchell Park, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:41 am

The City took out a beautiful stand of redwoods near the far playground in Mitchell Park earlier this year. I have no idea why; does anyone else? I think with the slowdown of other construction projects, probably due to the economy, some city workers are looking for things to keep them busy (and employed) and trees sitting around are an easy target for them. I do remember that the trees from California Avenue were removed by a contractor; is there someone in city government who is feeding the contracts to outside firms for either their own benefit or just to keep these contractors in work, with no eye to whether or not the trees need to be removed?

Posted by Hug-a-tree today, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:55 am

Wow, you mean they were going to cut down those beautiful London Plain trees to replace them with ugly bleachers. That's not even a contest. Save your money; forget about the ugly bleachers and nourish the beautiful sycomores.

Posted by Frank Flynn, a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:57 am

I have to agree with Resident and Neighbor - Pallly (and Gunn) have capacity problems because they were designed with 3 high schools in mind.

In 1980 / 81 the school board closed school after school - selling off the land in several cases. They justified it by saying we wound never see that many students again.

Posted by Julian, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:11 am

More BS from the city. The game on 9/11 was not SRO, it was not close to SRO, it's an abuse of the term SRO to call that attendance SRO. Seems like when it comes to trees, the city is much more eager to BS than to provide EVIDENCE.

Posted by MJ, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:26 am

The school land that was sold off in the early 80's by the then school board, most of them parents with children in the school district, spent the money on the school programs at that time to benefit their own children. Self serving justifications that enrollment would never rise again was not only short-sighted, it was selfish. At the minimum the money should have been put in an endowment fund with the interest to benefit not only their children, but future generations of children.

Posted by Need a moratorium on cutting, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:59 am

The city has proven that its judgement about cutting down trees is poor. We need a moratorium on cutting down more than one tree at a time except for reasons of safety, until the people have a chance to see what is going on.

Posted by charlie, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm

This conversation has been nearly unanimous on saving the trees and keeping the high school size consistent. And here is one more vote for both of those. I think it would be criminal to cut down those beautiful old trees to make more room for the stadium bleachers. How many times per year are the bleachers needed -- a dozen? Those trees are there day in and day out for everyone to enjoy.

Keep the trees. Get rid of the board!

Posted by EJ, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Reply to "Nothing Special" ("this is a typical comment of the people who think that their is anything historic or special about Palo Alto--news flash--there is nothing special about Palo Alto and nothing of real historic significance here...")

Uh... HELLO? So you think there is "nothing special' about the community you live in. What, is someone FORCING you to live here?!! Give me a break! I suppose clear cutting all the trees on Calif. Ave., plus the proposed cutting of the sycamores at Paly, isn't enough for someone like you. May as well clear cut the whole damn city and pave it over.

Posted by Nothing special in PA, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:15 pm

EJ--curb your anger. Does every community have to have something "special"--it seems to me many people, yourself included, cannot be satisfied with PA as it is--it has to be historic or resemble European venues etc.

Posted by lifelong resident of stanford & palo alto, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:24 pm

another unamimous vote following the first two comments.

(I exclude "nothing special"--would you please return whence you came? we need stricter immigration standards here.)

or, perhaps we could solve everything by installing a giant holo-deck, to be named after corporate sponsors, and simply cover the city with 100% artificial habitat.

Posted by Nothing special in PA, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm

"(I exclude "nothing special"--would you please return whence you came? we need stricter immigration standards here.)"

Another extremely rude comment by a so-called, enlightened member of our community. I did not realize that people had to meet certain standards in order to live in Palo Alto. your comment regarding immigrants is really beneath contempt.

Posted by PAResident, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:34 pm

This is utterly unbelievable. If the city feels it has excess money to burn, it should use it to plant more trees instead. Paly should be spending money on its education programs, rather than on expanding attendance at its football games. This is exactly the kind of wasteful, unnecessary project we should cut...and I haven't even gotten to the environmental damage and the ruining of the area's character.

Posted by One Gunn Mom, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 14, 2009 at 1:38 pm

First of all, the city and the school district are separate entities. They do not plan, budget,have the same governance, or use the same process (rules) for decision making construction (schools have state oversight).

Get used to having larger high schools. Both Gunn and Paly have been told to plan and build for 2300 students each (although current projections are now about 2100 each in 5 years).

Cuberly will NOT be reopened as a high school--that came off the table in Superintendent Callan's last year. Cuberly is partially owned by the city and the remainder is rented out by the school. The school district cannot afford to lose the revenue from the site. Even if the district did own the whole site, it cannot afford to rebuild Cubberly (it would most likely cost about $100 million to bring it up to code) or staff and open it. The district is facing a shortfall of about $4-6 million in the next 2 years. Property taxes are staying level and more kids are coming to the Palo Alto schools (same money to educate more kids means less money can be spent per kid). Cuts aren't being made this year, but may be nasty in the next couple of years.

Making the bleachers ADA compliant is probably driving the need to replace the bleachers but an expansion at this time may not be fiscally prudent.

Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Just dig them up and tranplant them to California Ave.

That should only cost 10 million of so.

What is it with Palo Alto and killing trees ... maybe we need to change our city's name to Palo Muerto?

Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Hey Resident ... you should have been here in the 70's ... PALY really had character. I was lucky enough to be in the last class that used the old buildings before the move to those new clunky windowless boxes. The old buildings, meaning the original campus was still in use, stairs, windows, there was a lot of light and a view from big banks of windows ... and occasionally a bird or bee would fly through. It was like "Room 222" not a supermax security prison. But I guess both have character in their own way.

It would be great if people could post somewhere their old pictures of the original PALY campus, it was really pretty nice.

Posted by Tree practicalist, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Can these sycamores be uprooted and transplanted intact? Serious question.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm

One Gunn Mom

There really is more to getting everyone who wants a place at Gunn get there. Our schools do have to educate everyone who lives here, but making them mega schools is not the answer.

People move here now because of the high rankings of our schools. Others moved here because the schools were small which is no longer the case.

We should prevent the schools getting too big by reducing the numbers of new housing unless those that plan housing also plan schools. The school district is not in the real estate business and should not claim that income from Cubberly is more important than the need for another high school. The school district and the city can't afford the renovations to Cubberly, therefore those housing developments must provide the funds to build a school to accommodate the schools for their residents. We can't squeeze an infinite number of students into two finate spaces which have poor campus access and nowhere to expand.

As for ADA and the trees, as far as I can see the trees are far enough apart that any person with any disability is able to manage to reach the bleachers unless ramps and elevators are being built which sounds like overkill to me. As far as I see it, ADA just means that the bottom level needs to be accessible, not the top. The fact that new bleachers need to be built because the old ones need replacing is nothing to do with the trees. The only reason more bleachers are needed (as opposed to replacement bleachers) is because the student body is growing and the games are now played under the lights which increases the number of people wishing to attend. From my observations, the football pitch has four sides and the bleachers do not stretch all the way around the pitch. There is plenty of space for more bleachers without encroaching on the trees on the avenue. I smell a red herring here, the ADA argument doesn't hold water.

Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm

>>> In 1980 / 81 the school board closed school after school - selling off the land in several cases. They justified it by saying we wound never see that many students again. <<<

Ah, the Reagan years, privatization, still has its advocates all over these boards on a daily basis. Wonder how much money it puts in their pockets.

Seriously though, the only way I could possibly consider that this might be necessary is that the city is getting a super deal on contactor services in a depressing economy. I doubt that though, I wonder if the city drove a hard bargain or was just looking for more ways to keep itself in the red?

Posted by One Gunn Mom, a member of the Gunn High School community, on Oct 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Resident,

The ADA requirement is a state requirement. Sometimes a school cannot do any construction if it does not pass muster with current facilities (may be different for athletic fields). There may be enough room to ADD bleachers without impacting the trees, but my question is should that money be spent on bleachers or classrooms? Replacement may be mandated by the state, but expansion seems to be a luxury.

As to the size of schools, there is an election looming. As you point out, high density building in Palo Alto will increase school population. If you want smaller schools (or at least not bigger) vote in City Council members who will limit city growth.

The third high school discussion happened 2-3 years ago, and it is off the table for the reasons I mentioned: Cubberly 1/3 owned by city; buildings need to be totally rebuilt ($100 Million +); and the cost to operate (additional $$ in administration salaries and benefits, and utilities--which the district just doesn't have). Those monies are prohibitive even without considering the loss of the rental income for what the district does own. Opening Cubberly would add a couple more million $ to the projected shortfall of $4-6 Million in the next 2 years. Much as I think the 2 high schools are already too big and would love to see a 3rd high school, it won't happen.

Posted by Arbor Day, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm

All of Palo Alto shouts with one voice: "SAVE THE TREES FROM THE CHAIN SAWS GONE WILD!"

Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm

When will the insanity end?

Posted by David Schrom, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Years ago President Hutchins' dropped football from the athletic program at the University of Chicago, making the "Big 10" only the "Big 9" until they found a substitute. The University of Chicago appears to have weathered that change in fine form. I wonder how Paly might fare if ...

Posted by Darwin, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm

High school football is a wonderful tradition. Back when my kids when to St Francis, I was able to witness firsthand the spectable and wonder that is Friday night high school football.

I challenge thoseof you who think it is silly to support bleachers for a high school football field, to attend a St Francis Friday night football game (go on November 6th and watch them play Bellarmine)and tell me that you don't think it is a worthwhile cause and expenditure for your local high school.

It is truly a community event.

Posted by the trees, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Who cares about a few trees? They said in the plans they will replant twice as many trees in other locations. That is a fine trade off. Palo Alto needs better bleachers. I support the school 100%.

Posted by Bob, a resident of Woodside, on Oct 14, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Aren't sycamores prone to breaking off large branches easily at maturity?

Paly's been large and impersonal ever since the 80's. Just another large suburban public California HS. Some corners of Paly remind me of San Quentin for some reason, especially around the shops and gym.

Posted by Gail, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Hopefully, we've averted another "California Ave. Chain Saw Massacre."

Once again Palo Alto city employees are misguided and out of touch. Where's our City Manager? I'm guarding the two beautiful, stately trees in front of my home.

Posted by Paula, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 8:32 pm

What happens to the football field and the bleachers when the high speed rail goes through? Hmmmm?

Posted by VoxPop, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Arbor Day, that's not true.

Gail, as One Gunn Mom has said: "First of all, the city and the school district are separate entities. They do not plan, budget,have the same governance, or use the same process (rules) for decision making construction (schools have state oversight)." The city managers have nothing to do with this.

Posted by Lou, a resident of Los Altos, on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:12 pm

-Cubberly is so out of date it would be way too expensive to re-open as a high school. Not fiscally practical. Imagine the seismic/environmental upgrades that would need to be done for a campus that last served as a public school 30 years ago.

-The desire is to get bleachers up to code with at least the same capacity. This means a larger footprint. Those bleachers there now are very old. New bleachers with similar capacity take up more space.

-Sycamores aren't native trees to the area. Im not pushing for de-forestation, but these trees don't add a reasonable amount to the ecology of the area.

Posted by Grandma, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:46 am

A little history:

>>>> In 1980 / 81 the school board closed school after school - selling off the land in several cases. They justified it by saying we wound never see that many students again. <<< Wrong.

In the late 1970s. the voters of Palo Alto rejected a School Bond (the only school bond they've ever rejected). The money from that bond measure was to refurbish the schools. The voters were telling the School District to sell off their surplus properties for their rebuilding program. By rejecting that Bond measure the voters were saying: "You've got surplus properties to sell, now sell them."

Meanwhile, the School District said quite rightly, they were not in the real estate business; they were elected to manage schools. The surplus properties were very run down and deteriorating fast. Residents were complaining about living next door to boarded up schools, tall weeds and chain link fences. After much vandalism and a teenager was killed, the School District's insurance company wanted 24 hour patrols at all the empty school sites, which the School District could not afford.

Four elementary schools were sold, Ross Road, Ortega, Hoover and one in North PA, I think it was Crescent Park. We still have Greendell, Garland, Fremont Hills and the City owned Ventura if elementary school sites are needed in the future.

Posted by charlie, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:46 am

regarding the mega-school size issue and how big Gunn and Paly are set to get. Why doesn't the PA city council stop approving so many new townhouse and condo projects in south PA. They are causing the over-crowding of the schools problem coupled with low property tax revenue. Stop building!!

Posted by Andrew, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:54 am

To "Nothing Special":

If we continue with all the tree removal programs, whatever the rationalization, you will indeed verify your conclusion that Palo Alto is nothing special.

Case in point: California Avenue. That area did indeed get transformed from a very special place to a nothing special area.

Posted by fireman, a resident of another community, on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Play at Stanford, is that big enough for you tree killers

Posted by Dave G., a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I heard that Hansen ordered his new baseball coach, Jordan French to go out and collect the cut Sycamore wood for baseball bats for next season. Any truth to this?

Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford, on Oct 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm

What is with this mania to remove Palo Alto's beautiful trees?! Without them this will be just another soulless town with bad air quality. Any plans for expansion surely can be configured around the trees.

Posted by Marianne Mueller, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:23 pm

I doubt "nothing special" is reading these comments but as a transplant from a rural town in upstate New York, to me, both places are something special and a big part of that is that they both have lots of trees.

Posted by John, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Let's see the logic>

You drive Ricky's off and then complain about lower occupancy taxes.

You replace Ricky's with high density "houses" where your front stoop is on El Camino. Or the one on Wilkie Way, just a little crowded. Or off Charleston rOAD.

Then you want to turn your high schools into mega schools to accomodate the population of the high density housing!

But, oh by the way, you don't have money to pay the mega high schools. (See lack of taxes from hotel above)

So you create a "business tax" because everybody has one. (Note to teenager: just because everyone is doing it, the answer is still no.)

Solution: Clear cut the trees! On the streets! In the parks! At the schools! The trees are causing all the problems.

Posted by Fred, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm

I've always liked those trees. I've been there many times for sports events. As a resident, taxpayer, school parent, you-name-it, I can't imagine why they can't find a way to work around cutting down the trees. "Palo Alto", bike paths, Arbor Day, Canopy, etc. Get it?

Posted by Julian, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:19 pm

PAUSD stated last year that it would take $16 million to get Cubberly going again.

As for short sighted: closing Cubberly forced the vast majority of high school students to cross train tracks twice a day.

Posted by YSK, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Leave the trees alone. Leave the shopping bags alone. Leave US alone. This City cannot even run itself well, so it messes with everything and one else. City can't run itself but it wants to tell everyone else how to live their life, adorn their property, how to act. More government, yeah, that's JUST what we need!

Posted by YSK, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:48 pm

P.S. Want proof? California Avenue looks like Frontier Village! There's a Halloween Store in Z Gallery. People are shopping more in Mountain View than Palo Alto. Our City workers are striking, cops want to form their own spinter group, and every City Dept right up to the City Council points its finger at someone else to apportion blame...

Posted by YSK, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:49 pm

P.S. Want proof? California Avenue looks like Frontier Village! There's a Halloween Store in Z Gallery. People are shopping more in Mountain View than Palo Alto. Our City workers are striking, cops want to form their own spinter group, and every City Dept right up to the City Council points its finger at someone else to apportion blame...

Posted by T, from Duveneck/St Francis, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:42 pm
T, from Duveneck/St Francis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

I wonder if there has been a recent assessment of the health and life expectancy of those sycamore trees. When I took a tree pruning class approximately two years ago, the arborist took us to the entrance of Paly and we spent a few moments discussing the trees there. I recall him pointing out a problem there that needed to be addressed or some of the trees would be lost -- perhaps it was that some of the trees are crowding others out, or maybe he showed us evidence that the trees already in declining health? I wish I could remember the particulars. My point is: the avenue of trees is pretty, but someone should double-check that the trees have enough life left in them to justify forcing the school district to save them.

Posted by Disagusted, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:55 pm

This is beginning to sound like the situation in Berkeley, where the needs of the athletes trumped everything else and beautiful trees were removed, even after tree people sat in them for a year. Football games are great for school spirit etc. But if Palo Alto really values learning, then school officials can't ignore basic scientific facts--We need to preserve trees to absorb carbon--including the emissions generated by all those kids who drive cars to school even though they are in walking or biking distance..Many poor lessons will be taught if the trees are not preserved..

Posted by Tree sitters, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:10 am

Save the trees! What Palo Alto needs is some of Berkeley's tree sitters!!! That would make Jim Keene feel right at home.

Posted by EJ, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:31 am

Yo "nothing special" ("EJ--curb your anger. Does every community have to have something "special"--it seems to me many people, yourself included, cannot be satisfied with PA as it is--it has to be historic or resemble European venues etc."),

Palo Alto IS historic, in case you didn't know. I'm not into making it look like George Washington's Virginia circa 1778; I would just like a few trees left standing in the neighborhoods I've been familiar with since I've been living and working here for the past fifty years (oh... sorry!! That's not enough 'history' for you...).

Posted by litebug, a resident of another community, on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 am

We moved from Palo Alto in 08, after living there for 38 years. We are very thankful we didn't have to witness the destruction of all the trees on California Ave., San Antonio and in Mitchell Park. And still the fellers of trees aren't satisfied and want to chop down more at Paly High.

What would you rather look at? What helps clean the air? What has beauty and is inspiring? What is a living thing and what is a dead thing? Trees or bleachers? Trees are to be sacrificed for FOOTBALL? This is disgusting and offensive.

We now live in a "tree city" that actually cherishes and preserves its many trees. Recently when a well known old oak had to come down because it was rotten and hollow there were pictures in the paper and people wrote letters saying how sad they were and how much they will miss it. Things run smoothly and intelligently in this town, without one mismanagement fiasco after another (the PACT brouhaha was in full bloom when we left P.A.). This place still has heart. What a refreshing change this is.

In short, our new home is a lot like Palo Alto once was but is no more. Sadly, Palo Alto has not only lost its collective mind, it has lost (or more accurately, sold) its heart and soul. Very sad to witness what has happened to a place we once loved. Soon the town will have to change its logo to a stump, or maybe a whole row of stumps.

Posted by William Bruner Architect, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2009 at 7:14 am

I know that for historic buildings you can get some reflief from the American's with Disabilities Act. I would consider both the athletic fiels and Sycamore lane historic in nature and that the school board would be justified in interpreting the ADA in light of the historic nature of the setting.

Posted by Arbor Day, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:54 am

A plea for sanity in Palo Alto: SAVE THE TREES! SAY NO TO CHAIN SAWS MASSACRES!

Posted by Andrea, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:10 am

Paula, it seems that everyone is in denial about the potential impact of HSR on the Paly football fields. So the BOE continues to focus on the details regarding which trees, bleachers, when, how etc and it may all be a colossal waste of money and effort once the High Speed Rail Authority reveals it's final plans. It seems that we prefer to act as if HSR is not a real threat, or maybe it will just go away. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...

Posted by Tree lover, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Oct 17, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Getting back to the trees...

Bob from Woodside "Aren't sycamores prone to breaking off large branches easily at maturity?"

No, unlike many other trees, sycamores are remarkably stable and sturdy.

T from Duveneck/St Francis "Has there been a recent assessment of the health and life expectancy of those sycamore trees?"

Ironically, the 13 trees they want to cut down and replace with the stands are the healthiest trees there. The adjacent row closest to the road (which would remain) are scraggly because they've been shaded out by the much-larger trees (the ones that they want to cut down!!).

Trees have many benefits, both from an aesthetic and environmental standpoint (no trees and the earth is in deep trouble). Have the naysayers considered how long it takes for a tree to mature and provide the same benefits of a one of these existing trees? Yes you can plant more trees, but it will be years before they offer the same environmental benefits. And don't forget comfort. These trees shade the stands on those hot, fall days! Keeping the trees is a win-win-win for Paly and the planet.

I'm sure a creative landscape architect or architect could figure out a way to expand the stands without cutting down the trees (as the article mentioned, just widen them).

Posted by DG, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:25 pm

No use planning new bleachers until we find out how much of Paly's property and playing fields the high speed rail will seize. Forget cutting down the beautiful sycamores. Maybe it's time to "upgrade Coach Hansen," straight into retirement. Now Hansen is embroiled in the new baseball coach fiasco.

Posted by nope, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Hansen is not going anywhere. He is great for the Palo Alto sports program. The trees need to come down.

Posted by Arrbor Day, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:51 pm

"All we are saying is give trees a chance"