2007-01-16 5-B Power PointAppeal of Public Works Director's Second Final Decision
Reversing First Final Decision Regarding Street Trees on
Shoreline Drive
i
Presented By: Robert C. Matz
Attorney, Applicant, and Representative of
Directly- affected Homeowners at The Willows
1
Arguments in Staff Report
Applicants Bought Units After Trees
Planted, "Should Have Known" Views
Blocked, and Should Pay for Trimming
Master Tree Plan Does Not Protect Views
OK for City to Reverse First Final Decision
Why Trimming These Trees Won't Work
2
"Applicants Bought Units After
Trees Planted; Should Have Known
Views Would Be Blocked"
• In June 2006 Application, October 2006 Protest
Hearing, December 2006 Protest Hearing, and
December 2006 Appeal, Applicants Explained
Most Bought Units Before Street Trees Were
Planted
And yet, January 2007 Staff Report Inexplicably
(and Falsely) Asserts Applicants Bought Units
After Street Trees Were Planted and Therefore
They "Should Have Known" Views Would Be
Blocked
3
ilLiving Room Obstructed 50+ % - Dining Room Obstructed 80%
iiit.,
Living Room Obstructed More Than 60%
•
The View From The Balcony Toward Bay Farm Island
View From The Balcony Toward San Francisco
Here, City Placed Trees to Preserve View
Here, City Placed Trees with No Regard for View
Master Tree Plan Doesn't Protect Views
SHORELINE DRIVE
Street Character
The nature of Shoreline Drive
is very different From other
streets as it affords sweeping
views of the San Francisco
Bay and of the San Francisco
skyline. It is protected from
some buffeting at its southern
end by th c Bay Farrn Island
iR ordcr to prcsrvc vicws.
commercial development. Its streelscape image is dominated by its wide open feeling and
Bay view, which help to mitigate the height of the buildings along its north side, versus the
horizontal character of the beach on the south.
Existing trees Planting Recommendations
Pirt05-penjrn undulatam, MxkOrange NOrcpiaccat'ens
Niyopara
tvScrrosideros ewcelsus. Ne■% Zealand Xmas Tree
order to prescrve views.
Mayor and City Council Have Stated
"Views Should Be Protected"
4/4/06 City Council Meeting — Development of Waterfront Property
Councilman DeHaan "Inquired whether trees would be smaller
to provide a view."
City Planning Director Responded "smaller accent trees would
be used... and arranged to preserve views."
Applicant "Alameda is a water - oriented community; every
Phase 1 property owner has a view; Phase 2 owners would also
have a view."
Councilman Mattarese stated "the buildings all have good
views... [goal is to] maximize use of the waterfront."
Mayor Johnson "the plan maximizes the views from the
buildings and creates an open -space feeling; the designs are
nice."
Councilman Mattarese "condominiums are important to the City
and allow ten owners to own space instead of just lease."
12
Real Estate Listings Market View
Makes Good Economic Sense
Trees Removed /Replaced Without Applying to City
NATLAS i'
Alft CDNDITIONING
m...u..M.u„e.om
Removed /Replaced Street Trees with Smaller Species
OK for City to Reverse First Final Decision
•
"Any person aggrieved by the final determination of the
Director may appeal to the City Council at the next
scheduled Council Meeting." Page V -7, Master Tree Plan
City Issued Final Determination on October 12, 2006
Since October 12, 2006, City Held Three Scheduled
Council Meetings and No Appeal Was Lodged
Council Met on October 17, 2006 — No Appeal Filed
Council Met on November 14, 2006 — No Appeal Filed
=:P Council Met on November 21, 2006 — No Appeal Filed
October 24, 2007 Karen Stern and Peter Taylor Wrote to
Councilman Mattarese stating Applicants Had "Used the
machinery of city government to satisfy the whim of a few
individuals. .. vulgar miscarriage of our democratic
system."
Mattarese responds "We should not be reducing the
number of trees in this city...I will contact city
manager... [because] there are certainly options that keep
trees at these locations." 18
False and Misleading Article in Alameda Journal
Condo residents protest
planned tree removal
■ City plans to take out
New Zealand Christmas
trees as soon as
replacements are purchased
By Alan Lopez
STAFF \VRITF.R
Two Shore Line Drive resi-
dents are pleading with city offi-
cials to not cut down a stand of
otherwise healthy New Zealand
Christmas trees outside of their
condominium complex.
Eight of the mature trees are
found on the sidewalk abutting
the south end of the Willows
Condominium Complex and
have been slated for removal
JF AN COPPUUVSTAFF
STERN stands by the stand of New Zealand Christmas trees on Shore Line
neer her home in The 'Willows condominium cornplex. Stern hopes to convince the
St9p ile peen to cut down, the trees that she has enjoyed for almost a dozen years.
The city's public works
partment notified neighbors of
the tree removal plan and held a
meeting to hear public
on Oct. 3 Thirteen peo
tended, according to an Oct.
letter from public works Super-
intendent Pete J. Carrai.
'After a discussion among
those in attendance and after due
consideration of t
rented, it has been
that themes will be
replacement trees p
rai wrote in a lett
Those rep
letter notes, will grow
and less quickly than the
MRS
Inaccuracies In Alameda Journal Article
"Condo Residents Protest Removal"
♦ All Directly- affected Homeowners and Even Opponent Supported Removal
"Karen Stern Stands By... Her Home in The Willows Condominium Complex"
Ms. Stern Does Not Live at The Willows; She Rents an Apartment at Shoreline
Apartments; Doesn't Have Same Problems
• "Trees Aren't Damaging Property"
• Homeowner /Applicants Provided Overwhelming Evidence They Are Damaging
Both Public and Private Property — Exceeds Requirements
• "Only `A Little Portion of Their View Might Be Obstructed '
♦ All Have Over 50% Obstruction; Some Have Over 90% Obstruction
• Only "Some Units" Would Benefit
• 100% of Directly- affected Homeowners Would Benefit
• Many Original Owners, Most Pre -date Master Tree Plan
• Mattarese "condominiums are important to the City and allow ten owners to own space instead
of just lease."
Ms. Stern's Own Apartment Complex Violated Master Tree Plan to Keep Trees Below Sight Line
and Yet Shre Complains When Homeowners (not renters) Ask For Same From City!
20
Ms.
Stern's Apartment Complex Topped Trees to Preserve Views
IMF '1i
LAW
J2
li'+Suuu ll
iiiiiiii
21
Can't We Just Trim the Trees?
What Reversal Will Stand For?
OK For City to Circumvent Stated Procedure Under Master Tree Plan
and Reverse Itself on Basis of Incomplete Information, Private Letters,
Telephone Calls, and a False, Misleading, and Poorly- researched
Article in the Alameda Journal
Personal Opinions and Self - proclaimed Causes of Unaffected Renters
(Whose Own Complex Violated Master Tree Plan) Means More Than
Months of Public Notice and Public Comment and Actual Evidence
Submitted from Certified Arborist, Real Estate Expert, Former City
Planner, and Directly- affected Homeowners
City Willing to Protect Views on Bay Farm Island But Not on Main
Island
OK for City to Make Others Pay for Problems It Created
23
If Council Decides to Try Trimming First, Allow
Homeowners to Come Back to Council if Compromise
Doesn't Work
It's Taken Seven Months to Get Here; Shouldn't Have to
Start From Scratch If Compromise Doesn't Work
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!
24