What's up with these tree huggers? Oh well, I guess $36,000 isn't so bad in the scheme of things, given what these new houses will bring. But really, this is kinda dumb, don't you think? A San Rafael developer has been hit with a $36,000 fine for axing 36 trees at the Drake's Cove project site off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The Larkspur City Council unanimously approved a recommendation by City Manager Jean Bonander to levy the stiffest monetary fine the city could against Monahan Pacific. Revenue from the fine will go into the city's general fund. But the council spared the developer more than 500 hours of community service it could have imposed under its heritage tree ordinance. A heritage tree is one with historical significance or with a 50-inch circumference or more that is 2 feet above ground. Drake's Cove, on 10 acres east of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, is planned to have 23 market-rate single-family homes and duplexes. Larkspur Mayor Larry Chu was in disbelief when the city found out about the tree-cutting, which occurred during grading work for the project. Others on the council also were shocked. Chu said any developer with a project in the city should be familiar with ordinances that affect the development. "They couldn't distinguish a 50-inch tree or anything anywhere close to it," he said. "They've had several projects in the county so they should have made themselves aware of all the ordinances. This was not their first attempt. "That's why the council reacted the way they did." Monahan Pacific Director of Development Victor Gonzalez said the firm presented a letter to the council Wednesday objecting to the fine. "We felt we've already paid the penalty," Gonzalez said. "It -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- was adding insult to injury type of thing. "We've suffered mightily. We had to fire the contractor, who removed the trees without permission or securing the necessary permits." Gonzalez said Ghilotti Bros., Inc. was dismissed about a year ago and another firm was hired to finish the work. The company is in litigation with the developer over payment and contractual issues associated with the Drake's Cove project, a Ghilotti Bros. spokeswoman said. Gonzalez said the project has been delayed, new construction was required and at least seven other trees were relocated at an expense of about $40,000. "We made every effort to comply with every regulation the city has, to much expense and delay. We're glad it's behind us now," Gonzalez said. Marin Audubon Society president Barbara Salzman said she supported the action taken by the city. "It's very fitting," Salzman said. "The cutting down of heritage oak trees in this day and age should be strongly discouraged."
No offence Wolf but I don't think its dumb. I wouldn't describe the efforts to preserve heritage oak trees as 'tree-hugging'. If the development order required working around the trees or issue of permits to remove them then the contractor should have done that... or gone into another line of business. Tree-huggers IMO are those that disrupt legitimate logging activity and land clearance and I don't think this is the case here.
I can't say anything about this particular incident, but I know there does have to be a balance between the people on the fringes (tree huggers & over zealous developers) Here in Norther MN we have alot of logging and mining. There's no doubt that at one point in the past that both weren't doing their share to return the land to a natual enviroment after they'de havested or mined it. Now (IMO) they both do an excellent job taking care of the land after. We have more trees now than before any logging was done, and the mines are developing their abandon mines into public use areas for recreation, and fishing.:thumbsup So, as annoying as tree huggers are, we probobly do benifit from their exsistance. We just have to make sure they don't get too much say in what can and can't be done. Any of us could turn into a "tree hugger" if they were putting up a new strip mall, or low income housing, in our back yard. California may be an area where things have shifted too far in favor of the "tree huggers", and needs to come back to a more reasonable balance.
A tree-hugging,anti-hunting bi*** hears about a new development coming right in the middle of a huge grove of red cypress trees.She climbs the largest tree,stays up there for 2 days,gets tired,falls asleep,and on her way down the tree gets these nasty splinters in her crotch.She's in terrible pain,limps herself to a doctor,explains to the doc what happened,he has her take a seat.He comes back in 3 hours--she goes off on him.He tells her he spent the last 3 hours getting 3 separate permits--1from the DEC,1 from the EPA, and 1 from the Bureau of Land and Forest Management.She says what are you talking about? He says yup,I had to get those 3 permits before I could harvest old growth timber from a recreational area.:bouncegri :bouncegri
I only have one thing to say about tree huggers and it's a quote from my wife. If tree huggers would spend all that time and energy wasted on saving a few trees planting new trees it would do a lot more good. We try to plant at least one tree a day on average every year. Emotional I think that if a tree is over three hundred years old it has a right to be left alone. Practically I say ....where's my 2x4's. LOL oops that's 4 things. LOL
I don't see anything wrong and for 36 trees that $$ ain't nothing. We lost 4 fruit trees in a fire caused by a welder welding on a FM antennae on our property we got $10K for them.