Hanes also said it’s the way the city has handled the situation that has she and her family upset. According to Hanes, the city has tried to build a case against the family and referred to them in a derogatory manner, labeling them the “pig people” in some of the city correspondence. Councilwoman Casey Lucius has even spoken up on behalf of the family.
City arborist said the tree was fine and had a lot of life left in it. Arborist just might be a moron.
The top of the tree took out his children’s zipline and the family’s bench swing. Penchan said he is happy it was him and the dog in the backyard and not one of his three children, who may not have recognized the sound.
Penchan said he and his realtor had already asked the city for a permit to remove the tree twice.
“It should have never gotten this far. This was an issue we brought up first in November,” he said.
Penchan and his wife bought the home on Walnut Street at the end of 2014. In November, their real estate agent, John Carminati, with Jones Group, expressed concerns about the tree and filed for a permit to remove the tree. Carminati said the city lost that application.
Preservating? Sounds like something dirty one would do in vacant buildings over in Stockton.
DAN CORT, Director
Home: Pacific Grove
Business Background: CEO of the Cort Companies; preservating and renovating historic real estate in Northern California for the past 30 years
Thanks to Esther for the tip
The changes would allow private property owners to replace cut-down trees with suitable trees listed by the city’s Natural Resources Committee as appropriate, though not necessarily the same species as those lost, and eliminate the “two-for-one” replacement requirement.
They hold the city to a higher standard of replacing trees, Frutchey said, noting Pacific Grove hasn’t kept up with the loss of trees on public property. Schematics included in the ordinance proposal noted a decline in the city’s tree canopy cover from 33 percent to 20 percent of its land area since 1986.
A revised tree ordinance that would do away with criminal penalties could come before the Pacific Grove City Council for approval next spring.
The ordinance would offer incentives for property owners to plant and maintain trees and would allow private property owners to pay to trim city trees.
Common sense comes to the tree policy – we can learn a lot from a ‘moron’.
The proposals include measures to give more discretion about tree pruning and removal to property owners, and allow them to have a tree expert determine whether a tree is sufficiently unhealthy to cut down, rather than leaving that decision up to city officials.
They also call for an end to criminal penalties and limit any penalties to civil fines.
Resident that was once called a “moron” by the runaway mayor Dan Cort is authoring the revision in the city’s policy on tree removal.
“I want to be safe in my own yard,” said Del Monte Park-area resident Georgia Booth, who was a founder of Residents for Responsible Change and co-author of a proposed revision of the tree ordinance — which got a lot of votes from workshop participants. “Large canopy trees don’t belong in small Pacific Grove yards.”
Eliminating the two-for-one replacement requirement was a top vote-getter, as were proposals that property owners, not the city, decide when a hazardous tree should be removed, that no permit fee for it should be charged, and that property owners who plant a tree may remove it
without a permit.
Remember the lady that Dan Cort called ‘moron’ over challenging the tree policy?
They argue that the city’s authority to regulate tree planting should be limited to the public spaces it owns and maintains: greenbelts and parks.
“From Eardley to First,” said resident Michael Clark, “is a solid hedge of trees. One of the treasures of the city is its views.”
Michael Clark is a bit blind – a low row of neatly trimmed oaks and one lopped eucalyptus fill the strip between those streets. Is Clark referring to the views of trees or the view from his vinyl clad windows?
Admin was recently sent a postcard about a missing tree or two. But it’s missing the target like so many other things the city aims at. The letter is addressed to “Homeowner” at the intended address. Nice gesture, but the homeowner does not live there.
The ordinance was last reviewed 4½ years ago, said committee Vice Chairman Thom Akeman, and the current version was adopted by the City Council in September 2007.
Resident Georgia Booth, who was issued a tree removal permit and crossed swords with Akeman during his compliance inspection of her property last fall, said she has found two versions of the ordinance online, with strikeouts and additions. Others who attended the committee meeting said they didn’t have computers in their homes and needed printed copies.
After hearing complaints last month about Pacific Grove’s tree removal and replacement law, Mayor Dan Cort has asked a city board to revisit the ordinance and see if modifications are in order.
Some residents say Pacific Grove has an unreasonable and “criminalized” ordinance requiring a permit for anyone removing a tree from their property and an agreement to replace it with at least two similar trees within 30 days.