Followers

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Back in the News!

Neighbor group charges mound in San Rafael baseball dustup

Share

Humm baby? More like legal matter, baby.

Marin baseball fans shouldn't start planning their summers around the San Rafael Pacifics' home games just yet--the neighborhood group that's been jeering the idea of peanuts, popcorn and Crackerjacks at nearby Albert Park have informed the San Rafael City Council they intend to force an environmental review through the courts.

Centerfield Partners, the group that's trying to bring pro ball to the Gerstle Park-area ballfield, had initially offered to pay for an independent environmental review of their proposal, but after considering costs--and the possibility that it would delay their opening day to the 2013 season--Centerfield scaled back their proposal and put it before the Council without an EIR.

While the original proposal called for a three-year lease and Centerfield's promise to modernize the 60-year-old field, spruce up the bathrooms and add seating for about 800 fans--the revised plan now seeks a single-year lease with only 100 added seats and minor changes such as netting behind home plate and fencing behind the dugouts and limiting the noise after 9pm. Additionally, the team's first year will be overseen by a seven-person citizens advisory committee--made up of neighbors, a business, a P&R commissioner and Centerfield representatives--which would review its findings after the season.

The Council on Oct. 3 approved the proposal unanimously.

But on Nov. 4, attorney Dotty LeMieux, on behalf of the Albert Park Neighborhood Alliance, said via a letter to the council that the group plans to convince the courts that the city "abused its discretion" in exempting the project from environmental review.

Looks like this game may be decided by the umps in the Marin Count Superior Court.

Still, Centerfield is taking an "on with the show" attitude; on Nov. 2 the group unveiled the name of the team--but the fate of the San Rafael Pacifics will likely be decided in extra innings.


Stay tuned for more news as we go forward.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Cell Phone Towers Popping up in Lucas Valley

Lucas Valley residents fight plan to install wireless poles


Click photo to enlarge
A utility pole in Lower Lucas Valley, with equipment instsalled by ExteNet Systems






Residents who live in a peaceful section of Lucas Valley with no street lamps or above-ground utilities are fighting a proposal to erect three poles for wireless equipment in their neighborhood.

ExteNet Systems Inc., an Illinois-based telecommunications company, has submitted applications to San Rafael, Marin County and Novato to install a 16-node network to improve cellphone service in the Lucas Valley Road area, said Patti Ringo, the company's director of municipal relations for the West.

"We do not transport signal — we only build infrastructure," Ringo said. "Each individual location is multi-carrier capable, meaning I have the capacity to put more than one carrier at each location."

ExteNet has already installed equipment at five sites in unincorporated Marin County. The company normally affixes its equipment to existing poles, but must construct approximately 30-foot poles at two proposed sites on Idylberry Road and another on Creekside Drive, Ringo said.

That's because the Eichler community in that neighborhood has no poles or above-ground utilities — a look many residents say they want to preserve.

"The master plan for the community that I live in is that there be an undisturbed view of the hills," said Eric Forbes, who lives on Mount Whitney Court and has been researching the proposal with a subcommittee of the Lucas Valley Homeowners Association.

Forbes, along with about a dozen other residents, has

gathered about 330 signatures opposing ExteNet's plan in the community of 538 homes.

Residents say Sprint coverage is good in the area, but many other carriers don't have a strong signal, leading some homeowners to install "microcell" network extenders at their houses.

ExteNet is installing its network for T-Mobile, but is in talks with two other major carriers, Ringo said.

Bill Hansell, a Marinwood Community Services District board member, said he's interested in learning more about any proposal that would boost wireless service in the area.

"There are a lot of people who I've heard who want to get better coverage," Hansell said. "I don't think people really have much of a choice in terms of providers, because Sprint's the only thing that really works."

Forbes said he and others would welcome better cellphone coverage in the area but don't want to sacrifice their neighborhood's character or appearance to get it.

"There are no two-story houses back against the open space," Forbes said. "It's a really amazing place. It looks like you're camping almost when you look outside, especially at night. There are no lights."

Lindsay Beaman, a resident who lives near both proposed sites on Idylberry, agreed, saying, "We have no wires, no poles, no streetlights and people want it that way.

"It's on the books with the county and the county has enforced this," he said.

ExteNet filed an application with Marin County earlier this year, which is currently incomplete as officials await the company's response to various questions, Supervisor Susan Adams said.

Residents were angry to learn that ExteNet also filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission on Oct. 5 to proceed with the project, Beaman and Forbes said. About 80 people from Lucas Valley and North San Rafael packed a meeting with ExteNet last week to learn more about the project and voice their concerns.

"It appears that the ExteNet company is trying to do an end run on our local planning process," Adams said. "By going to the (California Public Utilities Commission) and asking them to make the determination, it further removes our local government."

Adams said she expects the Board of Supervisors to get involved in the utilities commission process and push for local jurisdiction. She added that ExteNet should be considering alternatives to the poles.

"There's lots of creative opportunities," Adams said. "They can find a homeowner that might be willing to allow their home to be used or a tree-top device. ... There's different ways to do it besides installing a pole."

Ringo said ExteNet has been simultaneously getting approval through the utilities commission for projects and obtaining permits from local agencies.

She emphasized that the company will get permits from local officials before it begins building.

ExteNet is also considering moving the poles a couple of hundred feet from the current proposed sites and possibly putting some equipment under shrubbery, Ringo said. The company put a temporary hold on its Lucas Valley application with the utilities commission Tuesday so it can research those possible changes.

However, "we can't put antennas underground," she said.

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

We are in the News

San Rafael neighbors continue to debate the merits of minor league baseball in their town. from the North Bay Biz, October, 2011, Bill Meagher

It’s midsummer, and a bright sun beats down on Albert Field in San Rafael, doing its best to bake the infield rock hard and fade the grass from green to brown. The stands are quiet, the dugouts filled with plenty of nothing. This baseball park, which dates back to the 1950s, is old in a charming way—like a favorite aunt who’s arrived at that age where her face speaks gently of character, and the twinkle in her eyes peeks out from beneath a feather of salt and pepper hair.


Centerfield Partners (CP) wants to fill the stands here next season with families and baseball fans, and the dugouts with minor league players hoping to punch their ticket to the big leagues.

The company, led by CEO Brian Clark, Corte Madera resident Michael Shapiro and Petaluma’s Brian Sobel, hopes to have a yet-unnamed entrant to the new North American League (NAL) playing at Albert Field for 45 games next season. The NAL is an independent league, which means none of the teams are associated or under contracts to major league teams. (For instance, the San Francisco Giants have a rookie team in Oregon, a Class A team in San Jose, a double A squad in Connecticut and its top farm club in Fresno.) Instead, the teams in this league would hail from a dozen different locations as far flung as Edmonton, Alberta Canada; Wailuku, Hawaii; Edinburg, Texas; and Chico, Calif.

For years, the city of San Rafael has tried to bring activity and energy to its downtown after 5 p.m. with its “Live after Five” program. So bringing a minor league team to Albert Field, just a block off Second Avenue, would seem to be a home run.

Not so fast.

Early innings

Before a public hearing regarding the team in mid-July, a TV truck from KTVU (Oakland Channel 2) is parked outside San Rafael City Hall. The cameraman is filming a group of kids dressed as a hot dog, bags of popcorn and peanuts as well as Cracker Jacks. The kids are either very gifted costume creators, or mom and dad are minor league baseball fans.

Not everyone is a fan, however, not by a long shot. Lawyers Nick Rossi and Dotty LeMieux have been hired by different groups of Gerstle Park (where the ball field is located) residents who’d like to keep the pros off the field. The neighbors are concerned with traffic, noise, alcohol abuse and parking woes.

Well…in the best tradition of Marin County, it’s a little more than that. After a public hearing that ran more than four hours and included 45 different citizens speaking both for and against the idea of baseball at Albert Field, I can tell you first-hand that some neighbors are concerned with their home values being dragged down by minor league baseball. There are also folks worried about their health—so much so that one well-meaning local offered to bring the mayor a note from her doctor regarding the ill effects of noise on the human body—or concerned that their tree-lined streets might become home to post-game violence or car vandalism. There are also neighbors who fear people using their front yards as restrooms.

Just as there are two teams in every baseball game, the meeting also included neighbors who support the upstart league, expressing to the patient city council their hope to be able to bring their kids to see baseball in a less pricey venue than the Giant’s yard at AT&T Park. Some supporters talked about dining downtown and walking to the park. Other speakers told the council they simply wanted to enjoy baseball in an old-fashioned setting in their own hometown.

As the clock slipped past the midnight hour, Mayor Al Boro found himself in front of a crowd so large the Fire Marshall had to hang around all night. Boro, a baseball fan who was once a batboy for the San Francisco Seals (when the Pacific Coast League team called 16th and Bryant home), knew the time had come for him to play umpire. He told the crowd that while the city staff had recommended Centerfield be allowed to use the park, the council wouldn’t take a vote on the issue. It was clear the neighbors had legitimate concerns. Instead, he said, another meeting would be scheduled. Vice mayor Greg Brockbank chimed in, imploring Centerfield Partners and the neighbors to get together to find some middle ground.

The minors

CP owns the rights to four different NAL baseball franchises in the Bay Area. This means the NAL will let CP own four independent teams—and CP hopes the San Rafael entry will become a successful setup model for the others to follow.

Since NAL teams are independent, the league has created some guidelines for its teams to survive. Team rosters are limited to 23 players, and teams have a minimum and a maximum payroll for all players; the least that can be paid is $60,000 and the most is $90,000. To put that into perspective, the major league minimum salary is $450,000, exactly 80 percent more than the NAL top rung.

On the other hand, the NAL has left room for teams that feel they want to go the route of the New York Yankees and buy themselves a title. Teams can exceed the cap by $20,000 and kick in a 25 percent luxury tax. The scale goes all the way up to $80,000 extra if the team is willing to pay 100 percent tax.

While the league lives on a shoestring, that hasn’t kept some big names from getting involved. The Lake County Fielders, the Zion, Illinois-based team, is partially owned by actor Kevin Costner. The Edmonton Capitals are owned by Daryl Katz, the same guy who owns the Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League. Jose Canseco, the one-time Oakland A who wrote a tell-all book on baseball and steroids, is co-managing a team in Tucson, Ariz., along with his brother, Ozzie.

Like all independent leagues, the NAL is colorful. For instance, the Fielders have bounced paychecks or not issued them at all, the play-by-play announcer quit in mid-game and a new stadium promised by the city of Zion failed to open. Almost the entire roster of players, fed up with living hand-to-mouth, either quit or were released after protesting their plight. (Lake County has gone out of its way to explain Costner isn’t involved in the day-to-day operation of the team.)

In July, the Tucson Toros ceased operations, and the Yuma Scorpions are now pinch-hitting for them while Toros ownership tries to unravel a puzzle that involves the city of Tucson, its Hi Corbet Field and various claims. One of the 2011 starting pitchers for the Chico Outlaws is Eri Yoshida, a 19-year-old woman who was born in Japan and throws a wicked knuckleball. It’s the second year in the league for the player known as the “Knuckle Princess.”

In the interest of full disclosure, I need to fess up a bit. My Dad played in the minor leagues—with Jackie Robinson in Montreal in 1946, no less. I’ve watched minor league games in Denver (before the Rockies were a glint in Major League Commissioner Faye Vincent’s eye), Reno, Chico, Stockton and Sonoma. I played in an instructional league for the Dodgers and in college. Baseball has always been a part of my life, so I bring a little understanding to this story.

Minor league baseball is about a trio of adults bending over to put their foreheads on a bat, spinning around and then trying to walk a straight line between innings. The minors are a place for 8-year-olds to get a huge thrill from getting the autograph of a guy who won’t get any closer to the big leagues than buying a ticket. And it’s the spot to see a player like Sergio Romo strike out the side on his way to the bigs.

By the way, Romo played in the NAL before ending up in the bullpen of your world champion Giants.

The deal

CP is led by Brian Clark, who made his money in the travel industry. Clark was formerly an officer with Virgin America and senior vice president at Fly.com, a travel search site. The Dublin, Calif., resident is now CEO of travel startup Vayant Travel Technologies. While Clark has no background in minor league baseball, he does have two key ingredients: cash and passion.

He’s also had the good sense to bring Corte Madera’s Mike Shapiro on board as a consultant. Shapiro has a baseball background, having served in either management or legal capacities with the San Francisco Giants, the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Nationals. He also has his own company, Redwood Sports and Entertainment Group. And Clark brought Brian Sobel in to help navigate the maze of municipal approvals in Marin. Sobel, a former member of the Petaluma City Council and a long-time political consultant, has his own business, Sobel Communications, in the city that was once the chicken capital of the world.

Clark views the San Rafael team as a good first entry into the NAL for CP. “San Rafael would be our first team, and it would have the smallest venue [1,500 seats at Albert Field] in the league. By way of comparison, the average attendance at independent baseball games last year was more than 2,800 fans,” he says. “Despite the smaller venue, we feel comfortable we can do well. But the margins in independent baseball are typically thin. We’d be pleased to have multiple teams each making ’OK’ margins, adding up to a decent return overall.”

While Albert Field, from an old-time baseball perspective, is charming, it’s also long in the tooth, and the city of San Rafael has pretty much given up on maintaining the park, choosing instead to focus on keeping the libraries open and cops on the streets. This means CP is on the hook for any needed improvements. The team will replace the backstop, paint the grandstands, refurbish the locker rooms and bring in more seating as well as temporary bathrooms and concessions. “We expect to put tens of thousands of dollars worth of improvements into Albert Field before we’ve ever made a nickel,” Clark says.

The city expects to make $4,000 to $12,000 from rental of the park to Centerfield, with much of that payment being made before the season even starts. The team plans on charging between $6 and $15 per seat. CP will take advantage of the parking lot at the adjacent office complex owned by Seagate Properties.

The brushback

Dotty LeMieux is a spirited advocate, the kind of lawyer who brings a passion along with a major league savvy to any fight. She’s long been a presence in Marin politics as a consultant, and her 13-page, anti-NAL letter to the city is a study in reasoned argument. In the first sentence, she tells the city that minor league baseball at Albert Field is, essentially, a privatization of a public facility. She says the city stands to gain little, if anything, from its association with the team, which she labels a “highly speculative business venture.”

At the July meeting, she was very much at home as she patiently ticked off her objections to minor league baseball at Albert Field in an organized fashion, attacking the city’s lack of an environmental impact report along with detailing concerns of her clients. She told the council and the standing-room-only audience that having a college or semi-pro team play at Albert is a far cry from a season of minor league ball. She called on the city to delay a decision for another night, and her presentation was greeted with cheers from opponents of the proposal.

She was followed to the podium by a parade of people wishing to weigh in on minor league ball in downtown San Rafael. Those who felt Albert Field is a bad location for a minor league team talked about a public address system blasting music and bright lights disrupting calm summer evenings. Neighbors told the council that they feared the Gerstle Park neighborhood would become inundated with fans trying to save the $5 parking fee. Still other opponents worried that beer and wine would be available at the ballpark.

In the weeks that followed the meeting, Centerfield’s Clark and company met with neighbors. “We’ve actually had several productive meetings already with neighbors and other local residents. We met with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods on April 20, which was before we ever presented our plan to the Park and Rec Commission. We’ve spoken with individual neighbors on several occasions since, and we sent an open letter outlining our plan to the Gerstle Park neighborhood.

“This program of community outreach is central to our operating plan and is detailed in several places in the use agreement proposed to the city council. Baseball, at its core, is a community activity. So we plan to be out and about in the community in-season and off-season,” says Clark.

Change strikes out?

One of the basics of living in Marin County is that change is rarely a welcome event. It goes beyond simple NIMBYism (the generic not-in-my-backyard attitude that can be found in many neighborhoods across the county). Here, it’s more pronounced, with bedrock roots driven deep by the heady combination of a population that’s well-educated, well-compensated and that sometimes has some spare time to explore the complexities of how to retain the highly valued status quo against all odds.

As one neighbor told the mayor and council, she moved to the neighborhood two years ago, attracted by its numerous trees and old homes with porches. There was no hint that there would be baseball at Albert Field, she complained. This, in essence, was not what she and her family had signed up for.

It’s an open question just how much a change the team would actually be. In the past, Albert Field played host to the Seals, a team made up of college players that played a full slate of games. Beer was served at the ballpark, and the city says it didn’t receive any complaints from neighbors about the lights, noise or intoxicated patrons mistaking Buicks for bathrooms.

Rick Wells, CEO of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, says his organization has taken the temperature of the business community on baseball. “More than 95 percent of the businesses that responded to the survey said they think professional baseball at Albert Field would be beneficial. The support is clear,” he says. “This proposal is about strengthening our local economy—more dollars circulating in the city and bringing the community together.”

End of the game?

As this issue goes to press, a decision regarding minor league baseball at Albert Field is still up in the air. After a series of meetings with neighbors and the community, the city has proposed conducting an environmental study of how baseball will coexist with the neighborhood.

The city would pick a firm to perform the study, which originally was thought would cost $30,000 to $40,000, and take perhaps four months to complete. But after CP took a closer look at what the parameters would look like, it was clear the organization wouldn’t be able to complete the study and get work done on the ballpark in time for the 2012 season. And with Centerfield estimating the cost of the study could climb as high as $70,000, the organization is trying to figure out if it can afford to play ball in San Rafael.

With 2012 already gone and the team wondering whether it could afford to bring pro ball to San Rafael, Centerfield brought a counterproposal to the city. It would scrap its plans to double the seating at Albert, and instead make do with the 700 seats already in the house. It would make parking free to encourage everybody to stay out of the Gerstle Park neighborhood. It would address the noise concerns by limiting music between innings.

The plan essentially mirrors what’s been in place for the Novato Knicks, a semi-pro team that has played at Albert Field over the years. And it reflects the use by the aforementioned Seals. In a way, it puts the city on the spot, since CP is no longer asking for anything more than what’s been allowed in the past.

At this writing, in the dog days of August, both Centerfield and the city are in modes of consideration. City Manager Nancy Mackle had this to say: “City staff recommended approval of the Centerfield concept as we seek to partner with others to bring events and activities to our community that we could not otherwise offer on our own. As with any proposals, we attempt to assess the benefits that would come to our community but also look at the potential impacts and have plans in place to mitigate them. We will continue to look at this proposal with Centerfield over the next few weeks”

As for Centerfield? Brian Sobel, who makes a living dealing with the media, was circumspect, only saying that Centerfield doesn’t know what will happen.

Were someone to suggest a wager on whether minor league baseball is coming to Albert Field, I have a Jackson that says if you want to see pro ball, you better hop the ferry to McCovey Cove.

The final score: Neighbors 1, baseball fans 0.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Let the Sun Shine In!

Having the warmth from the sun reach our property can bring us more than just a good feeling and keep our bodies warm. It can keep mold and mildew at bay and even increase our property values. And the emotional well being we derive from a summer's day has no price tag.

Many jurisdictions have sunlight ordinances. No, I mean real sunlight, the kind that comes from above. (Many also have "sunshine" ordinances, which are supposed to provide an open and transparent governance process, but that is a "whole 'nother story.") If your City has a tree and/or view ordinance, it may have a sunlight or solar access ordinance too. This means if you can document the existence of a view or sunlight that pre-existed your purchase of the property, you may be able to have trees blocking such a view or solar access thinned, trimmed or even removed.

There is generally a process invoving informal talks, attempts at mediation and often submission to a recommendation of a community "tree committee" before you have a right to bring a legal action to regain your lost light. Check with your town's Municipal Code (almost all the Municipal Codes for the whole United State can be found at http://www.municode.com/library/library.aspx )


Thursday, September 22, 2011

Tree Law on the Radio!

Tonight, Thursday, Sept. 22, 9 PM, PDT, for those of you in the San Francisco Bay Area (and sometimes the signal goes north to Seattle, south to LA) I will be on the Peter B. Collins show with hubby, "Tree Detective," Ray Moritz, to discuss what can go wrong with your trees, what damage can be done to them, and what you can do about it.

Tune in and call in with your questions. 810 on your AM dial. Or listen at http://www.kgoam810.com/article.asp?id=2101434

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Who ya gonna call when you got tree problems? Call the Tree Detective!

Here's an article about my husband, consulting arborist, fire ecologist, certified tree hazard assessor and urban forester, Ray Moritz. Got tree issues? He's the one for you. Got neighbor issues too? We work together on Tree Dispute Mediation.

Check it out.

Arborist Ray Moritz sees the forest for the trees

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Ray Moritz grew up in a prairie town in Illinois. He always loved trees, and in the second grade he took an aptitude test that concluded, "You should be a forester."

"I ignored that all the way through the first portion of college," Moritz says. "I wanted to go into biopsychology - the study of brain function. But then I started doing docent work at an arboretum on weekends and I thought, 'Wait a minute, this is what I want to do.' "

Moritz, 67, hasn't looked back. An arborist specializing in fire-prevention assessment and urban forestry consultation, he alternately calls himself a tree detective, a tree whisperer and a forensic forester. He's worked 36 years in his field

"I love what I do," Moritz says in the San Rafael office of his consulting firm, Urban Forestry Associates. "I can't imagine doing anything in retirement I would prefer to this. They'll have to carry me out of the woods feet first."

Fifty percent of his work is private consultation: advising homeowners on which trees to plant, how to treat diseased or pest-ridden trees, when trees should be left alone and when they're a safety hazard and need to be felled.

Another 25 percent of Moritz's work is fire-management consultation and the remaining 25 percent is forensics: investigating cases where someone poisons a neighbor's tree, for example, or determining how a tree or its limb crashed onto a person, house or car and who, if anyone, is at fault. He's often hired as an expert witness on tree-related disputes at civil trials.

Poisoning a neighbor's tree? Moritz says it happens all the time, "simply because they find the tree a nuisance. You'll hear people say, 'I don't like trees because they're dirty.' In most cases they are people who grew up in highly urbanized areas, then moved to the country and aren't used to having leaves and twigs around."

From 2004 to 2009, Moritz wrote a twice-monthly column, Ask the Arborist, for The Chronicle. "It was a lot of fun, but after each column, I would come into the office with great dread because when I opened my e-mail, there would be a lot of questions about trees. It was consuming a big portion of my time, and people would get upset if I didn't answer them."

The passion felt for our trees can lead to bad decisions. "Trees have great psychological meaning to people," Moritz says, "and one of the commonly mistaken notions is that trees are eternal. There are some trees that are awfully long-lived and, generally speaking, trees have longer life expectancies than people. But there are many trees that don't."

In the Bay Area, "there was a lot of grazing land when people first settled here. They wanted trees for shade and enjoyment and they wanted them fast. So they went out and got what I call the 'punk rockers' of the tree world: eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, poplars. The live-fast, die-young, be-a-beautiful-corpse trees."

The people who planted those trees in the early 20th century are long deceased, Moritz says, "and the current homeowners and cities are dealing with the decay and decline of those trees. In the past two years, I've had more wrongful-death cases caused by tree failures than in my entire prior career of over 30 years."

Moritz says that people get attached to trees, they dread their loss, and that when a tree is gone, they mourn it like a beloved friend. "When the tree has to go altogether, when I've made a hazard assessment and I recommend immediate removal, some people are reluctant and don't remove it. I make it clear to them that, once I have notified them of this high risk of failure, their liability changes should that tree damage someone else or their property."

Usually, people respond to an imminent hazard. "Yesterday, a homeowner noticed some cracks in the soils around a couple of Monterey pines. While the trees were not a particular threat to her house, they were on a steep slope, and they actually targeted her neighbor's house across the street.

"So I went out there and probed the soils and realized that the root plate of the tree was lifting up. That tree was essentially in the process of failure. I believe that tree is being taken out today."

3 simple rules

"Trees got along fine for millennia before there were arborists," says Ray Moritz. Although special care is needed in urban settings with the stresses of pavement, home construction and pollutants, he says that in general "there's much more work done on trees than necessary." Here are his three simple mistakes to avoid:

1. Don't overwater: The most common problem I encounter when I inspect trees is excessive irrigation - which is surprising in Marin County, where water costs practically as much as Chardonnay. The symptoms on a tree of inadequate water are very similar to the symptoms of too much water. So, people see a tree starting to die back, the leaves changing color and browning, and they'll think, "It needs more water." They put more water on it and the tree declines that much faster.

2. Don't overspray: Trees are well adapted to most native pathogens and insects. And those pests have natural enemies - typically other insects - that maintain a balance in the forest. If you consistently and abundantly use broad-spectrum pesticides, spraying the whole canopy repeatedly, you kill off the predators. You're actually making the problem worse.

3. Don't top your trees: Topping takes out the physiologically most productive portion of the canopy. You can reduce the extent and height of the canopy through crown reduction, where you take a branch back to a secondary branch that can ultimately take over as the leader. But, if you cut that branch off arbitrarily, it produces sprout growth. As the sprouts get large, becoming branches, they're easily torn away from the tree by wind or simply fail under their own weight.




Thursday, August 18, 2011

More on Tree Mediation

Property Issues Crop up in Many Different Venues

If you are a lawyer reading this, know that at some time in your legal career, you will come up against property questions. Maybe you are administering an estate and need to determine the true boundaries of the real property. Is there an easement for ingress and egress that appears to be abandoned, but creates a cloud on the title because it’s still there in the deed documents?

Does the neighbor have a menacing looking row of Eucalyptus trees leaning toward your client’s house? Has a fire turned the property into rubble and you’re not sure who is to blame?

Even the most simple personal injury case involving the classic failure to yield collision may have some property management implications. Was the yield sign or line of sight obscured because the adjacent property owner failed to maintain a hedge in reasonable condition?

Did Caltrans let those median pittosporums get too scraggly for proper driving conditions?

All these and more can require expert opinions and evaluations beyond the standard accident recreations or investigations you deal with every day.

There are a number of tree experts who testify on these issues, including forensic foresters, fire ecologists, consulting arborists and others. There are surveyors and land engineers who can help bolster your case. When power line clearances are at issue, or trees improperly trimmed by power company crews cause major fires, liability fingers can be pointed all around; and will be.

Tree Dispute Mediation:

The most frequent issue that arises in my practice is Tree versus View. In towns with prized views of the Bay, these disputes are frequent and often nasty. Neighbor is pitted against neighbor. Sometimes drastic action is taken by one neighbor to retain or obtain a view. I have known people to do midnight tree topping or poison their neighbor’s trees and plants while maintaining righteous indignation that those pesky trees had the nerve to grow into their expansive (and expensive) view.

I have seen people defend the rights of looming eucalyptus, scruffy Monterey pines and scraggly acacias to grow as high as they like, ignoring polite offerings to trim the trees or mediate.

Both sides will say “I don't care how much it costs. It’s the principle of the thing!" when given an estimate of the cost for legal wrangling, including experts, court fees, attorney and mediator fees.

There are no winners in these pitched battles. Neighbors become embittered toward one another no matter the outcome. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of trees, the privacy and screening they provide, shade and shelter, and just plain beauty. On the other hand, messy foliage blocking your view of the Bay may serve no other function then to annoy the viewer. Most often, these disputes build over time until one side cannot take it anymore and fireworks ensue.

Stop the Cycle

How to stop the cycle? Some towns have Tree Committees, made up of volunteers, who will hear disputes and offer advisory opinions. Unfortunately, these citizen boards are composed of lay people, often with little or no understanding of botany or appreciation for the amenities the right trees can provide. Seldom do the disputes end amicably.

And neighbors hesitate to mediate their problems, fearing yet another round of “let’s make a deal” when all they want is what they see to be their rights: “My property, my trees.” “My property, my view.”

Something New - Mediation with a Twist

Twenty years of these same arguments and counterarguments have prompted me to try something new. Our firm, Green Legal Solutions, now offers mediation with a twist. We have teamed up with a consulting arborist and certified hazard tree assessor to act as neutral in mediation on tree issues. Will it work? Only if people are willing to listen to a “scientific” assessment of the problem. If they do, and if they can suspend their own personal animosity, maybe, just maybe, they can find the right compromise that will work. Otherwise, they will be back to hiring their own dueling arborists, go to more mediation and settlement conferences, maybe even to trial, to achieve something that is likely to look very much like what they could have achieved for far less in money, time and aggravation.

Tree Dispute Mediation: Try it in your next tree case.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

City Blinks First on Albert Park Pro Ball Issue

The City of San Rafael has been poised to approve a controversial proposal to bring pro baseball to the community's Albert Park field located adjacent to the densely populated Gerstle Park neighborhood. Currently, the ballfield hosts many youth and adult baseball teams throughout Marin and the Bay Area, a number of whom will be displaced by a pro team's use of the field. The proposal by Centerfield Partners (CP), of Dublin, California, would essentially allow the private for-profit company free rein with the public park, including doubling the seating capacity, using the park for at least 15 weekends from late May through early Autumn. Residents in Gerstle Park and the Southern Heights neighborhood have raised concerns over parking, traffic congestion on local streets and increased noise reverberating up to hillside dwellers.

Amplified music, concession stands in park open space and a grove of redwood trees and the sale of alcohol, have added to the residents' complaints, forcing them to hire attorneys, take up petitions and form an association, dedicated to pressuring the Council to perform necessary environmental review.

The association, Communities for Albert Park (CAP), has won the first skirmish in what may be a protracted baseball war. Previously the Council as well as the parks and Rec Department had insisted the project was exempt from review under California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

After repeated hearings, letters and testimony from attorneys retained by CAP, including land use attorney Dotty LeMieux, whose office is in Gerstle Park, the City grudgingly agreed to perform the first step in CEQA review, the preparation of an Initial Study, which will be used to determine whether a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or a less detailed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental Impact (Neg. Dec.) is required.

At least the subcommittee made up of Council member Damon Connolly and Mayor Al Boro so agreed. The full Council will vote on Monday night whether to take this step. It should have come months ago. But it is a step in the right direction, and CAP applauds the City for relenting (though the City maintains it is not required, and agreed to it only after CP, realizing it was bucking a strong and well organized community group, whose good will they need to succeed, agreed to fund the study).

This study will not answer all the community's questions and may well raise more, but as Attorney Dotty LeMieux said, "We are grateful to the Mayor for realizing this the the right thing to do for the City and for the environment." She added, "We will however, be sure to make our wished known for what the Initial Study should look at in order to assure the best information is provided and the City doesn't simply use a cookie cutter checklist to justify not doing a full environmental review for this major change in use of a popular public facility."

Thursday, July 21, 2011

More on Privatization of Albert Park

Article in IJ gives just a snapshot of the hearing at the City Council Monday night. We learned that this business entity, Centerfield Partners, wants to open 4 Bay Area pro ball teams, and that the City will be subsidizing this one to the tune of at least $25,000. No benefits to the City or business were outlined, save a feel good appeal to civic pride and kids' (and grown ups) desire to watch baseball. Many of these minor league ball teams have failed and take local businesses with them.

Why not set up a local non-profit Friends of Albert Park instead? Raise money the old fashioned way and keep our local teams playing in San Rafael.

Article below. I am helping the local citizens who want real environmental and fiscal review before approval:


San Rafael council delays Albert Park pro baseball decision
Click photo to enlarge
The Marin Academy High School varsity baseball team warms up before their game against Drew High...

After more than three hours of public comment and presentations — and one near-scuffle, the San Rafael City Council put off voting on a plan to bring professional baseball to Albert Park.

The council opted to delay weighing in on the proposal from Centerfield Partnership to start a new North American League team in San Rafael shortly after midnight, citing the late hour and still unanswered questions.

"In light of the hour, I don't think it would be very prudent to continue," Mayor Al Boro said. Boro noted that he and Councilman Damon Connolly would work as a sub-committee with city employees to bring the issue back in two to four weeks.

"What I'd really like to see happen is to see Centerfield Partnership meet with some of the neighbors" before that meeting, Councilman Greg Brockbank added.

During the at-times tense meeting, audience members cheered, hissed and booed during employee and applicant presentations and public comment. Two men on opposite sides of the issue appeared to be on the verge of a fist fight at one point, with one exclaiming "Let's go" and then alerting police officers in the building lobby about the "knucklehead" inside.

However, everything ended peacefully, and most of the approximately 300 people who packed the chambers and a seating area in the building's lobby listened and spoke calmly despite the crowd.

Under the proposal, Centerfield Partnership would lease the lighted baseball diamond,

which dates to the 1950s, from the city on a non-exclusive basis. It would also spruce up the 700-seat grandstand structure, add temporary seating for up to 800 more fans, upgrade the bathrooms and locker rooms and put in modern netting behind home plate, among other improvements. Centerfield plans to apply for a liquor license but wouldn't serve beer and wine after the seventh inning in accordance with major- and minor-league protocol, company officials have said. It would provide security and cleanup services as well as paid parking for about 700 cars in the San Rafael Corporate Center's Seagate lot.

The team's approximately 45 home games would take place between late May and mid-September, with games starting at 7:15 p.m. on week nights and Saturdays, at 7:30 p.m. on Fridays and at 1:05 p.m. on Sundays. The city expects to pull in between $4,000 to $12,000 a year in net revenue from the agreement, which covers a three-year period.

The plan hasn't sat well with everyone, and some neighbors have hired an attorney over concerns about traffic, parking, lighting, noise, alcohol consumption and general rowdiness. Opponents also expressed concerns Monday night that the city would actually lose money on the proposition.

"My concern is how much the city, who just asked their employees to take a cut in pay, is committing themselves," said Ray Moritz, who owns a forestry business on Willow Street near Albert Field . "It seems like the city's not getting a really good deal here."

Dotty LeMieux, an attorney representing some opponents, said she was worried that Centerfield was only looking to turn a profit.

"This is not a San Rafael team," LeMieux said. "These players don't live in San Rafael. This business is not a San Rafael business. San Rafael's not getting anything from this."

Meanwhile, resident Alezz Laielen said she wanted the city to look into potential negative effects the public address system and other baseball noise might have on residents' hearing and health.

"I can certainly feel sometimes the percussions from the farmers market," Laielen said. "Even people that aren't even aware of chronic noise, it damages their immune system. It's causing heart attacks."

But resident Barry Taranto suggested opponents were thinking of minor league baseball in exaggerated terms.

"We're not talking about Barry Bonds playing in every game, and we're not talking about rock concerts," Taranto said.

Resident Mike Lewis, another supporter, called the proposal a "fantastic opportunity for the city of San Rafael and the local downtown community to have a ballpark.

"Anything you can do to help out our downtown is fantastic," he said.

Eric Ahern, a 12-year-old Hall Middle School student dressed as a box of popcorn, stayed at the meeting until almost midnight with a group of friends in peanut, cracker jacks and hot dog costumes.

"Putting a minor league baseball team in Marin is putting smiles and joy on kids' faces and giving them something to do," Eric said. "The location is ideal and practical because kids can either bike or"...walk."

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Privatization Scheme for San Rafael's Albert Park

A private outfit wants to privatize most of the use of Albert Park ballfield, a community field in San Rafael, mostly used by youth and amateur tams now, for a minor league Baseball team, that does not yet exist. They want heavy city subsidies, increased seating (more than double) concession stand, which serve alcohol, parking, loss of the amenity for most of the public use; and of course, the will charge admission, and pay minimal rent to the city.

All with no environmental review whatsoever. Nor economic analysis. At least Target had to do that. Sholdn't they have to go through at the very least the design review you must go through for any minor ome improvement projects? What's wrong with this picture.

Oh, and the capper, this outfit has no experience starting teams; its CEO is a travel and aviation expert. A Sonoma political operative is consultant, along with one guy who also consults with other teams. Where is heir business plan? Who will attend these games? ow much will they cost? How much is parking?

Lots of unanswered questions. Hearing on July 18, City Council chambers, San Rafael. Call, write to your council member today! Tell them you want an EIR and Economic Impact Report.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Friends of the Garden file suit in San Mateo

Can you say "Pave paradise to put up a parking lot" kids? Not just a song, it's happening all over the place. Here's today's Chron story on how San Mateo Community College students and neighbors are fighting back:

Suit filed to preserve College of San Mateo garden

Students and neighbors of the College of San Mateo who enjoy visiting a tangled campus garden sued the college district and its trustees in San Mateo County Superior Court on Friday in a last-ditch effort to save thousands of square feet of greenery from being turned into a parking lot.

Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens, a loose-knit group that has fought the paving plan for months, say in their suit that San Mateo County Community College District trustees failed to perform a state-required environmental review before approving the plan last month.

"The district unlawfully approved a project with potentially significant environmental impacts without preparing" the report required by the California Environmental Quality Act, according to the complaint.

The project will result, the suit said, in the destruction of a "well-used, much-loved cultural landscape that now provides the only mature green area on campus conducive to reading and walking ... and support for wildlife." The garden was planted in 1963.

While district officials declined to comment on the suit's specifics, they defended the project, saying they intend to remove just 13,500 out of 50,000 square feet of garden.

"Our board believes the community college district has acted lawfully," said Richard Holober, president of the Board of Trustees.

Legal advice

Both an attorney and a consultant advised the district that a full environmental review was not required because the district wasn't proposing a new development, but only a modification of an existing project approved in 2006, said Barbara Christiansen, spokeswoman for the college district.

That original project called for preserving the garden, some greenhouses and Building 20, a 48-year-old structure housing a floristry program with just four students and a horticulture program that has been on hiatus for two years because of budget cuts.

College officials argue that Building 20 is no longer needed because new classrooms have been built elsewhere on campus. New labs and office space, along with a facility that can be rented to the public, require additional parking.

"As a result, the (college) administration decided that it would be best to demolish Building 20 and the associated green houses; construct approximately 125-200 parking spaces (replacing 30-40 spaces now there); and retain most of the garden area to be used by science classes," Christiansen wrote in a letter being sent out to anyone who expresses concern about the garden.

Case for full review

The students and neighbors suing the college district dispute that version of events in one key respect: They say the demolition project is not a modification, but a new project - one that ultimately will include the construction of an amphitheater - and therefore requires a full environmental review.

The group cites negative impacts of the project on wildlife habitat, water quality and campus aesthetics, and even cautions about the production of greenhouse gases.

In their lawsuit, the group says the college district also provided inadequate public notice of its intentions and asks the court to stop the project.

The suit also quotes an unnamed English instructor who wrote the college expressing appreciation for the garden.

The letter describes the doomed garden as "the only place left on campus where students, faculty, and staff can go to get away from the concrete and rigid plots of monoculture plantings that have taken over the campus."

It's a place "where we can enjoy nature's kindness, bounty, and wonder, relax, sit on the grass, and leisurely explore and experience its mini-climates and ecosystems so carefully nurtured over the past 40 years."

E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Friday, June 03, 2011

Tree Dispute Mediation - A New Service of our Law Firm

Green Legal Solutions, the law office of Dotty LeMieux, is pleased to announce the addition to her property law practice the Mediation of Tree and Vegetation disputes.

Joining her is urban forester and consulting arborist Ray Moritz, well known throughout California for his forensic skills in analyzing tree failure, hazards, disease, view vista pruning and valuation for thorny legal cases. Moritz has been an expert witness in hundreds of cases involving tree and view disputes, tree damage trespass, wildland fires, property damage and wrongful death involving trees. He has also served as a neutral expert in mediations through the former Marin Community Mediation Service and participated in dozens of mediations for clients.

LeMieux specializes in litigation involving tree and view disputes, property and land use issues, as well as public interest environmental law emphasizing work upholding the California Environmental Quality Act. She has been trained in Dispute Resolution and Environmental Mediation as well as work in transactional analysis.

This unique new Tree Dispute Mediation service offers help to neighbors, insurance companies, public agencies and private companies before or during litigation for optimum results. A neutral evaluation of your tree issue, early in the process can save all parties time and money and result in a fair disposition of often prickly disputes involving neighbors and their trees.

Blog readers may post a comment or email me for more information. Or visit us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tree-Dispute-Mediation-a-service-of-Green-Legal-Solutions/134208029947107