Trees in the News

Trees that go bad, or bad trees.  It's all depends on where you sit.  Here are some late breaking stories about trees vs. people (bad tree, bad landlord), and trees v. view - in Seattle, where no trees have yielded yet in the ongoing battle.

Enjoy.

From the Redlands Daily Facts:

Landlord found responsible after tree branch falls, injures Crestline tenant

Lori Fowler, Staff Writer

Posted:   11/10/2012 02:37:31 PM PST

SAN BERNARDINO - A Crestline woman was awarded nearly $3 million after a jury found her landlord responsible for life-altering injuries she received because of a fallen tree limb. Sabrina Buelna, now 34, was hurt when the 700-pound tree branch fell on her in the front yard of the home she and her husband rented from Mick Hill, a landlord who owned other properties in the area. 

On July 16, 2010, they were outside barbecuing when they heard the 100-year-old Black Oak tree on the property start to crack. Their toddler was sitting beneath the tree.
Buelna was able to push the child out of the way, but the branch came down on her her foot, which was crushed under its weight and nearly had to be amputated, said lawyers from DeWitt Algorri & Algorri, the Pasadena law firm that represented the family. 

She went through months of treatment and wracked up almost $300,000 in medical bills.
Buelna is still undergoing physical therapy and now walks with a cane. Her husband had to quit his job to take care of her, said Patrick Nolan, an assistant attorney in the trial.
After the incident, officials came out and discovered the tree was completely rotted to the core, and it had been that way for years. 

The plaintiff's claim Farmer's Insurance initially denied liability when the two parties started going back and forth. 

"The offers were not enough," Nolan said. 

But Mark Toohey, a spokesman for Farmers Insurance,said the company made multiple attempts to settle this case before the trial started. 

"All of our attempts were rejected by the plaintiff," he said. 

The two sides went to trial early last month where Hill admitted that he had not conducted a state-required inspection for dangerous conditions before the Buelna family moved in to the mountain home. 

"Landlords have a duty to do a reasonable inspection of the property," Nolan said.
Hill argued that the fallen branch looked healthy from the outside and he could not have known of the rot. 

But during the trial, Buelna's lawyers said Hill had run a tree removal service as part of his real estate development background and that the defendant had at one point described himself as a tree expert. 

"Mr. Hill never described himself as a tree expert," Toohey said Thursday. "He removed trees as part of preparation of a site in his duties as a general contractor."
On Oct. 25 jurors came back with their verdict - that Hill was responsible for the damage and the victim would receive $2.9 million. 

"While we respect the jury's decision, we disagree with the verdict and we intend to explore our post-trial options," Toohey said. 

This personal injury case is a clear warning to all landlords, Nolan said.
"Landlord have a duty to inspect their properties for dangerous conditions before they turn it over to their tenants," Nolan said. 

"Under the law, a tenant has the right to expect the property is free of any dangerous conditions." 

lori.fowler@inlandnewspapers.com

from the Seattle Times 

Oleruds' appraisal: Tree cuts value of house by $255,000

A Chinese pine on the edge of Bruce and Linda Baker's Clyde Hill property is worth $18,400, based on an arborist's calculation of the cost to replace the rare tree. But the tree has reduced the value of John and Kelly Olerud's house across the street by $255,000 because it blocks much of their westerly view, according to a recent appraisal.

By Keith Ervin

Seattle Times staff reporter

.

STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES

A Chinese pine on the edge of Bruce and Linda Baker's Clyde Hill property is worth $18,400, based on an arborist's calculation of the cost to replace the rare tree.

But the tree drops the value of John and Kelly Olerud's house across the street by $255,000 because it blocks much of their westerly view, according to a recent appraisal.

John Olerud, a former Seattle Mariner, American League batting champion and three-time Gold Glove winner, commissioned the appraisal to bolster his request that the city order the tree removed under Clyde Hill's view-protection ordinance.

The Oleruds have been attempting for more than two years to persuade — or force — the Bakers to cut down two trees that diminish their hillside view of Lake Washington, Seattle and the Olympic Mountains.

The Bakers have refused.

The city Board of Adjustment will hold a second hearing Wednesday on the Oleruds' request for an order to cut the trees down. The board has never issued a removal order since the "view obstruction and tree removal" ordinance was adopted in 1991.

A survey submitted by the Oleruds two weeks ago said the Chinese pine and a Colorado spruce behind it block 40 percent of what would otherwise be a 30-degree western view from a porch off the family room. The view isn't wider because of other trees on the hillside, including a cedar on the Bakers' land.

If the pine and spruce were cut down, the value of the Oleruds' 12-room, 6,680-square-foot hillside home would rise from $4.045 million to $4.3 million, appraisers Patrick Lamb and Barry Wilson calculated.

Property values are closely associated with views in Clyde Hill, a city of almost 3,000 between Bellevue and Medina.

The Bakers' Chinese pine, possibly 50 years old, was there long before the Oleruds bought the property across the street in 2006 and built their luxury house.

The Bakers have cut down a coast redwood; agreed to remove the spruce, valued at $4,800; and pruned the Chinese pine in a way intended to allow some of the view to show through. But they don't want to part with the pine, which they see as beautiful and the Oleruds call an eyesore.

The Oleruds' house is separated from the Bakers' by a street and a grassy lot owned by the Oleruds. The King County assessor rates the view from the Olerud house as "average," the view from the Bakers' $1.1 million house as "excellent."

The board can order the Bakers' trees removed if it finds they unreasonably obstruct the Oleruds' views. Among the factors the board may consider are how much of the view is blocked, whether landmarks are obscured, how the Oleruds' property value is affected, and how the trees and the views they obstruct affect both families' enjoyment of their properties.
Arborist Brian Gilles, hired by the Oleruds, urged the board to order the trees removed, calling them "a quintessential example of why the law was enacted."

Gilles wrote it would not be hard to find small trees or large shrubs that would serve as appropriate replacements for the trees, but Bruce Baker said tree brokers couldn't provide a pine small enough to give the Oleruds a fuller view but large enough to satisfy the Bakers.
Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105

or kervin@seattletimes.com

 

 

Follow up on Pete's Harbor

The fight continues. It's on the City Council. Reminds of the houseboat wars that raged for years over Gate 5 liveaboards in Sausalito.  We helped broker a settlement that got many of the residents new slips; some just could not compromise.  I hope they can keep the community together. Carol Nolte is doing a good job of presenting the issues in the Chron.  Here's today's installment:

 Pete's Harbor condominium plan advances

Carl Nolte

Updated 10:12 p.m., Wednesday, October 31, 2012

0
inShare

Comments (3)

 

The tenants who live aboard boats at Pete's Harbor in Redwood City were trying to figure out Wednesday what to do next, after their attempt to halt a big development that would force them to move was turned down by the city's Planning Commission.

The commission voted unanimously late Tuesday to approve a 411-unit condominium development at the landmark marina. Unless they win an appeal to the City Council or a possible public vote, more than 50 people who live in floating homes will have to clear out by mid-January.

The commissioners listened sympathetically at a public hearing to the pleas of the residents of Pete's Harbor, who said the condo development would mean the end of a pleasant way of life that has been part of the Redwood City bayfront for more than 50 years. They have received eviction notices effective Jan. 15.

But in the end, the planning board determined that the proposed development meets Redwood City zoning requirements and the requirements of the city's general plan. The vote was 7-0.
"There was not one of the commissioners who didn't feel sympathetic" to the problems of the tenants who live in the marina, said Ernie Schmidt, the commission's chairman.

But he said the commission only has the authority to consider planning matters. "We have a very defined role," Schmidt said, "and these other matters are not in our purview."

In sometimes emotional testimony, the tenants argued that Pete's Harbor offered rare affordable living space, and that they have no other place to go.

Alison Madden, a spokeswoman for the tenants, said the group would appeal the decision to the City Council. All Planning Commission decisions may be appealed within 15 days.
If the council allows the development, she said, the tenants may decide to circulate a petition to require a public vote on the issue. A much larger development proposal - for a 1,900-unit condo complex - was turned down by Redwood City voters in 2004.

Pete's Harbor was constructed by Pete Uccelli in 1958. Uccelli died in 2005 and his widow, Paula, now owns the harbor. The development would be built by Pauls Corp. of Denver.

Carl Nolte is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: cnolte@sfchronicle.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pete-s-Harbor-condominium-plan-advances-3998682.php#ixzz2AzeoMaJP

Rich vs. poor, on Pete's Harbor

Today's Chron tells about the age old struggle between the haves and have nots, or have not much, soon to be less. The lure of the water and a modest boat tied up to the dock allows those without much to have some sense of home and freedom.  Here's what happening in Redwood City at Pete's Harbor: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Pete-s-Harbor-development-sparks-fight-3991837.php 

Pete's Harbor development sparks fight

Carl Nolte

Published 9:49 p.m., Monday, October 29, 2012

1 of 6

View: Larger | Hide

• 
  About half of the 144 people living on boats when Pete's Harbor management sent eviction notices last month have left. Photo: Michael Short, Special To The Chronicle / SF

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

0
inShare

Comments (18)

Larger | Smaller

Printable Version

Email This
Font

There are two versions of the California dream. In one, you live in a new bayside apartment close to Silicon Valley, with a view of the bay and the hills. In the other you live in a boat on the dock of the bay, in a community of boaters.
In the one version, your home is only a short commute from work. In the other, you can slip the dock lines on your home and sail off into the sunset.
The two visions are at the heart of a dispute at Pete's Harbor, a charming small marina just off Bayshore Freeway in Redwood City.
Paula Uccelli, the owner of the harbor and the widow of Pete Uccelli, who built the harbor in 1958, wants to sell Pete's to a developer who is planning to build a 411-unit apartment complex.
The development would mean the end of the way of life for about 50 or so people who live aboard boats at Pete's. They've been given eviction notices and have to move by Jan. 15.
The boaters, a close-knit group that is almost like a family, are fighting the development. A decision is expected when the issue comes up before the Redwood City Planning Commission meeting starting at 7 p.m Tuesday.

Previous plan lost

This is not the first battle over the future of Pete's Harbor. In 2001, Pete Uccelli sold an option on the property to a developer who planned a 1,900-unit condominium complex and private marina on the site. That plan was turned down after a Redwood City election battle in 2004.
The current plan calls for a much smaller development, but it has stirred up the same emotions.
"This is my home," said Buckley Stone, who lives with his wife, Wendy, and a cat aboard a 41-foot sailboat. "I've lived in Redwood City for 20 years. This is my town, I eat here, I shop here, I vote here."
Like the others, Stone says he has nowhere else to go. Because of legal restrictions, berths where boaters can live aboard are hard to come by. "Finding one is like playing musical chairs," said Bob Pearson, who also lives on a boat at Pete's. "When the music stops there just aren't enough chairs."
There are two attractions to living on a boat. One is lifestyle. "We all watch out for each other and help each other out," Stone said.
Another is affordability. Pete's charges $7.50 a foot for berth rental, plus a $250 live-aboard fee, which means someone can live on a small boat for less than $600 a month.
"There's a lot of hard-working people here," said Pearson. "We're not talking about a gang of ruffians. No drugs here. None of that."
The development would also probably mean the end of a community of people who live in recreational vehicles, who are parked all around the edge of the harbor.
There were 144 people living on boats when Pete's Harbor management set the eviction deadline last month. Half of them have left; the harbor has put yellow warning tape on the vacated berths. It looks as if the empty berths were quarantined.

Developer blamed

The harbor tenants all say good things about the Uccelli family. They have always helped out people who had problems, they say. Pete Uccelli died in 2005. The worst thing the tenants will say about his widow is that she doesn't come around the docks much anymore.
Instead, they blame the developer, the Pauls Corp. of Denver, which they portray as a heartless corporation, in it for the money.
But any observer can see the way things are going along the shoreline. The old Peninsula Marina, just up the road, gave way to condos just recently.
It's a development called One Marina. "One marina down, one to go," the tenants say.
Redwood City and the Peninsula are riding a high-tech wave, and homes in the $500,000 range are hard to come by.
Ted Hannig, a spokesman for Paula Uccelli, said Pete's Harbor has been on the market for 10 years.
"Everybody has been on a month-to-month lease since 2002, so this should not have been a surprise," he said.
The tenants, he said, "knew change was coming, but they don't like change. It's emotional, it's unpleasant."
Hannig said the new development "will be a wonderful place to live." Building it, he said, would create 2,000 jobs, and when it is finished it will bring in $2.4 million a year in property tax, instead of the $16,000 a year the marina pays now. That money will go to the community, to schools.

'Good for community'

"Pete's Harbor has been family owned for 60 years and Mrs. Uccelli is very comfortable with the plan. It will be good for the community."
The tenants say they are not against all development, just the one under consideration. They would like to see it scaled back. "We are open to change," said Leslie Webster, who lives at Pete's. "As long as it is reasonable change."
They want a harbor and a marina and some kind of housing at Pete's. But mostly, they want to stay.
"Sometimes, we just pull out of the harbor, and go up the slough a bit and drop the hook and just be alone," Stone said. "I fell in love with living on a boat a long time ago."

Carl Nolte is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: cnolte@sfchronicle.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pete-s-Harbor-development-sparks-fight-3991837.php#ixzz2Ao319E36

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.