CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Forest & Beach Commission's Denial of Application for Tree Removal at Residence on Torres Street, 2 SE Fifth Avenue

Meeting Date: August 7, 2012

Prepared by: Mike Branson

City Council

Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission's denial of an application for tree removal at a residence on Torres Street, 2 SE of Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Marcia Stuart, on behalf of property owners Ann and Steve Kenfield.

Description: During its regular meeting of 5 July 2012, the Forest and Beach Commission denied (3-1) an application by Ms. Marcia Stuart for Mr. and Mrs. Kenfield, to remove a 30-inch diameter Monterey pine causing an unsafe condition and driveway damage on the Kenfield property on Torres Street, 2 SE of Fifth A venue. The Commission recommended the applicant selectively prune the offending roots in an appropriate manner and with professional guidance. An appeal of the decision was filed by Ms. Stuart on July 13.

Overall Cost: N/ A

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision ofthe Forest and Beach Commission.

Important Considerations: The Forest and Beach Commission visited the site twice, at both its June and July meetings. The June visit allowed the Commissioners to view the driveway problems of concern to the applicant. In July, the applicant lifted the driveway pavers lifted so the Commissioners could see the root structure in the affected areas. After the Commission decision to deny the application, staff met with the applicant, her arborist, and two workers who will repair the driveway. Staff identified some of the roots that could be pruned or removed to achieve a usable and safe driveway. No large structural roots were identified for removal. Slight modifications to the driveway grade and adjustments to the irrigation regimen near the driveway also were discussed as ways to potentially reduce a re-occurrence of the driveway problems.

Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST, PARKS, AND BEACH DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THRU: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MIKE BRANSON, CITY FORESTER
DATE: AUGUST 7, 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF A 30-INCH DIAMETER MONTEREY PINE AT A RESIDENCE ON THE EAST SIDE OF TORRES 2 SOUTH OF FIFTH AVENUE. THE APPELLANT IS MARCIA STUART, ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS ANN AND STEVE
KENFIELD.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Forest and Beach Commission.

BACKGROUND
During its regular meeting of 5 July 2012, the Forest and Beach Commission denied
(3-1) an application by Ms. Marcia Stuart for Mr. and Mrs. Kenfield, to remove a 30-
inch diameter Monterey pine causing an unsafe condition and driveway damage on the
Kenfield property located on the east side of Torres Street, 2 south of Fifth Avenue.
The Commission recommended the applicant selectively prune the offending roots in
an appropriate manner and with professional guidance. An appeal of the July 5
decision was filed by Ms. Stuart on July 13, 2012.
The Commissioners toured and discussed the application during their June and July
regular meetings. In June, commissioners viewed driveway problems the applicant is
concerned about. In July, the applicant lifted the driveway pavers, which allowed the
Commissioners to see the root structure in the affected areas.
115
REVIEW
This property was renovated in 2003/2004 and the driveway area was changed from a
dirt surface to a cobble paver surface. During the preliminary site assessment before
the renovation, staff identified the pine trees root structure in the driveway as an area
of concern that should be accommodated if the driveway was altered. Paver surfaces
are generally a good choice near trees since repairs can usually be made at a lower
cost and without any appearance that a repair was performed.
The driveway, which also serves as the parking area since there is no garage or
carport, is located along the south property line and varies in width from 8.5
feet to 10 feet wide. The narrowest section is located between the south
property line onto the base of the tree where large structural root emanate from
the trunk.
The application was submitted due to uplifting of several areas of the driveway
pavers which have created an undulating surface that is difficult and potentially
hazardous to walk on. Uplifting near the beginning of the driveway also
hinders access to the driveway with the owner’s sports car. The applicant also
informed the Commission that two persons have fallen as a result of the uneven
driveway surface.
In 2010, the property experienced a long-term water leak near the building that
was either caused or exacerbated by tree roots. Tree roots will grow in the
direction of detected water so it is difficult to determine if the roots initially
caused the leak or grew in response to detecting the water leak. The owners
indicate in their correspondence that there was little lifting of the pavers before
the water leak was discovered. It is plausible that some of the recent uplifting is
due to the roots growing faster in the area of the water leak.
An arborist retained by the applicant reviewed the site and suggested that most,
if not all, of the roots affecting the driveway must be removed to re-level the
driveway, which would create an unstable and hazardous tree. The arborist also
indicated the presence of some root decay that she attributes to the paver
installation on top of the roots.
Staff evaluated the exposed roots before and during the Commission hearing
and considers selective root pruning to be a viable option to tree removal.
Removal of some root sections and shaving off some of the “bumps” on the
upper surface of remaining roots will resolve the uplifting issue and retain all of
the large structural roots in the driveway area. No large structural roots would
be removed. Staff’s opinion is the decay that can be observed is a remnant from
cars driving directly on the roots when the driveway was dirt and does not
appear to be significantly affecting the root system.
116
The pavers nearest to the base of the trunk may be resting directly on the roots
and causing a growth response from the tree. After root pruning, working with
the driveway grade when replacing the pavers may provide a little separation
between the pavers and the roots.
On July 9, staff met on site with the applicant, her arborist, and two persons that
will do the work. During that meeting, the root system was evaluated and steps
outlined on how to perform the root pruning and possible driveway grade
adjustments. It also was discussed to evaluate the landscape irrigation near the
tree and driveway to keep water away from the driveway as a way to discourage
the growth of small feeder roots beneath the paver surface.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
SUMMARY
The Forest and Beach Commission visited the site twice, heard public
testimony, discussed the issues, and denied the application to remove the
Monterey pine tree by a 3-1 vote. The majority opinion of the Commission was
that the tree is healthy and some selective root pruning could be done to achieve
a usable and safe driveway without removing the tree. The root pruning should
be coordinated with the City Forester and performed in an appropriate manner.
117
118
HAND DELIVERED
Carmel City Council
City Hall
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
August 7, 2012
RE: Appeal of Forest and Beach Commission Action (Kenfield)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This appeal is from a decision of the Forest and Beach Commission denying our
application to remove a 37" diameter Monterey Pine located in the center of our property on
Torres Street, 2 SE St~ Avenue.
In August of 2010 roots from this tree caused the water main serving our house to break
near the house foundation. We were out of town at the time the main broke. By the time the
break was discovered, the foundation of the house was flooded. The attached pictures show the
damage that resulted to repair the water main break.
Roots from this tree have uplifted the pavers in our driveway causing a hazardous
condition and rendering the driveway inaccessible. In December of 2011, I tripped on an
uplifted paver and fell to the ground. The fall resulted in injury to my neck and shoulder which
required medical attention and ongoing physical therapy. That same month, my mother tripped
on another uplifted driveway paver and fell to the ground suffering cuts and bruises.
As a result of these injuries and accelerating property damage, we made application for
permission to remove this tree on May 24, 2012. The Forester prepared a memorandum to the
commission May 315
t. At the June 5, 2012 meeting of the Forest and Beach Commission, our
neighbor to the south spoke in support of our application. Our neighbor is concerned by the risk
to their own safety as well as the risk to their property posed by the tree. During the meeting
the Forester stated the diameter of the tree at 30" and of approximately 60 years of age. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Commission acted to follow the recommendation of the City
Forester staff to continue the hearing to July sth , where we were asked to remove the pavers
and expose the roots prior to the July st~ hearing. The purpose of this request was so that "the
roots can be seen and appraised as to their significance".
The driveway pavers were removed on June 23, 2012 and the roots excavated on June
30t~. In his report dated June 28, 2012 (copy attached), the City Forester reported:
"The tree appears to be without any significant factors that necessitate removal of the
tree at the current time except the damage described by the applicant. The cobbles
have been removed in the areas with visible uplifting to expose the roots causing the
problems. I think that many of the offending roots or potions [sic] of the roots can be
removed to allow safe use of the driveway and still retain the tree. This procedure may
119
be a reoccurring practice as the tree continues to grow, but this is a valuable tree and
deserving of retention."
The City Forester recommended that the application to remove the tree be denied.
On July 2nd in preparation for the July sth hearing, after the City Forester had prepared
his report to the Forest and Beach Commission, both the excavated roots and the tree were
inspected by Maureen Hamb, a Certified Arborist. In her written report dated July 2, 2012 (copy
attached) she reported the diameter of the tree to be 37.2" and commented:
"All exposed roots have either damage or decay visible on the surface. Either the
pressure against the paved surface or the installation impacts have removed the
protective covering allowing decay to develop. Brown rot (characterized by brown dry
crumbly wood) was found on several roots."
Given the location and present 15.6Q slope of the driveway, exceeding the City Code by 50%,
Ms. Hamb concludes there are no solutions available that will allow the preservation of the
tree.
In the July sth hearing the Commission found in favor of the Forester's opinion and denied our
request.
With due respect for the Forester's, we hold that his opinion offered to the Commission in this
request is inconsistent with the condition of the tree, the site, the opinions of the Arborist,
noted experts, as well as the Forester's public comments and facts cited in a recent decision.
We believe the Forrester's observations and assessment may have been impacted by an
inaccurate measurement of the diameter of the tree and not having investigating the excavated
root condition and structure prior to reaching his opinion on June 281
h. The actual diameter of
the tree is 37.2" vs. the 30" reported by the Forester to the Commission. The expansive
presence of the root system in the driveway area and the presence of root rot were not known
at the time of the Forester's June 28th opinion to the Commission.
The findings of the arborist are consistent with an expert panel on Monterey Pine tree failure
(copy attached). The well document concerns for root rot, decay and fungi from cut root
surfaces, severing of support structure roots, uplifting of roots, tree maturity and soil
compaction are all contributors that increase the probability of total tree failure in this case.
Previous public comments and a recent opinion (copy attached) by the Forester are inconsistent
with the June 28th recommendation. In the Lopez Ave. Monterey Pine that fell in 2009, he
assessed the "nearly 40" diameter to be nearly a century old". The presence of root rot made
the Monterey Pine especially vulnerable to high winds even through the pine "was a robust,
healthy tree with no strong indications of root rot".
In a June decision, the Forester recommended the removal of 3 Monterey Pines due to decay
fungi entering through wounds. He stated decay fungi can over time weaken a trees vitality and
structural integrity. "One large, below ground, cut is a specific spot of concern of decay fungi
affecting the long term viability of these trees". In the McMills case, the close proximity of
120
several targets and the elevated risk due to root cutting lead the Forester to recommend these
trees to be removed.
Our home's location on Torres between sth and 6th poses a unique public safety risk. Our street
is one block off the time metered parking area and is heavily used by local merchants for day
time parking and the Carmel Fire Department for multiple days. Across the street, is the upper
parking lot for the Bay View Inn which is full many days of the year. The upper canopy of the
tree is heavily skewed to the prevailing wind, southwestern side of the tree. Should a nonprevailing
wind contribute to tree failure, the full time resident's home and the historic Hansel &
Gretel Comstock cottages would be crushed.
The continued cutting of the roots, as recommended by the Commission will exacerbate the
existing hazard to life and property. It is for these reasons that we stand by the Aborist's opinion
that removal of the tree is the only course of action that will not lead increase the incidence of
root decay resulting in total tree failure with potentially catastrophic results.
Respectively submitted,
Steve & Ann Kenfield
s~ /G~q/,
~~o
121
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL OF FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION DECISION
(FILING FEE: $295.00*)
Appellant:
Property Owner: A~~ i ~E..'-1 E
)
\<_ p="p">Mailing Address: P 0. "Sox 54-\ C A.e_ i'<\E\.-
t-Jv..Q.C..\,b.... S-Tu~
Phones: Day:{Og\) 2<-//. ¢741
S\'Evening: ~ 5'1) tO I • 7 2. <.f <.J
Fax: ( ) Email: -;::,-n=_ \IE.'<:: .="." e.-="e.-" o..l::="o..l::" p="p" roc_cf="roc_cf">C'\'c4.roQ...snJAe: ~~ \. c~
Date Board heard the matter: ~'-'L't l5 , 2C>I2...-
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Forest & Beach Commission and
paying the requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
Lot(s): CoO Block: \ \q APN: 0\0- 09,2-- - O \ ~
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:-----------
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: --------------
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
122
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)
\
A~~ ~\-\ Comro\:;;s\~ C>Ec.\~\o~
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE
AND CORRECT:
DATEDAT: c_,~ ~\\
~
$295.00 fee* re~ (Stafflnitial)
4~7oo
Receipt#:
ATTEST:
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to
impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and
inclusion in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on C"1j . l 1 d-.0 ( d.,._
dmoK:Ierk/CownRECEIVED
JUL 13 2012
ClTY ot
CARMEL BY-THE-SEA
123
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
5 July 2012
Ms. Marcia Stuart
3775 Via Nona Maria
Carmel, CA 93923
FOREST AND BEACH DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX ·w
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 620..2070 OFFICE
(831) 624-2132 FAX
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR TREE REMOVAL
E/ TORRES ST., 2 SOUTH OF 5TH AVE.
---- - - --- --c-AR:MEt:BY=THE=SnA:, CA ___ - --
Dear Ms. Stuart:
The Forest and Beach Commission considered your application for Mr. and Mrs. Kenfield to remove
one Monterey pine tree during their regular meeting of 5 July 2012.
In a 3-1 vote the Commission denied your application to remove the pine. The majority opinion of the
commission was, the tree is healthy and some selective root pruning can be done to achieve a usable
and safe driveway without removing the tree. The root pruning should be coordinated with the city
forester and performed in an appropriate manner.
Should you disagree with the decision of the Forest and Beach Commission, you have 10 days to
appeal their decision to the City Council. All appeals need to be filed with the City Clerk, Heidi Burch,
located at City Hall, east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and 7th A venues. The City Clerk
phone number is (831) 620-2000.
Sincerely, ! .
-- --- ~r~~- fB
Margi Perotti
--- ---------- - ---------
Secretary to the Forest and Beach Commission
124
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11faureeu Hamb-H 'CIS4 Certified Arbori\t JJ'£2280
Profenionul Consulting ..\, 'nTi<·es
July 2, 2012
Steve Kenfield
stevek@hmcfarms.com
Introduction
As you requested I have inspected and evaluated the root system of the Monterey
pine (Pinus radiata) growing at your residence at Torres near 5th in Carmel-by-theSea.
In August of 2010 I visited the site following the breakage of a water line. The area
was opened for inspection and root development was found to be responsible for
the damage. At that time it appeared that the driveway pavers were slightly raised
in several areas adjacent to the tree.
Since that time the pavers have been significantly displaced and cracks on the
walkway on the opposite side of the tree has widened. Cracks in the asphalt at the
driveway threshold have widened and the surface raised.
To fully examine the roots and evaluate the feasibility of root pruning the pavers
have been removed and the root system exposed. I have examined, measured and
evaluated the viability of the roots. My observations and recommendations are
included in this report.
Summary
Driveway pavers covering structural roots of a mature Monterey pine have been
removed to allow for a detailed inspection. I measured and evaluated the condition
of the roots to determine if root pruning is a feasible solution to eliminating damage
to the driveway.
An extensive web of large woody roots that range in size from one to nine inches in
diameter are located just under the pavers, three can be traced directly to the
buttress (base) of the tree. The surface of the roots has been damaged either during
the initial installation or by contact with the pavers; decay is present in several
areas.
Most, if not all the roots examined must be removed to re-install the paved surface.
If the roots remain in place and the pavers are replaced the damage to the roots will
continue and eventually they will become non functional and discontinue to support
the tree.
The required root removal will eliminate the anchoring capabilities by 50% causing
destabilization that will lead to whole tree failure.
849 Almar . h•e. Suite C #319
S(lnfa Cru:.. C t 95060
email: JmtureNwlrra sbc~lohalnet
Tcleplume: 831-763-69/9
Fax: 831-763-7724
-Hohile· 831-2U-i735
125 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -II
-
I
I
The removal of the tree is recommended; no other permanent solution is available
to allow a paved surface in this area.
Observations
The tree is a mature Monterey pine with a trunk diameter of 37.2 inches measured
at a point 54 inches above natural grade. The single trunk supports a canopy of well
spaced branching and healthy foliage.
The base (buttress) of the tree swells in all directions, these areas typically indicate
the presence of a large supporting root.
The driveway surface along one side of the tree consists of pavers set on a sub base
of sand type material. The opposite side of the tree is a small planting area and a
walkway 24 inches from the base of the tree. The walkway and step are stone set in
concrete. Damage that consists of cracks and raised areas are visible on the walkway
and stair.
The pavers were removed and the sand and soil sub-grade material excavated to
fully expose the structural roots. The size of the larger roots was determined using a
diameter tape. I completed a visual inspection of all roots to evaluate condition.
The largest root is 9.8 inches in diameter and can be traced directed to the base
(buttress) of the tree. Several other large roots that range from 6 to 8 inches can
also be traced back to the buttress (pictured below). Root diameter remains
consistent in areas more than 10 feet from the tree. Smaller diameter roots create a
web that crisscross along the soil surface.
126 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
All exposed roots have either damage or decay visible on the surface. Either the
pressure against the paved surface or the installation impacts have removed the
protective covering allowing decay to develop. Brown rot (characterized by brown
dry crumbly wood) was found on several roots.
Examination of roots under the paved walkway and stair was not possible. It can be
assumed that when the installation was completed roots were removed, cut or
damaged.
Discussion
Trees develop and depend upon two types of root structures to both provide
moisture and nutrients to the above ground portions of tree and to anchor it in the
growing site. The absorbing root layer is a network of small diameter fibrous roots
that are responsible for transport and the larger woody roots are responsible for
keeping the tree standing upright.
The healthy appearance of the tree canopy is related to the functions of the
absorbing root system. The degraded and damaged condition of the supporting
roots is not expressed in the tree canopy. Although the tree is healthy, it is
structurally unstable due to the compromised root system.
Conclusion/Recommendations
The paver system used as a driveway was installed directly on the structural root
system that anchors the tree in its growing site. Continued root development and
degradation of the sub-grade material has caused damage and the resulting decay
that will compromise root functions.
Installing a new surface will require the removal of large roots that are connected to
the buttress of the tree. The removal of these roots will lead to destabilization and
tree failure.
There are no solutions available that will allow the preservation of the tree. I
recommended removal and planting of a replacement tree appropriate to the site.
Please call my office with any questions regarding the Monterey pine on this
property.
Respectfully,
Maureen Hamb-Certified Arborist WE2280
127 I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
July 5, 2012
To: Carmel Forester and Committee
We are requesting permission to remove a mature, 38" diameter Monterey Pine on our
property. The tree has shown symptoms of very rapid root uplifting that has rendered our
driveway in accessible. The uneven driveway has caused several people to trip on raised
pavers and the broke of the house's water main in August 2010. Our concern is for our
current and future property damage, access to our driveway for our vehicles, the personal
safety of those on our property, public safety and subsequent property damage should the
tree fall down. The Committee visited the site on June 12th and asked that the pavers be
removed to observe the position and condition of the root. The following pictures show
that rate of uplifting the tree has shown over the last 21 months and the current position
of the root system. Maureen Hamb, a professional arborist has submitted a report to Mike
Branson on the condition of the tree given the circumstances.
June 2012
128
129 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I June 2012
I
II
II
'
August 2010
130 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012 Rate of elevation change
I
I
I
-II
II
II August 2010
I
I
131
I
I
June 2012
132 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I August 201 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
133 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012
134 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I June 2012
I
I
I
I
135 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012
136 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012
137 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012
The uplifting of the roots headed for the southwest comer of the house caused the water
main leading to the house to break in August of2010. At that time the uplifting ofthe~e
pavers was barely noticeable. The water from the broken main was undetected for an ·
unknown number of days as the house was not owners were out of a town for several
weeks. The water was noticed coming out from under the foundation and a 12" waterline
on the foundation is still visible. The planter retaining was had to be removed to gain
access to the water main. Pressure on the line was released with an elbow that was put in
at the time of the repair. Since that time the evidence of the up lifting of the root that
caused the initial damage is now very pronounced. We are very concerned of a repeat of
the broken water main, subsequent flooding if the owners are out of town and the repairs
that would be required. The picture below is a view of the uplifted pavers over the water
mam.
138 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, August 2010
139 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
140 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012
141 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
June 2012
As shown in the above pictures, there is significant root presence at the surface of the top
soil that have been uplifting the driveway pavers
Out of compliance with Municipal Codes:
The root uplifting has resulted in our driveway to be inaccessible for access to the home
and parking of two vehicles. As a result we are parking on the heavily congested street on
Torres between 5th and 6th. In addition to the inconvenience, we are currently in violation
of Carmel by the Sea Municipal Code Chapter 17.38 for off street parking as a result of
not being able to use our driveway. The Chapter sites the following; "The purpose of this
chapter is to require off-street parking for vehicles to lessen the parking congestion on the
public streets and to leave street parking for available for persons making short term
visits to the commercial district for shopping, business or other related activities." Clearly
142 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the location ofthe home is in the prime parking demand area. The code section 17.38.020
C addresses the minimum off.street parking: "When any determination of the minimum
required parking for a project or use results in a need for only one space, and parking is
being physically provided off·street, two full spaces shall be required unless the applicant
can demonstrate a reconfiguration of on·street spaces, consistent with guidelines
maintained by the Department of Public Works for street parking, that yields a net gain in
total available parking when only one off.street space is provided". Section 17.38.020 E
Design Standards: The following standards shall apply for all surface and underground
parking designs:
1. Dimensions: Standard space 9'x19' for a total driveway space of9'
X 38'.
n. Driveways: Driveways shall be located to preserve as much ofthe
on·street parking as possible.
The municipal also addresses the maximum slope of the driveway. The slope of the current
driveway is 15.8° within the first 5' of the driveway. This is significantly greater than the 10° called
for in Municipal Code:
12.24.020 Permit- Conditions.
No permit shall be issued under CMC 12.24.010 unless the proposed alteration or project
complies with the following:
A. The maximum width of any driveway shall not exceed 14 feet as measured at the front
property line or at any point between the front property line and its connection with the street
pavement edge. A flare of a 30-inch radius shall be allowed at each side of the driveway at the
street pavement edge connection. There shall be a short return of asphalt material at the street
connection for transition of street to driveway. The length of this return shall be approved by the
Director of Public Works.
I. No driveway shall be constructed upon the publicly-owned sidewalk area, park strip, right-ofway
area or street except in compliance with the permit issued by the City. Such permit shall
143 I
I
I
I
I
impose conditions consistent with standards for safety, drainage, utility and/or aesthetics and
shall state the ·grade level at which the driveway shall cross over an existing or future curb or
sidewalk. Where no curb and/or sidewalk is in existence at such grade, the permit may allow the
driveway surfacing to start at the edge of the present street surfacing and follow the existing
contours of the ground in the public right-of-way. The permit may allow cuts and fills on ly as may
be necessary for the property owner to gain access to his/her property. The grade of the sloped
portion of the access route measured along the centerline shall not exceed 1 0 percent in the first
and last five feet or 25 percent in the intervening distance. The driveway profile shall be
constructed so that vehicles can safely and conveniently traverse it and should provide a smooth
transition between grades. A transition shall be constructed utilizing a vertical curve of 30 feet or
longer where the change in grade is greater than five percent.
J. Where no official grade has been established or where the official grade has been established
and the existing driveway does not conform, a conditional permit may be granted for resurfacing
of the existing driveway at the existing grade.
Summary:
The very mature Monterey Pine is exhibiting rapid root uplifting of an extensive root
system at the surface of the ground. This has rendered the driveway in accessible and
very difficult of elderly family members to enter the house. The current root system poses
a continuing threat to the water main to the house that can be expected to cause repeat
damage resulting from a broken water main. The liability from further tripping injury and
potential catastrophic damage should the tree fall down given its age and the impact of
trimmed roots. It is for these reasons that we request permission to remove the tree and
replace the tree with another upper level tree on the property.
Respectively submitted,
Steve & Ann Kenfield
144
2010 Water main break:
Target Zone:
Historic Hansel & Gretel Comstock Cottages
Fu ll time resident's home
145
Patricia Perry
PO Box 1712
Carmel, CA 93921
August 1, 2012
Mayor and City Council Members
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall Monte Verde Street
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
R~: pipe Tre~ 2 SE Torres ~ ~til Steve and Ann Keqfielq
j : 1 I
MY family has been Carmel-by-the-Sea residents since the 19 SO's. My children were
raised here and attended Carmel River and Middle Schools. Some of you may recall
my father, Frank Perry even ran for mayor in the 1990's. We all feel proud,
privileged, and concern for what is best for our little village. I believe that we, as
residents have a responsibility and civic duty to be involved retaining its unique
beauty. I like to say, I am "deeply rooted" here.
This letter is to address my concerns regarding the pine tree located in my
neighbor's front yard. Persevering trees is paramount enlue of larger buildings and
a "better view" under most circumstances. I believe this is instead, an issue of safety.
The tree has ruined our driveway with several deep cracks across. My guest and I
have· stumbled on them during the day and night. I am very concerned that trimming
the roots will create an even greater hazard by making the integrity of the tree itself
unstable. My house and bedroom is in direct line of this shallow rooted tree if it
should come down. I do not want this "hanging over my head" when I go to bed at
night. I ask you to please to protect us from possible physical danger.
Those of you whom may not know the front of the property presently has several
beautiful established. oak trees. I do not believe that the removal of the pine will
diminish the ecstatic value of our street what so ever.
Thank you for balancing the protection our town environment and residents. Thank
all of you for your time and consideration in this matter.
146
Volume 95 No. 15 On the Internet: www.carmelpinecone.com
Aprill0-16, 2009
Carmel man spared but car crushed by old pine
MoMENTS AFTER Lopez Avenue resident Peter Murray stepped from his Subaru Friday morning, a
gigantic Monterey pine smashed it to smithereens. The towering tree, which the Carmel forester said had
rotten roots making it especially vulnerable to the day's high winds, also significantly damaged Murray 's
new Mercedes and put some dents and scratches in a neighbor's Mercedes. "We're in quite a state of shock,
becauseit could have fallen on my wife or me. I had just been in the car," said Murray, who had sat in the
Subaru Legacy gathering paperwork and listening to a BBC broadcast for three or four minutes after
parking on the street. A few minutes after he went into his house, the tree fell with a loud whoosh and a
ground-shaking thud. "We're very happy that we're alive," he said. "Ifl had been in the car, I would have
had no chance. The tree just flattened it."
City forester Mike Branson said he believes the pine was on city property. and his investigation of the
roots, which were exposed when the tree pulled out of the ground, showed significant rot. Cuts in the
trunk also indicated some decay. "Part of the root system was significantly affected, and part of it still
looked pretty healthy," he said. When it was standing. the pine "was a robust, healthy tree," with no
strong indications of root rot. It was also covered by ivy, which could have hidden any outward signs.
''It was one of those trees that's difficult to make a positive assessment on," Branson said. He estimated the
pine was about a century old and about 85 feet tall and nearly 40 inches in diameter. He is looking at some
other trees in the area to which the neighbors have brought to his attention. "We love Carmel- it's a
lovely city," Murray commented. "It does have trees, and that makes it an even prettier city, but we are
concerned with them. A car or two can be replaced, but our concerns are our lives and our neighbors'
lives, and after that, our houses."
147
Uprooting of Monterey Pine in Burlingame, California
Date of Failure: February 2, 1997
Species: Pinus radiata
Age: approximately 80 years
Size: crown spread - 50 feet; height - 75 feet; DBH - 42 inches
Description. Last February, this large Monterey pine blew over during a strong wind storm in the city of
Burlingame, CA (approximately 15 miles south of San Francisco). Fortunately, no personal injuries or
property damage were sustained, but two nearby trees were severely damaged. Winds were gusty,
greater than 25 mph, and from an easterly direction (not the prevailing direction). The tree was located in
a relatively open area (adjacent trees were about one crown diameter away) of a municipal park with an
irrigated turf groundcover. Roots broke approximately 10 to 20 feet from the trunk and no decay was
noted. Most roots were confined to the surface 2 feet of soil, as can be noted from the root plate which
came out of the ground. The soil was moist in the root zone but dry below. The tree's canopy was
somewhat uneven with most branches growing in a westerly direction.
Assessment. This failure is thought to have resulted from a combination of t hree factors:
• strong winds from a non prevailing direction
• a shallow root system
• uneven weight distribution in the canopy
It is likely that wind load from the easterly direction was the most important factor. With westerly winds
being typical for the area, tree growth likely occurred in response to the prevailing winds. As such, root
system development may not have been sufficient to withstand large wind loads from the opposite
direction. Wind gustiness also likely played a contributing role, but it is difficult to assess its impact
relative to wind speed and direction. Canopy weight distribution and root system depth perhaps played a
lesser (albeit important) role in which the wind load added to the preexisting weight on the westerly side
of the tree and the shallow root system was less tolerant of the combined load relative to a more deeply
rooted system.
This failure falls into the "difficult to predict" category. A very thorough tree hazard assessment
likely would not identify "uprooting from non-prevailing winds" as the probable failure type for this tree.
There was very little evidence (eg. no wood decay, no sporophores, no lean, no uplifting of roots and soil,
etc.) to suggest that an uprooting event may occur. Although there may have been little to do to prevent
this failure (other than perhaps some canopy thinning), it underscores the importance of avoiding
activities which result in structural defects in the root zone, such as root cutting, overwatering, or soil
compaction. If an apparently sound root system fails under the circumstances described, th en one with
defects should have a higher potential for failure.
148
Narrative
Incident Review on the McMills Project
Tree root severing
May 31,2012
The McMills development is located on the west side of Santa Rita St., 2 north of Sixth Ave.
This residential project began design review in spring 2008 and was approved by the Design
Review Board in 2009. The site is a double lot proposed for a new 3,200 square-foot two-story
home which also includes a below grade living area (bonus area). A building permit was issued
in March 2011. Demolition of the old building, located primarily on the northern portion of the
property, occurred shortly after the issuance of the building permit. Construction of the new
home did not begin until2012.
The site slopes down from east to west with an average slope around 20%. There are 9 coast live
oaks and 6 Monterey pines on the property along with 3 oaks on the Santa Rita St. right-of-way.
All of the trees are to be retained on the property during and post construction. There is also a
large 38" diameter Monterey pine growing on the property to the north that partially straddles the
northern property line onto the McMills site.
Three pines located on the western side of the new home had several roots cut during excavation
for the foundation and perimeter walls of the lower level of the home. For discussion, they are
identified as pine #1, #2, and #3. Pine #1 is approximately 36" in diameter and 90 feet tall, pine
#2 is 24" in diameter and 102 feet tall, and pine #3 is 23" in diameter and 80 feet tall. Excavation
was approved for the site and the roots that were severed would have extended through the walls
into the living space of the lower level of the approved home. Pine# 1 had one large 14"
diameter root cut; this is the only significant root on the east side of this tree. The finished soil
cut near this tree is about 4 feet deep and about 3 feet from the base of the tree. Pines# 2 and #3
had 15 roots cut ranging from 2-6 inches in diameter. These two trees originate within two feet
of each other with an interlocking root system malcin.g it difficult to determine which root
belongs to which tree. It is probable that the trees may have a shared root system with root grafts
and a degree of reliance on one another for physical support. The soil cut near these trees is
about 4 feet deep on the east side of pine #2 and about 3 feet deep to the north of both trees. The
excavation is within 3 feet and 4 feet of the trees on the east and north respectfully.
A standard condition of issuance of a building pennit for construction is all excavation within 15
feet of a significant tree requires hand digging and contact with the City Forester if roots larger
that 2" are discovered. The contractor did not hand-dig in the area near the trees for the required
cut. The condition for hand digging is attached to the approved project plans when the building
permit is issued. When staff contacted the site foreman and excavation contractor, neither was
aware of the condition for hand digging near significant trees. The foreman works for McMills
Construction and had not worked in Carmel before. The excavation contractor is a relatively new
company that also had not worked around significant trees in Carmel before.
Conclusion
Three Monterey pines are affected by the root cutting incident. The trees appear to be stable at
the current time. However due to the extent their root systems have been compromised their
long-term retention is in doubt. Trees rely on their larger structural roots to provide support of
the above ground portions of the tree. While some root pruning can be accommodated if done
appropriately and with professional direction, the roots removed on these trees exceed what
would be acceptable for the size and location of the trees. Any wound whether above or below
ground is a potential entry point for decay fungi which can over time weaken a trees vitality and
149
structural integrity. The large below ground cut on tree #1 is a specific spot of concern for decay
fungi affecting the long-term viability of this tree.
With the close proximity of several targets (homes and people) and the elevated level of risk due
to the root cutting, these trees should be removed. Mediation of the root loss via thinning the
canopy, anchoring and guying with cables, or other means will not provide the level of risk
reduction for the safety of this property and neighboring properties into the future. The neighbor
to the west is very concerned about the long term viability of the three trees and the possibility
they may fall and hit his property. Other properties may not be aware of the situation but may
have similar concerns.
Staffhas recommended removal of the trees to the property owner and an application has been
submitted for a hearing by the Forest and Beach Commission. Staff is assessing a value to each
tree which the commission can require the property owner to pay for the damage and resulting
loss of the trees.
150
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Leverone, Chairperson
Members of the Forest and Beach Commission
FROM: Mike Branson, City Forester
DATE: 31 May2012
SUBJECT: Tree Removal (Private)
Block: 60 Lot: 6
E/ Torres St., 2 south of 5th Ave.
Applicant/Owner: Marcia Stuart I Stephen and Ann Kenfield
Site Condition:
This site is a level4000 square-foot lot with single-family home and cobble paver
driveway and parking pad along the southern property line at the front of the property.
The tree is located in the front yard of the property adjacent to the north edge of the 8' 6"
wide driveway/parking pad.
Size and species oftrees(s) requested for removal/pruning:
Remove one Monterey pine- 30" diameter.
Health and condition of tree requested for removal:
This appears to be healthy without any significant disease or structural problems. The
cobble parking area is placed right up to the base of the tree where trunk diameter
expands ( root collar) as the roots enter the ground. It appears that at time vehicles
actually drive over the root collar due to the narrowness of the parking pad near the tree.
Previous requests and decisions:
None.
Reason for request- Description of Proiect:
The applicant is concerned about roots lifting the pavers causing the driveway to be
dangerous and unusable, roots damaging their water service to the house, damage to the
house and car, and safety and liability of their family and guests.
-·---\~ ~/~ --·-
151
The importance of the tree{s) to the urban forest in the area:
The tree contributes to the upper canopy of the urban forest in this neighborhood.
Size and species oftree(s) that are to be preserved:
Coast live oak- 4", 15" multi-stem, 12" multi-stem, and 9" diameters
Monterey pine- 15" diameter
Japanese maple - 3" diameter
Impacts construction may have on trees that are to be preserved and suggested
mitigation:
N/A
Options:
1. Approve the application.
2. Do not approve the application.
3. Postpone consideration.
Staff Recommendations:
Option #3. Postpone consideration. The tree appears to be without any significant factors
that necessitate removal of the tree at the current time except for the damage described by
the applicant. The damage to the driveway/parking pad is obvious and in need of some
corrective action. I n order to make an informed decision about the size and extent of
roots that appear to be the cause of the uplifting I recommend asking the applicant to
arrange for the removal of the cobbles so the roots can be seen and appraised as to their
significance. At that time a determination can be made regarding removal or retention of
the tree.
If the application is approved, I recommend planting one upper canopy replacement tree
in the front yard of the site.
152
,..CIT.¥. OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
P.O. Box "SS"
Catmei,CA
Ph: (831) 620-2070/FAX: 831-624-2132
Date Received t:) ~~ 1.Application
Fee: $ '?J5 _.
Rccpt' 1-t 1172
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO REMOVE OR PRUNE TREES
NO CONSTRUCTION
Location of property; \"''R12.~ 2 ~E. c::tf e..h..
Block: kO Lot: ___.. ....._ _________.. ....___ __,__
\
ST>~&~Jt~w
Name of Property Owner: ,,:a.u=\Etl.t)
Mailing Address ~- 0 . :&x, '5'\ \
CA\2-IDE.L •, CA 5"&9 2.\
Phone#: 65'"\ • 7o7 · 7 2...4./<£
WHO WILL BE REMOVING/PRUNING TIIE TREE(S):
Name of Applicant/Contractor: MA'0:...1A. '!S\UA2.T
Mailing Address: .;115 '/, ,_, Na~ M.Ag,EPhone#:
~ · 21.£1 · 1/=7 PI
(PLEASE NOTE IF TREE(S) ARE ON CITY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY)
Number, size and species oftree(s) to be removed: ONB.. ~\\.:>12.E ~~S2t='f :P\b4E:..
Number, size and species of limbs to be removed:------------- - - -----
A SITE PLAN :MiJSt ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICA 110N AND SHOW THE FOLLOWING:
1. Location, size and species of ALL trees on the lot
2. Location and species oftree(s)/limb(s) to be removed or pruned
3. Footprint of the structure.
4. Location of areas for tree replanting-The City has adopted Desi~ Review Guidelines· which include a minimum
tree density per lot. Please review the attached Policy and indicate on the site plan where you intend to plant trees
necessary to comply with this guideline.
> Any decision of the Forest and Beach Commission is based on information submitted with this applicationPLEASE
BE ACCURATE.
> NO WORK IS PERM ITT EO until yo!f have picked up your permit for tree work - The Permit must be posted on the job site
when work is being performed. .
Owner'sSignatuie ~ . . Date: t;'{?-~/1'2.-
AgentforOwners: __ _ Date: 6{_idfrz.
INCO ETE APPLICAIYS WILL BE' RETURN D
.: fl
'- .
153
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Leverone, Chairperson
Members of the Forest and Beach Commission
FROM: Mike Branson, City Forester
DATE: 28 June 2012
SUBJECT: Tree Removal (Private)
Block: 60 Lot: 6
E/ Torres St., 2 south of 5th Ave.
Applicant/Owner: Marcia Stuart I Stephen and Ann Kenfield
Site Condition:
This site is a level4000 square-foot lot with single-family home and cobble paver
driveway and parking pad along the southern property line at the front of the property.
The tree is located in the front yard of the property adjacent to the north edge of the 8' 6"
wide driveway/parking pad.
Size and species of trees(s) requested for removal/pruning:
Remove one Monterey pine- 30" diameter.
Health and condition of tree requested for removal:
This appears to be healthy without any significant disease or structural problems. The
cobble parking area is placed right up to the base of the tree where trunk diameter
expands (root collar) as the roots enter the ground. It appears that at time vehicles
actually drive over the root collar due to the narrowness of the parking pad near the tree.
Previous requests and decisions:
None.
Reason for request- Description of Project:
The applicant is concerned about roots lifting the pavers causing the driveway to be
dangerous and unusable, roots damaging their water service to the house, damage to the
house and car, and safety and liability of their family and guests.

The importance of the tree(s) to the urban forest in the area:
The tree contributes to the upper canopy of the urban forest in this neighborhood.
Size and species oftree(s) that are to be preserved:
Coast live oak- 4", 15" multi-stem, 12" multi-stem, and 9" diameters
Monterey pine - 15" diameter
Japanese maple - 3" diameter
Impacts construction may have on trees that are to be preserved and suggested
mitigation:
N/A
Options:
I. Approve the application.
2. Do not approve the application.
3. Postpone consideration.
Staff Recommendations:
Option #2.Do not approve the application. The tree appears to be without any significant
factors that necessitate removal of the tree at the current time except for the damage
described by the applicant. The cobbles have been removed in the areas with visible
uplifting to expose the roots causing the problems. I think that many of the offending
roots or potions of the roots can be removed to allow safe use of the driveway and still
retain the tree. This procedure may be a reoccurring practice as the tree continues to grow,
but this is a valuable tree and deserving of retention.
If the application is approved, I recommend planting one upper canopy replacement tree
in the front yard of the site.