They're Baaaack! Mountain Bikes in the State Parks

Just why is it that State Parks is so hell-bent on opening up more and more trails to mountain bikers?  In this time of budget deficits and parks closing, lack of rangers and just plain old general maintenance, they want to give over a popular hiking trail, Bill's Trail, in Samuel P. Taylor Park, to the spandex crowd.

We have successfully forced environmental review, citizen oversight and other measures in protecting trails throughout the system, but they don't give up.  Doggedly determined, Parks officials keep pushing the bike agenda, now planning to search out $350,000 to "ready" the trail for the onslaught.  This in a time of budget deficits and lack funds for of regular maintenance and enforcement as it is.  It is unconscionable in this climate to seek funding for yet another mountain bike playland. Yes, mountain biking is a popular sport; so is off-roading and dune-buggying.  Snowmobiling. If popularity were the test, we'd have Xtreme bikathons every weekend all through our public parks and open spaces.

Other concerns should matter more. Erosion, habitat protection, waterway preservation. Peace and tranquility.  Get off your bike and take a hike.  If you want nature, ditch the spandex and machinery and walk.

If you want speed, take to the roads.   With a set of wheels all too often comes a sense of entitlement. "Share the road! share the trail!" is the rallying cry.  Yes, share the road, but why the trail, where one can have an all too rare chance to leave the hustle and bustle of urban life behind and enjoy nature, with its subtle rustlings tweetings and burblings?   

And there are plenty of existing existing fire roads, where well-behaved bikers have always been welcome.  But so many of today's "bikers behaving badly" have taken over the terrain, sharing is hardly an option anymore. Anyone who's been out walking lately in State, County or water district lands is all too familiar with loud voices, speeding bikes and rude riders.  Are they minority?  I don't think we can say that anymore.  It's time for a change.

Here's a small one we can easily implement - I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, we need to license bicycles like they used to do.  In fact, the California Vehicle Code provides for cities and Counties to do just that, which some, like Santa Cruz does.  Why not Marin?

Here is the Code section that permits this simple measure:
 
License Requirement. VC 39002

a) A city or county may adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution providing that no resident shall operate any bicycle on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the city of county, unless such bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division.

b) Any bicycle not licensed under this division may be additionally regulated or licensed pursuant to local ordinance or may be licensed upon request of the owner.

c) It is illegal for any person to to tamper with, destroy, mutilate or alter any license indicia (marking) or registration form or to remove, alter, or mutilate the serial number, or the identifying marks of a licensing agency's identifying symbol on any bicycle frame licensed under the provision of this division.

It's a small step toward enforcement of the few rules that aim to protect the landscape, but it could be a help in identifying scofflaws.  "Officer, I got his license number!" might slow down the worst offenders. Although probably not.
And no matter how many trails are groomed, signed and made available to them, there are always demands for more, and worse, continual stealth creation of new trails, through rougher terrain, further degrading the environment for the pleasure of the (mostly) testosterone driven over-acheivers, in search of the next high.

    Illegal trail on Mt. Tam created by mountain bikers.

It might be better for all concerned if they'd just take up smoking crack instead. 

Bring on the nasty comments.

Trees vs. views Twenty-Five Years later

Sometimes these things drag on and on and on.  Years. Decades. Past the time when the house is sold, the trees removed, the owners dead.  Read this article from the San Francisco Chronicle for how obsessive some people can be about their views, and others can be about their trees, or not their trees, for that matter.

Fascinating! 

Fight over Oakland trees, views not over

Matthai Kuruvila

By the time Phyllis Bishop won the right to trim and clear her neighbors' trees and regain the panoramic bay view from her Oakland hills home, 25 years had passed, her husband Lloyd had died, and she was living in a retirement home.

Bishop, 95, sighed with relief at the victory of an epic legal and political battle with her neighbors that went all the way to the state Supreme Court. Yet, once the neighbors' trees were cleared this year, Bishop noticed that city trees blocked the view from her property, violating a city ordinance.

It didn't matter that she no longer lived in her home, which she is now renting. She began negotiating for the clearing of the city trees - the cost of which she would pay - out of a sense of justice and on grounds that it affects the property's value. The city agreed, but one set of neighbors objected.
"Guess who?" Bishop said.

That would be Okhoo and Ernest Hanes, the neighbors who lost their fight with her to keep their trees.

They - like Bishop - no longer live in their Oakland hills home but rent it out. They now live in Napa.
The Bishops and the Haneses once lived near each other in the hills, tied only by a property line until the decades-long feud intertwined them. Tuesday, they'll go before the City Council for what Bishop hopes will be the last fight. Okhoo Hanes is unsure the end of the battle is near, even though she and her husband, both 55, have lost more than $200,000 in legal fees and many trees they cherished.
Asked whether she would sue or take another tack if the city agrees to remove the trees, Okhoo Hanes said, "I don't know."

The trees in question are mostly acacias, though the city says Bishop should also be allowed to trim some branches from five large Monterey cypresses and Monterey pines.

A home with a view

Phyllis and Lloyd Bishop moved into their home in 1964. They could see Alcatraz, the Golden Gate Bridge and Treasure Island.

"To own a part of this beautiful part of the world was a privilege," said Phyllis, who was born in Oakland and who, like her husband, was an Oakland schoolteacher. "We'd traveled. We knew this was special."

Wary that developers would build up the property below them, she said they successfully sought an easement ensuring nothing would be built to block their view before they bought the house. But it only referred to buildings.

"It didn't refer to vegetation," she said ruefully. "We didn't anticipate that."

For 23 years, the Bishops asked their neighbors if they could pay for the tree trimming. The neighbors always said yes, said Phyllis.

Then, in 1984, the Haneses moved in. Three years later, the Bishops saw that it was time for a trimming. Six previous owners of the Hanes home had always agreed. The Haneses didn't.

"It had no effect on the people who owned the property, but it maintained the view," she said.
The Bishops say they tried to talk to the Haneses. They asked their city councilman to intervene. They suggested a mediator. They offered to buy land covered by the foliage.

"They wouldn't talk about it at all," Bishop said. "Finally, we sued them."

The Bishops used Oakland's View Ordinance as their justification. The ordinance allows property owners to restore "a reasonable amount of the view that they had when they purchased their property, whether the trees are growing on public or private property," according to a city report. Native trees and trees on park property are exempt.

After the city reworked its ordinance, the courts ultimately upheld the Bishops' contention that they had the right to trim the trees.

Councilwoman Libby Schaaf grew up within a mile of the disputed trees and now represents the area.
"It's one of the things that's amazing about Oakland: We have bay views while still living in the forest," she said. "But trees do grow taller. ... It's tragic that this neighborhood dispute has gone on so long and taken up public resources."

Seeking sanctuary

The Haneses, too, believe in the righteousness of their cause. Where the Bishops saw expansiveness in the treeless view, the Haneses found the sanctuary that comes with living among trees.
The trees "gave a sense of seclusion," said Okhoo Hanes. Despite the urban setting, she said the trees meant "we had a feeling of living in a hideaway."

After the state Supreme Court denied their appeal last October - two days after Lloyd Bishop died at age 89 - the Haneses were forced to clear their trees.

"After the tree removal, we lost a sense of enclosure," she said.

In the current appeal, the Haneses say that landslides are a risk. An engineer disagrees. In addition, city staffers note, the Fire Department had "excessive vegetation" in the area removed in 2009, and no landslides occurred.

Both sides see slights

Both sides have an accounting of slights. Phyllis Bishop remembers welcoming the Haneses to the neighborhood, she said, only to have Okhoo respond rudely. Okhoo Hanes said it still stings to think of how the Bishops, she says, said that land with just wild trees and shrubs had no value.

"That's an example of the attitude they showed toward us," Okhoo Hanes said. "They didn't value our ownership even though they were adamant in asserting their property rights."

Both families talk of the children raised in their homes. Bishop hopes that one of her two adult children will eventually live in the property.

"I've done about all I can do," Bishop said. "I'm going to try to outlive them. I don't know if I will or not. Would you care to place a bet?"

This article has been corrected since it appeared in print versions.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fight-over-Oakland-trees-views-not-over-3872894.php#ixzz26qbI6Xpo

Salmon ruling curbs San Geronimo Valley development

Good News for Marin Fish and Streamside Environment

This just in from the Marin IJ.  Very good news. Good job on the part of SPAWN and friends.

By Nels Johnson
Marin Independent Journalhttp://www.marinij.com/westmarin/ci_21527233/salmon-ruling-curbs-san-geronimo-valley-development

Posted:   09/12/2012 02:24:57 PM PDT

Development restrictions were imposed on the San Geronimo Valley by a county judge who barred new building applications until Marin officials enact tougher rules to protect creekside salmon habitat.

The ruling does not affect existing building permits, including development of Spirit Rock, or ministerial "work that does not expand the existing building footprint," as well as replacement or repair work required by state or federal law or "a disaster or emergency as declared by the federal or state governments, or the county Board of Supervisors."

Marin Superior Court Judge Lynn Duryee, making a final ruling this week in a lawsuit filed by the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network of Forest Knolls, rejected the fishery group's argument that the county violated environmental law, but said officials must deliver an improved "streamside conservation area" program aimed at limiting activity detrimental to fish.

Because county policy promises adoption of rules tightening creekside protection, the county is "enjoined from approving and shall not approve any application for development within the stream conservation area, as defined by the 2007 countywide plan update, in the San Geronimo Valley watershed ... until such time as the streamside conservation area ordinance required by the 2007 countywide plan update is adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors," Judge Duryee ruled.
The action includes exceptions carved out during protracted negotiations after a tentative decision issued four months ago.

A key exception allows work that does not expand the building footprint "within the stream conservation area, and is subject to ministerial approval by the county," a provision enabling some to proceed with remodeling projects, perhaps including second-story improvements. Another allows supervisors to declare an "emergency" to allow repairs to proceed, but offers no definition of such a situation.

SPAWN's lawyer, Michael Graf of El Cerrito, was not immediately available for comment, and Todd Steiner, the group's executive director, said he wanted to read the judge's ruling before commenting. SPAWN later issued a statement in which Steiner said it was "unfortunate the county's failure to do proper environmental review and get common-sense rules in place has resulted in a court-ordered de facto building moratorium."

Steiner added: "Supervisor (Steve) Kinsey decided to roll the dice in court, and the people of the San Geronimo Valley are the current losers. ... We hope common sense rules will now be adopted quickly."

In an interview, Steiner said Judge Duryee essentially "split the baby," giving both sides in the litigation a wink. He added he has no problem with the exemptions allowed by the judge.
Kinsey said that while "the court supported the county's extensive environmental review," restrictions sought by SPAWN present a difficult hurdle. "I find SPAWN's continuing effort to stop future development on legal lots in established neighborhoods to be divisive, dismissive of both county and property owner efforts, and costly to defend at taxpayers' expense," Kinsey asserted. "There is a better way, as reflected in our voluntary landowner assistance programs, protective conditions incorporated into building permits and substantial (fish) barrier removal projects where streets cross creeks."

Niz Brown, treasurer of the San Geronimo Valley Stewards, a property owners' group that she said backs "reasonable" efforts to help salmon, expressed dismay at the turn of events, saying the notion that building near streams "has caused the demise of salmon is absurd," and not based on scientific evidence.

"Why is it that this little valley gets thrown under the bus?" she asked. "It's absolutely appalling. ... Why doesn't this affect all streams in Marin County?"

The county issued a press release indicating that while area Supervisor Kinsey "believes the injunction will cause significant hardship for residents," only five building permits were issued this year involving expansion of a building within the conservation area. The statement trumpeted county efforts to protect endangered coho salmon, noting it and other public agencies have spent more than $17 million improving the valley watershed, home of one of the most important coho fisheries in the state.

Tom Lai, assistant community development agency director, said he expects the judge's ruling will mean relatively little change for valley homeowners who already face a web of building regulations. He added county planners will produce an expanded streamside conservation program by next year for adoption by the county board, a move that will eliminate the court's red tape.

In its suit, SPAWN argued that the 2007 countywide plan update failed to protect
salmon habitat in the San Geronimo Valley, violating the California Environmental Quality Act. The county already restricts building within 100 feet of creek banks, but SPAWN wants tougher rules to protect fish.

In an abrupt, closed-door deal with Steiner aimed at staving off legal action, county supervisors in 2008 banned creekside construction in the San Geronimo Valley for two years to review regulations and assess salmon protections. Supervisors approved voluntary measures to protect salmon, but rejected tough new streamside tree cutting and related habitat rules urged by county planners.
Steiner sued, leading to this week's ruling.

Cell phone spectre in Fairfax

Yes, it's happening in sleepy little Fairfax, California, a Cell phone tower proposal that has passed the Marin County Planning Commission and is being appealed to the Board of Supervisors.  This one is supposed to be disguised as a tree.  

Telecommunications law makes it hard to beat these Cell phone installations, at least on health or safety grounds, but we at Green Legal Solutions have delayed them for thorough environmental review under CEQA (aesthetics and similar issues are grounds for appeal). 

In Lake County, we stopped a ridgeline Cell phone tower at the Supervisors level, because a full review of a planned series of repeater stations was needed.  Verizon has big bucks for lawyers, but people power and public interest law can go a long way.  And AT&T is coming soon to a tree near you.

Here's the article from this morning's Marin IJ for all interested in the process:

County commission OKs Fairfax cell tower plan despite neighborhood protests

By Nels Johnson
Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   09/10/2012 03:46:59 PM PDT

A hotly-contested plan by a telecommunications giant to erect a 50-foot cellphone tower disguised as a tree on a ridge near Boy Scout Camp Tamarancho above Fairfax was approved Monday by a county commission as neighbors vowed to bring their fight to the Board of Supervisors.

The county Planning Commission, saying Verizon Wireless made a compelling case for the tower in light of a coverage gap along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, unanimously approved the proposal despite protests from neighbors who live almost a half-mile away.
Mark Fiore of Bothin Road in Fairfax, a Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist, said neighbors will chip in the $770 needed to appeal the decision to county supervisors.
Commissioners agreed that after a five-year planning effort, Verizon had come up with an acceptable, largely unobtrusive plan that would improve cellphone coverage, speed emergency response time and boost public safety. Two commissioners relayed stories of
experiences with medical emergencies in which cellphone coverage was not readily available.
In any event, commissioners agreed with a Verizon lawyer who cautioned that federal
law limits the ability of local agencies to restrict such facilities.
"This cell tower is situated in such a way that will have virtually no impact," said Commissioner Katherine Crecilius.
"Generally I'm against putting structures on ridgelines, (but) this just becomes another odd tree," added
Commissioner Randy Greenberg, saying the project "in no way is a precedent for or enables other ridgeline applications.""In general, I think this is an appropriate location," said Commissioner Don Dickenson. "Our hands are tied" by federal regulations, noted Commissioner Wade Holland, adding Verizon "has jumped through the hoops" with a diligent planning effort.
Several speakers indicated support for the plan, including former Sausalito fire chief Steve Bogel, who lives on Manor Road in Fairfax. "I hope this system will improve our service for our convenience and for public safety," he said.
But a dozen area residents rose to oppose the tower, calling it a blight on the ridgeline, a radio wave health hazard, a "lightning rod" for fire danger in a "tinderbox" area buffeted by wind, and argued that alternative sites were not adequately reviewed.
Nancy Morita of Iron Springs Road called the tower plan an "oversized industrial pollutant" that would spew hazards around the clock to satiate the "greed of an outside corporation." Neighbor Rebekah Collins called the tower an "enormous liability" that would attract lightning strikes and trigger wildfires that would sweep down the canyon. "Why is it that we have to sacrifice our peace of mind and our quality of life for this project?" she asked.
Others asserted Verizon had not studied other sites in enough detail — or even shown that enough of a "coverage gap" existed to merit the tower.
The commission disagreed with just about every neighborhood argument, noting that the plan called for a tower 70 feet below a site turned down by a county zoning official last year, and said the latest plan was far superior.
After years of effort in which Verizon said it reviewed 24 alternative sites, including three at Tamarancho, lawyers for Verizon called the new plan "the least intrusive means of addressing this significant coverage gap." Boy Scouts officials agreed.
The latest plan moves the "stealth" tree tower site at 1000 Iron Springs Road nearer a cluster of trees, and "will have little if any visual impact," according to Verizon attorney Paul B. Albritton. "This vital infrastructure fully complies with the Marin County Development Code, the Marin County Telecommunications Plan, the Marin Countywide Plan and the California Environmental Quality Act, and the denial of the application would violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996," Albritton advised.
The 50-foot-tall "monopine" tree would have 12 panels of antennae disguised as branches. A 1,216-square-foot area would be enclosed by a 6-foot-tall chain-link fence and include a 184-square-foot equipment shelter, a standby generator and a 210-gallon fuel tank.
Officials noted that AT&T is interested in using the tree antenna, a move that would require a design review permit application.

Sonoma County Board of Supervisors OK appeal of Roblar Road quarry decision

From the Press Democrat.  Sonoma Supes vote against the Environment. (Except Shirlee Zane. Yay Shirlee!)

Posted by PD staff in County on August 23rd, 2012 tags: Barella, Board of Supervisors, Citizens Against Roblar Road Quarry, Sonoma County

0 comments related articles   

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sonoma County supervisors have authorized an appeal of a court ruling striking down approval of the Roblar Road quarry on environmental grounds.

Dozens of anti-quarry signs line the length of Roblar Road west of Cotati. (PD File)

The board voted 4-1 Tuesday in closed session to back the appeal, with Shirlee Zane, the board’s chairwoman, dissenting.
The 70-acre quarry west of Cotati is the target of a lawsuit by neighbors and environmentalists concerned about its impact on water and air quality, traffic and wildlife habitat.
Sonoma County Judge Elliot Daum sided with opponents on several claims. The ruling would force the county and quarry owner John Barella to revise substantial parts of the study and perhaps return to the board for another vote.
But county officials say Daum’s ruling was flawed and the environmental study is sound. Barella also is expected to appeal.

Biz Interests in State Trying to gut CEQA laws

Shocking, shameful and not at all surprising, biz interests are trying to once again gut the 40 year old California Environmental Quality Act which subjects developments to environmental review.  This in the light of all we know about global warming, loss of habitat, including our important fisheries, loss of water quality, pollution of all sorts.  Oh, but don't hinder the swift approval of industries trhat may might and could provide jobs.  Jusst say job creation and everybody is supposed to genuflect.

Not so fast, a group of Cal. legislators is working overtime to stop this ill-conceived notion in its tracks.  Here is the article from today's Chronicle.  My comment to all this: Make the proposed changes to CEQA themselves have to go through a CEQA review.  It's what the law was designed for.

And note Jerry Brown's pandering remarks: "I never met a CEQA exemption I didn't like," and "CEQA reform is the Lord's work." 

California environmental law faces changes

Wyatt Buchanan

Updated 11:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 22, 2012

0
inShare

Sacramento --
A proposal to loosen California's landmark environmental protection law is expected to be introduced at the Capitol as soon as Thursday, giving the public and lawmakers only about a week to debate and consider the controversial legislation's fate.
Backers of the proposal, largely from the business community, say the California Environmental Quality Act passed in 1970 needs to be updated because it has become cumbersome, and some individuals and groups misuse the law to stop or delay development for non-environmental reasons.
Republicans in the Legislature have long sought changes to the environmental law, commonly known as CEQA, and this year some Democrats, including Gov. Jerry Brown, signaled that they are open to discussion.
At a news conference last month, the governor said, "I've never seen a CEQA exemption I didn't like." And on Wednesday in San Francisco at a news conference for his ballot measure to raise taxes, Brown said of the proposal that has been circulating: "To tell you the truth, I have not read it. In fact it's not even clear we have a final draft yet. But look - CEQA reform is the Lord's work."
Environmental groups say the proposal is an attempt to gut the law in the waning days of the legislative session to avoid public input and scrutiny. The Legislature's two-year session comes to a close Aug. 31.
Typically, it takes at least several months - often longer - for a proposal to be vetted by committees and then go to a vote of the Legislature. But nearing the end of a session, controversial proposals sometimes are inserted into bills and pushed through.
While the bill has yet to be introduced, people both for and against it expect language that would alter the environmental law to be inserted into SB317 by state Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield. That bill pertains to fish management in the Kings River, and amendments to the bill with the new language were released by proponents late Wednesday.

An influential law

CEQA is the cornerstone of California's environmental protection efforts. It was signed into law by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, and has been a model for other states and even for some changes in federal law. Under the law, a project that will have a significant effect on the environment is subject to an environmental impact report.
Members of the public can comment on that report, and government agencies preparing the report must respond to those comments. Once the impacts are identified - they can range from traffic congestion to public health problems and damage to the environment - the developers must take steps to mitigate those impacts.
Perhaps more than any other, the law is responsible for how communities across California look today.

Eliminating reviews

Business leaders called the law an important tool that provides the public with an assessment of the environmental impacts of projects, but said it needs revisions.
"Since CEQA became law, many other environmental and land-use laws have been passed by multiple agencies at the federal, state and local levels, creating duplicative and overlapping processes, standards and mitigation requirements which often result in lengthy project-permitting delays and uncertainty," said Bill Allen, CEO of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in a letter to lawmakers supporting the proposal.
Under the proposal, projects that meet the requirements of an existing land-use plan - which has met CEQA mandates - would be exempt from going through the law's rigorous environmental review process. Backers say that eliminates duplication, but opponents say it means the public will not have a chance to weigh in on - and force changes to - large projects that will affect them or the environment, including power plants and hazardous waste dumps.
Exemptions from CEQA may also apply to two of the governor's biggest priorities: high-speed rail and the proposed tunnels to move water under the delta, environmentalists said.
"It would be really devastating for California and probably the rest of the nation for the kind of precedent this would set," said Jena Price, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League.

Previous measures

She said attempts to alter the environmental law frequently emerge at the end of the legislative session, but previous measures have not gone as far as the current proposal.
"This is one of the more, if not the most, egregious attempts to gut CEQA I have ever seen," Price said.
Other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, already have called on their members to contact leaders of the Legislature to block action on the measure even before it's an actual bill. Business groups, too, have asked members to call lawmakers, but to urge them to make changes in the law. Variations of the proposal for exemptions have been passed around the Capitol for more than a week. On Monday, a coalition of business groups, developers and some labor unions held a press conference to outline what they would like to see in a proposal.
Their ideas are reflected in the amendments.
But environmentalists are pushing back, and on Tuesday a group of 33 lawmakers sent a letter to the Democratic leaders of the Legislature calling for no changes to CEQA without first going through the full public process.

What is CEQA?

The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1970, is the cornerstone of California's environmental protection policies. A public agency must determine whether a proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If so, the project becomes the subject of an environmental impact report, on which the public can comment. Those comments must be addressed, and the report must include ways to mitigate impacts on the environment.

Wyatt Buchanan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com

Comments:  

 

greendogdemo

8:39 AM on August 23, 2012

Most shocking that Gov. Brown "never saw a CEQA exemption [he] didn't like." Of course he never saw a 3 Strikes law he didn't like either. Oh, Jerry, we really want to like you.

   

Delete

hepstein

7:06 AM on August 23, 2012

WOW!! This is the second time this week I agree with Gov. Brown. CEQA desperately needs to be reformed or rescinded. The out of control CARB should be disbanded.

   

sffoghorn

6:47 AM on August 23, 2012

If a Republican governor proposed this, the Democrats would oppose it vigorously. This is why Obama is poised to lose in November, because priorities that Democrats run on are end up worse when the Democrats are in office. This law was signed by Ronald fricken Reagan for chrissake, and now a Democrat is gutting it. How far have we descended into the corrupt pit of corporate dominance!

jenniferp

6:46 AM on August 23, 2012

"California environmental law faces changes"? Bad headline (not the reporter's fault). Nothing in this story shows that a majority in the Legislature is likely to approve this change to CEQA. If there is likely to be majority support in the Legislature for this change, let's hear about it, please. Otherwise a headline like: "Legislature to consider last-minute proposal to weaken California environmental law" would be more appropriate.

   

HollyBliss

6:40 AM on August 23, 2012

"The business community" meaning "billionaires and those that profit from collecting interest from the those that buy what's built."

This smells like an attempt to grab more northern California water for a certain senator's biggest contributor.

   

hexaprotodon

6:37 AM on August 23, 2012

If anything, California's environmental protection laws (and enforcement) should be strengthened.

   

nico415

6:34 AM on August 23, 2012

One word: REAGAN
How dare conservatives question the Almighty? What's next...will they raise taxes to hire teachers???

helpmeout

10:32 PM on August 22, 2012

Just imagine what developers will get away with once CEQA is watered down...SF waterfront beware, here come 8 Washington's ugly sisters

   

frenchjr25

8:07 PM on August 22, 2012

CEQUA also deals with historic preservation. The delays do get a bit ridiculous but at the same time developers need to start using more common sense when designing projects. Why tear down a historic building when there are plenty of empty lots already? Why cut down century old trees when buildings can be built around them?

Do you Need to Dispute your Tree Issue with a Neutral Expert?

Reminding our Subscribers of our specialized services
 

       Tree Dispute Mediation

Green Legal Solutions, the law office of Dotty LeMieux, now offers Mediation of Tree and Vegetation disputes in cases involving these issues:

• Trees vs. views - Tree damage/neighbor vs. neighbor - Nuisance - Trees gone “bad”   Injury - Property damage - Wildland fire

Neutral expert consulting arborist/urban forester/fire ecologist Ray Moritz helps evaluate the issue from a scientific and technical viewpoint for all parties or works with your expert for collaborative result
Experienced in hundreds of cases as an expert witness for
Individuals, Insurance companies, agencies and homeowner groups

Dotty E. LeMieux, attorney at law Green Legal Solutions
8 Willow St. San Rafael CA 94901 415-485-1040 Fax: 415-485-1044 coastlaw@earthlink.net  "Like" us on Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tree-Dispute-Mediation-a-service-of-Green-Legal-Solutions/134208029947107

Tree Dispute Mediation, a service of Green Legal Solutions

Experienced litigator and consulting arborist provide consultation on tough questions of tree and neighbor dispute, cases of tree vs. car, pedestrian, property. Try mediation first or when you hit that wall.

 

Dangerous Dogs and Irresponsible Owners

This question was posed on an attorney site I use. It comes up a lot and allowed me to vent about one of my favorite topics: Dogs and their irresponsible owners. Here is the question and answer:

I have 3 acres of land, and two Rottweilers, what happens if somebody trespasses and gets attacked?

The entire property has a 4' high fence around it with numerous signs warning of dangerous dogs, but sometimes people or other dogs enter my property. Dogs are licensed, current on shots and on my insurance plan. What would happen if somebody entered my property and was attacked?

What if it was a minor who hopped my fence and was mauled? What kind of liability, if any, would I face? 

Answer: 

You would be responsible. You may even have created an "attractive nuisance," depending what is on your land.  But the fact that people and dogs regularly use shows it is attractive, at least for a short cut.  A 4 foot fence will not contain the dogs or keep others out as you know. You are on notice that this is the case, so you have no excuse, especially since you seem to know the dogs are dangerous.

Not only will you liable, but you may lose your dogs or at least have them declared dangerous and have to confine them, which you should do anyway.  Better yet, retrain them to be companion animals, not attack beasts and get an alarm for your property.  Certainly raise the fence. (Check with local zoning for the allowable height.)

Dogs deserve better than running loose all day on 3 acres where they can get into trouble. 

To my Readers: What's the "rest of the story?"

So many of you write with questions I try to answer within the Blog post you wrote about. (Easements are far and away the most popular), but I never hear what the outcome of your story was. Did it work out? Did you need a lawyer? Did it not work out?  Please let me know what happens next. 

I'd like to know if the advice and suggestions you see in this blog are helpful to your particular situations, so please keep me posted.

And thanks for reading Land Use News!

Judge orders San Rafael woman to return land to city, pay fine

Why you should do your homework before buying property

By Jessica Bernstein-Wax Marin Independent Journal

Posted:   06/12/2012 05:38:27 PM PDT

Click photo to enlarge

A judge has ordered a San Rafael woman to remove a portion of her yard that encroaches on city open space within 30 days and pay a $30,000 penalty.

Judge Roy Chernus' decision, issued Monday, is the latest development in the years-long dispute over an illegal backyard at 81 McNear Drive in East San Rafael. In 2006, Marion Hill and her family bought the 9,803-square-foot house for $4.2 million.
"While it is clear to the court that Ms. Hill purchased the property with the encroachment in place, it is also clear that she has chosen to maintain the encroachment long after it became clear that the City would not agree to allow her to do so," Chernus wrote in his decision.
Chernus ordered Hill to return about

a half-acre of land to the city and remove a shed "as soon as possible" but no later than 30 days after the judgment.The court's decision comes after a one-day trial on April 17.
San Rafael initiated the lawsuit after Hill failed to remove the encroachment after the City Council rejected her application for an exception in May 2009, City Attorney Rob Epstein said.
Hill has said she was unaware of the encroachment when she bought the property. In 2009 Hill told city officials she wanted to work out a land swap, but neighbors and activists fought against the effort, saying it set a bad precedent, complicated enjoyment of the public land and raised issues surrounding wildlife, fire, flood and landslide risk.
Built in
1987, the property has a history of encroachment dating to 1989, when a lot line adjustment was required to legalize the house's swimming pool.Sometime between 1989 and 2000, landscaping, fencing, irrigation, rock walls and a storage shed appeared in the open space, "all of which encroached much more significantly," according to the city.
San Rafael officials first flagged the problem in the backyard in 2000 after a neighbor complained. The city hired a surveyor, confirmed the encroachment of about 22,250 square feet of city land and issued an abatement letter, which went unheeded.
The matter didn't reemerge until March 2007, when the city received a report of illegal tree trimming in the open space at 81 McNear Drive and rediscovered the long-standing violation.
"The Court clearly recognized the seriousness of the violation when it awarded a substantial penalty against the defendant because of her private encroachment in the public open space," Epstein said in an email Tuesday. "Much private property in San Rafael — including hundreds of residential properties — is adjacent to our public open space. We will continue to do our best to ensure the public's access to open space."
Epstein noted that the $30,000 penalty would go to the city's general fund.
Hill and her attorney, Scott Phillips, couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday. Hill is involved in a second lawsuit with the home's previous owners alleging breach of contract. A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in that case.

PG & E - Up to their old Tricks? Or Looking out for you and me?

PG and E wants to cut down acres of trees in Sonoma, along their utility line route. Just looking out for the public health and safety (in line with their previous stellar track record)? or looking out for the bottom line and hoping not to get sued, yet again. At least they are holding a meeting this time...

After years of trimming, this is a new policy.  What do you think?

  

PG&E to hold meeting on big Sonoma County tree-cutting plan

 http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120327/ARTICLES/1http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120327/ARTICLES/120329564&tc=email_newsletter?p=all&tc=pgall

By KERRY BENEFIELD
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 7:41 p.m.

PG&E officials will host a community meeting Thursday to address concerns from landowners that a revamped maintenance plan will mean cutting down thousands of trees in a 39-mile stretch of high voltage lines through Sonoma County.

Facts

PG&E tree-cutting plan

A community meeting to discuss PG&E’s plans to cut thousands of trees under high-voltage power lines across Sonoma County will be held from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday at the Bennett Valley Fire Department, 6161 Bennett Valley Rd.

The plan has come under criticism in recent weeks as landowners have discovered in some cases hundreds of trees marked with tell-tale blue paint that PG&E said means the trees are targeted not for pruning, but removal.

PG&E officials said the move is spurred in part by federal regulations that have increased penalties for outages and other incidents. But homeowners called for a meeting to hear why a decades-old strategy of pruning and select removal is seemingly being abandoned.

“PG&E has not really been open and not really been honest, I think, about the plans,” said Tom Birdsall, who has owned 41 acres on Sonoma Mountain Road for the past decade.

In that time, PG&E has successfully pruned growth on his property three or four times without issue, Birdsall said.

“It’s our belief that the trimming of trees for 50 years has worked just fine,” he said.

The 39-mile path stretches from The Geysers to Petaluma. A 2003 blackout blamed on trees that cut power to 50 million people in the Northeast put new focus on hazards that vegetation can pose to the nation’s power supply.

In 2007, under a federal mandate, North American Electric Reliability Corp., an organization of the nation’s electrical grid operators, came up with more robust standards for utilities.

A focus of Thursday’s meeting is to reach “a mutually acceptable way of providing safety and reliability,” PG&E spokeswoman Brandi Ehlers said.

“As a company, PG&E shares the same appreciation of trees as our customers,” she said. “Right now we are really focusing on reaching out to our customers.”

Some annual work must be complete by the start of the fire season which typically begins around May 15, while the remaining work is expected to be finished by year’s end, Ehlers said.

Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, who owns property in Oakmont where high-power lines stretch across the sky, has introduced AB2556 that he says will prevent PG&E from having “carte blanche” to clearcut trees.

“Initially they said they were doing this in response to federal legislation, but federal legislation did not say you had to clear cut,” he said.

“They don’t need a black eye on this either,” he said. “We are trying to do this cooperatively.”

Know your Boundaries

I get so many questions on boundary issues, relating to trees, easements, fences and other neighbor disputes, I have to say, "Homeowners, do you  know where your property's boundary lines are?"  

If not, you could have a problem. You need to find out where your property ends and the next property begins, now, before you get into a dispute with your neighbor.  As unlikely as you may think that is to happen, it happens all too frequently.  Take these simple steps and understand your property lines now:

1. Survey your property.  For this you need a licensed land surveyor (caveat, I am talking about California law, but I believe most, if not all, states require some kind of licensing protocol for land surveyors) who can draw up a survey to be recorded in your County or future reference. Keep a copy for yourself.

The surveyor will also set boundary markers, so that you can see the property borders at a glance.  These are usually metal pipes or similar markers.  Caution:  malicious neighbors have been known to move or destroy markers. That's why the recorded survey is essential.

2. Check with the County to see if a survey is on file already.  Then check your property's markers to see if they are in the right place.  If a dispute arises, you may need to back up any claim and having some knowledge ahead of time will save money in the long run. 

3. Check your neighbor's property in the recorder's office too, to make sure his survey doesn't conflict with yours. Yes, this happens, even with recorded survey.  

4. Do not rely on the parcel map filed when your subdivision was created. These show only the placement of the lots in relation to each other and the surrounding parcels, and are not reliable for determining where the actual boundary lines are on the ground.

5. Stay on good terms with your neighbors.  Friendly relations do not guarantee there will be no future disputes, but they can go a long way to minimizing animosity and long drawn out legal battles.  If a dispute arises, suggest mediation, with a neutral surveyor hired by both parties to help solve the issue, and a professional land use mediator to help you work out differences.

Good luck in staying out of court and on good terms with your neighbors.  A nice talk over the back fence can work wonders for good neighbor relations.